Posted on 04/08/2014 8:07:42 AM PDT by don-o
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Marine Corps commandant has reacted swiftly to a female Marine officer’s complaint that women are unfairly precluded from trying a second time to pass the prestigious Marine Corps Infantry Officers Course, when men can have a second try.
In response to a question from a female Army officer at an Atlantic Council forum April 1, Gen. James F. Amos said he has ordered a change in the rules and lavished praise not only on Marine Corps 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo, who protested the restriction, but on all his female Marines.
And, Amos said, he offered Santangelo a chance to go to Afghanistan while she awaits an opening in flight training.
“I got an answer back in about 14 nanoseconds. … So we’re cutting orders right now. Sage is going to go to Afghanistan, to join the Marine Expeditionary Brigade Forward over there,” the commandant said.
The question was sparked by an opinion article Santangelo wrote in the March 30 Washington Post in which she graphically described the tremendous physical ordeal young Marine officers endure in trying to qualify to lead Marine infantry. Despite her great desire and effort, she was physically unable to complete the initial endurance test, as did 25 male officers and the three other female Marines who tried that day.
So far, 14 women officers have tried to pass the 17-week infantry officers course at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., and all have been unable to complete it. Thirteen enlisted female Marines, however, have passed the somewhat less difficult basic infantry training school at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
The women have been given those chances because the Marine Corps, along with the Army, is attempting to determine if they can open ground combat jobs, including infantry, to women. Although military women are now able to serve in many combat-related positions, including aviation, military police and, for the Army, field artillery, they still are banned from the infantry.
Putting women through the infantry qualification schools is part of the Corps’ tests to see if they can meet the tough physical standards now required, and if those standards are necessary.
The Marines also are forming an experimental unit that would give a group of volunteers a chance to see if women can perform ground combat tasks over a prolonged period.
But in her article, Santangelo complained that her training in the Marine Officer Candidate School was not as physically demanding as what was required of male officer candidates, so she was not as prepared for the infantry course.
And, she noted, the men who failed the initial qualification test could apply for a second chance, but she could not.
Amos said he read Santangelo’s article, which he said “was superb,” and invited her to his Pentagon office to discuss the issue.
“When she brought up the point about the inability to recycle. … I went back to my folks and said, ‘we got to fix this.’ So we are,” he said.
Amos explained that the rule about not getting a second chance was intended to protect the unsuccessful officer’s ability to get into their future military occupational specialty and be positioned for the critical selection for a regular commission, rather than staying as a reserve officer, which limits their potential for a career. But, he said, “we’ll take care of them.”
Amos said he “bristled at the headline” on the Post article, which said the female officer “failed,” saying it “took enormous courage” for Santangelo and the other female Marines to attempt to win a position in what has been a male-dominated field for the Corps’ 238-year history. “I’m a big fan of our females,” he said.
In his presentation and answers to other questions, Amos spelled out the challenges he faces in trying to shape the Corps to continue to meet the nation’s challenges, when the fiscal constraints imposed by sequestration force him to reduce his force structure to have enough money to maintain combat readiness in the near term and for modernization for future capability.
And he strongly defended his top acquisition priority, the short takeoff, vertical landing F-35B, and said his top ground combat need, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, is moving ahead and he will soon announce the road map for acquiring the initial replacement for the Vietnam-vintage AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles.
Taking her argument public rather than exhausting the chain-of-command
Evidently the Commandant was in on this thing from the get go.
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140406/CAREERS03/304060022/2nd-lt-s-daring-infantry-op-ed
Naturally Santangelo isn't going to question the standards, it would be bad form, but if a sufficient number of females can't meet the standard then......
Perhaps the standards aren't necessary.
So, let me get your thinking straight. Santangelo was already an officer and the standards in question involved the standards for becoming an infantry officer. So offering female candidates for infantry officer proper training to meet the demands of the test to become an infantry officer would result in more females failing the infantry officer test and reduce the number of female officers. yup, makes perfect sense. I stand corrected.
Where do you think this “proper training” is going to occur?
Are you proposing additional “boot camp” for the women?
If not, your only option is to upgrade the standards in OCS or TBS. The Basic School is the six month training that all officers, regardless of MOS, must complete. It occurs after commissioning. OCS - Officer Candidate School - occurs before commissioning.
