aggiez03 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

El Guero said:

---

You forget the part that there are a ton of kids that want to join the Corps for the fraternal part. The frats are all boys and sororities are all girls for a reason. If the non integrated outfits are the ones with the waiting lists, they are doing something right. I know there was an all girl outfit at one time that did not work. But, why won't it now that there are so many more female cadets. Have the female cadets ever been asked if they would like an all female outfit?

And don't tell me that you need to learn to follow orders from females because you will have to in the real world or in the military world. That's not what this is about. I was in an all male outfit and I have never had a problem taking orders from a female. Not in the working world or any of the countless boards I've served on....And my wife tells me what to wear .

---

I think this is why people make fun of the Aggie Corps. Like when Mike Leach ripped them.

most people in the country think of people dressing up in military uniforms as being part of the Reserve Officer Training Corps and going on to become military officers.

if someone wants to join a fraternity as the poster above states- JOIN A FRATERNITY.

other than just being a weird hybrid legacy at Texas A&M, why would the US military care about if undergrads want to join a fraternity?!

it's hard enough to find people to serve in the Army, why not just focus on actually creating well trained Army officers rather than a fun social life?

---

If you think that the Corps is just another Frat, Please move along and get off this thread.

The Corps membership is majority D&C, not contract cadets and has been for 20+ years.

The Commandant was hired to run the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets, not to run an ROTC detachment. There is a difference.

---

There in lies the issue...

Does the Corps exist to build officers for the military? It's historic mission...

Or does it exist to be a fraternal organization that has a leadership component?

---

Cant it be both

---

I think it can...but the Commandant seems to be prioritizing military officer development over DNC. The central complaint being: that shift is taking away from the DNC experience...

My thoughts as a former Cadet and a serving officer? I don't care...the Corps historic and central mission is to build officers for the United States.

---

That is good to know.

When the Corps is 60+% D&C and these actions drive away everyone but the 4 year contract cadets that are basically at A&M cause they got a scholarship (I know these guys, cause my old lady was one - attended 3 football games in 4 years); remember that you said you couldn't care less that the Corps as it has been for over 50 years should have fundamental changes.

The cadets who are in the Corps because their dads and grandads were, who love A&M, and participate in EVERYTHING. Those are the cadets that are the Keepers of the Spirit. Are some contract? Sure. Are most of them? Not by a long shot.

---

Again...you're talking about the DNC experience...while nice and fun is not as important as preparing officers for the military. Remember...Texas A&M is a senior military college as designated by Title 10 Section 2111A.

I haven't checked to see if the long-standing Corps Mission and Vision statements have been revised. Given the secret plan to rewrite the Standard, it wouldn't surprise me if the Commandant has plans to change those as part of the overall plan.

I wonder if he might share publicly his plans on such concerns. For example: Who's rewriting the Standard? What input is he receiving?

Not as important to whom? The state of Texas or the USG?

The leadership learned by D&C cadets is valuable to the state and nation regardless of whether those leaders go on to careers in the military or civilian world. You could make the case that this kind of leadership is even more valuable and coveted in the civilian world, because there is every bit as much demand for leadership and fewer paths to develop it.

There's a nice balance now between 2 years ROTC for all cadets and the remaining D&C option. There is no need to create a false dichotomy or pit them against each other. The diversity probably makes the experience better for both contract and D&C cadets.

Zobel said:

---

Not as important to whom? The state of Texas or the USG?

The leadership learned by D&C cadets is valuable to the state and nation regardless of whether those leaders go on to careers in the military or civilian world. You could make the case that this kind of leadership is even more valuable and coveted in the civilian world, because there is every bit as much demand for leadership and fewer paths to develop it.

There's a nice balance now between 2 years ROTC for all cadets and the remaining D&C option. There is no need to create a false dichotomy or pit them against each other. The diversity probably makes the experience better for both contract and D&C cadets.

---

What we're arguing about is the purpose of the corps...I am stating the following:

The Corps historic and Title 10 responsibility is to produce military officers for the United States; the experience of DNC cadets is secondary to that.

The current model has had issues, especially with hazing (though down from the 70-90s), and has produced an un-balanced product and leadership experience. I am not opposed to the changes, in order to produce better leaders as a whole...because it falls in line with existing practice out of the service academies.

The complaint is that it dilutes the traditional DNC experience because it removes the centrality of the outfit...to wit...so what? That's not the Corps' reason for being around.

You're still going to get a leadership experience...just not in the way it used to be.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Not as important to whom? The state of Texas or the USG?

The leadership learned by D&C cadets is valuable to the state and nation regardless of whether those leaders go on to careers in the military or civilian world. You could make the case that this kind of leadership is even more valuable and coveted in the civilian world, because there is every bit as much demand for leadership and fewer paths to develop it.

