It would seem a straightforward journalistic piece when Susan Keating at PEOPLE Magazine decided to inform readers that Congressman Steve Russell, R-Okla., and others were questioning the qualifications and training of the first women to pass the Army Ranger school. Russell has asked the secretary of the Army for documentation pertaining to the passage of 1st Lt. Shaye Haver and Capt. Kristen Griest after he said various sources complained that (in direct contradiction of official Army statements) the women were given help in passing the rigorous tests. Keating, however, has been attacked as “anti-woman” for writing the story in a strong backlash as the Army denies all of the allegations.
I admit that I am sensitive to people acting out against journalists for their reporting on stories. Reporters are often placed in a position of reporting on stories that the public or people in power may not like. However, they play a critical role in keeping our government accountable. That is not to say that the allegations are true but they have been made by sources viewed as credible enough by members of Congress to demand that data be turned over to Congress. The story also ran in the midst of a growing controversy over the use of women in elite combat units with a move to add women to programs like the Navy Seals.
In his letter (published exclusively by PEOPLE), Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla. asked to see the women’s test scores, evaluations, injuries, pre-training and other records. He revealed that multiple “sources at Fort Benning are coming forward to say the Army lied about women in Ranger School, that the women got special treatment and played by different rules.” These include Ranger instructors who were allegedly warned to stay quiet about the special treatment to guarantee the passage of the women. The school lasts 21 days and includes long hikes, an obstacle course, and other physical challenges. Russell says that instructors have come forward to say that the women did not carry the same amount of equipment as the men, did not take their turn carrying the heavy machine guns and were given intensive pre-training that was not offered to men. Moreover, they alleged that men who repeatedly failed crucial phases of the school were sent home but the women were allowed to redo those phases over and over until they passed.
Emails started to fly almost immediately from women accusing Keating of being a traitor. One named Melody H. Mitchell thanked Brig. Gen. Malcolm B. Frost, chief of Public Affairs for the U.S. Army for denying the allegation, saying “Pathetic when women work against others.” Keating did not back down and asked Mitchell ” You support a male general who discredits a female journo. And you accuse ME of being anti woman?”
Other critics include Sue Fulton, who was a member of the first West Point class in 1980 to include women graduates. She said that this is the same type of “questioning of our every accomplishment at every turn, from Gen. (William) Westmoreland calling us ‘freaks’ to anonymous soldiers online spreading rumors.”
I am afraid that I do not get this controversy. Keating (right) is reporting a major story. The premise of female Rangers is that they would be treated exactly like other Rangers with no alterations or lessening of the standards. This is based on the simple fact that Rangers are required to perform on an extraordinary level in combat and must be physically capable of reaching the same level of conditioning and proficiency. I truly hope that the story is false and that Fulton is right about the cultural backlash. However, it is a legitimate story when a congressional committee starts to investigate and reports multiple sources from within the program. Keating to her credit is standing her ground as a journalist doing her job and even tweated “To anyone who thinks the Army never lies: Here’s a cup of Agent Orange to drink while reading about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman.”
The fact that Keating is a woman is immaterial. She is a journalist and she is reporting on an allegation that the Army has misrepresented a story that was reported throughout the world. She is not supposed to, as Melody Mitchell suggests, “support women.” She is supposed to support the truth, no matter how unpopular it may be. Even if the investigation is shown to be unfounded, the story was not.
One of the issues that is regularly forgotten about military services; training and standards are designed to be uniform. I am not so naïve to believe that that is always the case, however the soldiers in the ranks know full well when it happens and it does have a negative effect.
A hard truth is that standards are created for the norms, not the exceptions. The effectiveness of breaking things and killing people, the only real reason to have a military worthy of the public treasure, is denigrated by different standards for different people or the perception inside the unit that standards are only for some of the unit.
Remember, every SGM or COL or above is a politician in uniform. Some are professional, some are not.
Recruiting decisions must be left entirely to the Rangers who are charged with completing a mission.
Affirmative action is unconstitutional.
Social Engineering is a principle of communism.
Redistribution of wealth is unpreambular and unconstitutional and violates freedom and private property rights.
Most “qualified” beneficiaries of affirmative action, first benefitted from direct cash payments and the entire spectrum of redistribution. The television newscaster who shot his colleagues on live TV recently was “qualified” sufficiently only to fill a collectivist-ordered slot and his persisting employment became untenable, leading to his psychotic break – the result of affirmative action. Most businesses simply leave the unqualified affirmative action beneficiary in place to meet quotas. “Qualification” is determined by free enterprises, not government. American governance exists to facilitate business not run it.
The “Balkanization” of America is due to centuries of illegal immigration, from freed slaves, which were property with citizenship in no country and no standing under the Constitution, to criminal, border-crossing invaders and “anchor babies,” all of whom must have been compassionately repatriated under deportation law. And let’s not forget the “asylum” seekers who are compassionately and generously provided refuge but never go home.
I wonder what the Founders meant with the words they very deliberately and intelligently used,
“…to ourselves and our posterity,…”
You don’t suppose they meant to ourselves and our posterity, do you?
Might that have been the European “melting pot” comprised of family, extended family and nations of Europe?
If the Founders meant every person in the world, nay, universe, was actually an American-In-Waiting, could they not have said that using those words.
