In finishing in the top four teams at the regionals, West Point will join the top 32 schools from across the country to National Ethics Bowl in Reston, Virginia on 21 February 2016. Having been Ethics Bowl National Champions in 2006, 1999, and 1998, this year's USMA Ethics Debate Team hopes to continue that winning tradition. The regionals pitted the team against 25 others. West Point's "Black" Team-consisting of Cadets Dean Feinman '16, (team captain), Samuel Kolling ’16, Carolyn Kehn ’18, and Samantha Polen ’19 -qualified the team for the National Ethics Bowl Competition after a tough split decision loss to Tufts in the semi-finals of the regional tournament. They finished the competition with an impressive 4-1 record. The West Point "Gold" Team of Cadets Zoe Kreitenberg ’16, Alex Laval-Leyva ’17, David Weinmann ’18, Timothy Mills ’18, and Reed Johnson ’19 finished as the fifth-best team at the tournament, barely edged out by Sacred Heart University in the quarterfinal round.
The USMA Ethics Team displayed a level of maturity, cordiality, and academic excellence that impressed their fellow competitors, the judges, moderators, and other coaches. After every match, the judges and opposing teams' coaches would comment to the USMA coaches about how "wonderfully intelligent and kind" the cadets were in competition and with their fellow students. During one particular case concerning the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), which provides that police officers cannot be forced to make a statement within 10 days of an incident, CDT Dean Feinman ’16 presented a 10-minute argument for why the police, as a profession with special skills and expertise, has to be given this legal protection. The team defended their arguments against the opposing team's critiques, provided critique for the opposing team's argument, and also fielded four judges' questions for why such "extra" protection was necessary. Drawing from the recent news of the attacks in Paris and their understanding of their own military ethic, the team offered that the relationship of the society to those who secure it is one of trust, and the law enables those who provide security autonomy to best protect and serve that society. To remove the law would erode trust and restrict professional autonomy.