It’s not that difficult a concept.
Women don't belong in combat.They don't belong there for a number of reasons,one involving the fact that a civilized,advanced nation like ours has more respect,or *should* have more respect,for womens' lives than mens'.Think "women and children first".
Another reason has to do with the basic,undeniable,unshakable differences between men and women.One of these differences "emotionality" (a word,I suspect,that doesn't even exist),would cause the "typical" woman to be less effective in combat than the "typical" man.I saw a documentary some years back that addressed that very subject.It went like this...two platoons of Marine recruits,one male,one female.These two platoons had just undergone the same training exercise earlier in the day..an exercise which,it appeared,was a *very* difficult and strenuous one.That evening the guys were interviewed about their day.They were clearly exhausted,sore and maybe even a bit dispirited but all promised that they weren't going to give in.The women were also interviewed...every one of them was weeping uncontrollably.With God as my judge what I say is true.
The difference I point out absolutely doesn't make women "inferior"...or "stupid"...or "worthless".It *does* mean that they're not as well suited to the pressures,dangers or horrors of combat as are men.
And BTW...I served in the Army (not the Marines) and was never ordered anywhere near combat.But I did experience more than a few difficult,lonely and frightening moments in BCT...but never once did I shed a single tear...let alone become overcome by tears.
bump to see if I have made any progress
As I was...haha I was enlisted so page 13 for us but you are very correct.
Best decisions are sometimes those that are left unsaid. Nice story thanks for sharing.
Page 13 is essentially the equivalent of being reprimanded and written up in the civilian world. It is non judicial punishment and goes into your official record. If I recall put in page 13 of your record. You can receive punishment of reduction in rank, 30 days confined to barracks and stripped of 50 percent of you pay.
I stand corrected again it was a page 11 period! Thanks for reminder
Page 11 not 13. My mistake.
I am even more astonished she took it public if the commandant was aware.
So, if the commandant was aware and was not going to take further action she should have then taken it up the chain, or if the commandant was aware and was taking action she arrogantly took it public anyway.
She had not exhausted the chain of command—not good.
Amos explained that the rule about not getting a second chance was intended to protect the unsuccessful officer’s ability to get into their future military occupational specialty and be positioned for the critical selection for a regular commission, rather than staying as a reserve officer, which limits their potential for a career. But, he said, “we’ll take care of them.”
I thought I had read this closely. But I missed that she was a Reserve officer. What I did not miss is that Amos was in on this from the start - after she washed out. The strong inference is that he approved her bypassing the chain of command.
If the OCS instructor holds her to a higher standard than specified by regulations in order to help her achieve her goal, the OCS instructor will be subject to severe discipline. A single complaint of discrimination, upheld by the investigative process (which is required to see exceeding the regulations as a violation) will end the career of the instructor.
I agree the lack of a second chance, when seen in light of the male regs, is wrong. But to blame OCS, which enforces standards enshrined in the regulations, is poppycock. Further, to make a public outcry when the proper channels are inside the chain of command is disgraceful.
To be rewarded for doing so is further disgrace on the Corps.
So it’s the same thing as an Article 15 in the UCMJ (my experience is USAF) just applicable to the Navy?
Perfect example of thinking inside the box. The term instructor was a generalization as opposed to the student. The instructor is the corp staff, not just the OCS instructor. Nothing prevents the corp from establishing a physical training path for woman with the stated intent of elevating physical performance for those desiring such career paths. The creator of this physical training path could be fully conversant with the requirements of all corp tests and establish appropriate goals.
Chain of command is a vital element of any structured organization and not to be taken lightly. However, it does have its weaknesses especially with respect to discrimination issues. If you wish to argue otherwise, please start with explaining Tail-Hook away.
Neither you nor I know what steps she took within the chain of command. We do not know if she experienced negative consequences for breaching chain of command. We do know that a General evaluated her actions and acted upon them. I will take his assessment and response to the situation over yours at this point.
I see. For you, regulations and standards are simply suggestions. Good luck with that point of view.
Yeah, I don't get what people here are freaking out about. I don't think women have any place in the Infantry, either, but if the men get a 2nd chance, then why wouldn't the women--who policy says can attend the training--also?
So many knee-jerks on these threads, it's amazing.
I would say yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.