__________
Alexander Hamilton –
“…whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
__________
Thomas Jefferson –
“Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
Alexander Hamilton –
Unconvinced that diversity was strength, he said the safety of a republic depended on
“…essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
George Washington –
Washington contended there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration,
“except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions. The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
Idiocy. Thank you Paul. I must be sure not to misspell when I’m insulting your assertions. Maybe my iPad is PMSing.
More idocy.
Inga – spelling counts
“I have always proposed that woman military units be segregated. This way their menstrual cycles will sync and they will all PMS at the same time. That is when they are sent into battle. Imagine a division of PMSing women attacking you. It would make a banzai attack look like a pillow fight.”
*****************
Such idocy.
Inga – my idea has a great deal of logic behind it. If you have never been attacked by a woman who is PMSing then stay out of the discussion.
Why am I not surprised by the FemiNoise Thought Police for attempting to curtail a woman’s efforts to print something that could be crediible? After all, I am familiar with the critique, shaming tactics, and censorship that most radical and moderate feminist groups use. This is a walk in the park for any feminist but they can’t hold a candle to Anita Sarkeesian (the scam artist), Rebecca Watson (for advocating the idea that being asked out for coffee is rape), and FemiTheist Divine (who advocated a 10% population of males with women making up 90%; google it. Vice did an interview on her).
Here’s another that they can’t censor. Hoorah for the Marines!
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-marines-women-20150912-story.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/
You want a highly effective Marines Corps that could destroy everything as if God sent them out to do it on the Sixth day, keep women out. You cannot ignore biology!
Texas Polygynist – I have always proposed that woman military units be segregated. This way their menstrual cycles will sync and they will all PMS at the same time. That is when they are sent into battle. Imagine a division of PMSing women attacking you. It would make a banzai attack look like a pillow fight.
An odd story
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Well that I agree with. Pretty inconclusive at this point, hence the Congressman Russell’s request for documentation and investigation.
““The records request on the recent Ranger classes that included females is to investigate serious allegations that are being made by members of the military,” wrote Russell, one of only two Ranger qualified members of Congress”.
No idea where it’ll lead, but the pre-emptive shaming of the reporter certainly seems like an overreaction if there’s nothing to hide.
Yes, I get that these “sources” are fearful of repercussions, but making such assertions against these women is extremely serious and in order to be believable we need to be know more about who these people are. It might be worthwhile having some sort of formal inquiry and interviewing multiple people who trained with these women. It’s too bad though that the first two women to complete the training are put under such scrutiny.
I understand that there may be need for anonymity. That need should be noted. More importantly, the placement of the sources here is crucial and needs to be described. Are they people with direct knowledge of the training or are they just people who’ve heard Army rumors? Sources may have told PEOPLE, but PEOPLE doesn’t tell us.
It’s the difference between a story about a fixed training program and some grumbling and rumors in the ranks. One is a story; the other is inevitable.
What so you expect, fiver, when any soldier knows he’d be crucified if named as questioning the party line?
calypsofacto – I agree with you. If the article is correct, the fix was in.
That’s as specific as it gets. For her whole story. “Sources tell PEOPLE.”
Yep. About as specific and journ-O-listic as those pieces in rags like the WSJ and others that pretend to be based on some sort of journalism but are really just opinions.
“Some feel that……” or “Some say…..” and then the writer goes on to insert their own point of view as if those amorphous some have somehow validated his/her own biases and turned opinion into fact.
Really? WHO feels? WHO says? Your friends over cocktails? People at the gym? Uber drivers? Your mother????
WHO!!!
“I don’t think it really qualifies as journalism”
In contrast to what? The MSM?
Ha ha ha.
You kill me.
“Sources tell PEOPLE”
That’s as specific as it gets. For her whole story. “Sources tell PEOPLE.”
I suppose that’s probably good enough for reporting on the World’s Sexiest Man, but I don’t think it really qualifies as journalism for much more than that.
The problem with affirmative action is that it forever taints the supposed recipients.
Exacatmundo.
When you give some people preferential treatment because of their race, gender or some other quality that has nothing to do with the job…..people notice.
When you give some people advancement well beyond their capabilities because of this special treatment…..everyone knows this and resents it.
That some of those some people may be well qualified and capable is a fact lost in the morass of the unqualified and less capable being foisted onto the job, school, army etc.
Advancing people beyond their capabilities has been shown to be counterproductive in that it puts that person into a no win situation, doing more harm than good and creates resentment among those who were qualified by passed over by discrimination.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
The single biggest problem in this system — a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research — is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively — even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.
I served in the USAF, never liked the notion of women in combat…certainly less in the rangers, or special forces, which would be nuts…remember the Seal movie with demi moore?…ridiculous…now I’m a marine biologist who is actually a marine zoologist who taxonomically studies crustacea primarily in California and the Gulf of California, as a research fellow with the Hancock Institute. sweeeet!
The problem with affirmative action is that it forever taints the supposed recipients.
Now, even if these two women did in fact complete a course no other woman was previously able to complete, no one believes it.
Thank you, liberals!
*Training*
“If they made it through the exact same trading as the men did…”
And how would you determine that, exactly?
“Maybe if she hadn’t slanted the story…”
I find it hilarious that someone might complain about “slanted media”.
All media are slanted.
US media are largely leftist in orientation.
So when one news organization dares to question the leftist line, there is pointing, shrieking, and gnashing of teeth.