There's a nice balance now between 2 years ROTC for all cadets and the remaining D&C option. There is no need to create a false dichotomy or pit them against each other. The diversity probably makes the experience better for both contract and D&C cadets.

---

What we're arguing about is the purpose of the corps...I am stating the following:

The Corps historic and Title 10 responsibility is to produce military officers for the United States; the experience of DNC cadets is secondary to that.

The current model has had issues, especially with hazing (though down from the 70-90s), and has produced an un-balanced product and leadership experience. I am not opposed to the changes, in order to produce better leaders as a whole...because it falls in line with existing practice out of the service academies.

The complaint is that it dilutes the traditional DNC experience because it removes the centrality of the outfit...to wit...so what? That's not the Corps' reason for being around.

You're still going to get a leadership experience...just not in the way it used to be.

---

The D&C experience enhances officer training, it doesn't diminish it.

Removing that part of the equation will ruin what makes officers from the Corps unique.

Hope that helps.

Once they decided to move the corps as another student organization in the 2000's, they fundamentally changed what the purpose of it was. Its purpose now should be developing student-led leadership. The ROTC program is what you are talking about.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The integration happened in the Fall of 1990 though they had long since gotten rid of W-1 and simply had an all female outfit in each branch. In the Wing it was Squadron 14.

---

---

---

W-1 was Army and Sq. 14 was Air Force when I showed up in 1988.
I think you're right about 1990 being when they integrated.

---

My buddy swears the all female outfits weren't allowed to stay because they had the worst hazing on the quad.

Is there truth to this?

---

Dang. We really need a Corps history book with each year written by folks who were there, then.

In 1989, we had W-1 (1st Brigade, 1st Battalion) and Sq. 14 (1st Wing, 4th Group).

Fall 1990, all-female outfits were eliminated in favor of integrated, because it was not separate but equal.

Prior to 1990 (and after) It was unequal. Outside of the FTAB, which was already fully integrated, Corps upperclassmen would instruct fish not to whip out to Wags (a term made derogatory during the time, but which has vacillated over time as acceptable), for those fish to walk across the street or take any other evasive action. Rams were preferred to treating Wags as equals. It didn't matter that some of those women could smoke you on the PT test, were more knowledgeable about the Corps, or were just good people.

Integration was the solution to unequal treatment.

Don't think it got better overnight. Members of G-1 and Sq. 8, the integrated outfits, caught hell. Some were female. Some were males derided as traitors.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Not as important to whom? The state of Texas or the USG?

The leadership learned by D&C cadets is valuable to the state and nation regardless of whether those leaders go on to careers in the military or civilian world. You could make the case that this kind of leadership is even more valuable and coveted in the civilian world, because there is every bit as much demand for leadership and fewer paths to develop it.

There's a nice balance now between 2 years ROTC for all cadets and the remaining D&C option. There is no need to create a false dichotomy or pit them against each other. The diversity probably makes the experience better for both contract and D&C cadets.

---

What we're arguing about is the purpose of the corps...I am stating the following:

The Corps historic and Title 10 responsibility is to produce military officers for the United States; the experience of DNC cadets is secondary to that.

The current model has had issues, especially with hazing (though down from the 70-90s), and has produced an un-balanced product and leadership experience. I am not opposed to the changes, in order to produce better leaders as a whole...because it falls in line with existing practice out of the service academies.

The complaint is that it dilutes the traditional DNC experience because it removes the centrality of the outfit...to wit...so what? That's not the Corps' reason for being around.

You're still going to get a leadership experience...just not in the way it used to be.

---

The D&C experience enhances officer training, it doesn't diminish it.

Removing that part of the equation will ruin what makes officers from the Corps unique.

Hope that helps.

---

No...it doesn't. You're making a statement without supporting evidence. You need to state why the D&C experience helps military officer development.

My statement is: Improving military officer development by following existing service academy practices has a proven history of reducing hazing and ensuring better officers.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Once they decided to move the corps as another student organization in the 2000's, they fundamentally changed what the purpose of it was. Its purpose now should be developing student-led leadership. The ROTC program is what you are talking about.

---

Texas A&M is a Senior Military College for a reason.

What you're arguing is to turn it into a fraternity that happens to wear a uniform.

Texas A&M has not been just a senior military college for half a century. There have been many changes since it was. The Corps is now defined as a student organization on campus, just like any frat, student government, volunteer organization, professional society, etc. I'm absolutely not arguing it to be turned into a frat that just happens to wear a uniform.

I can confirm this.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Texas A&M has not been just a senior military college for half a century. There have been many changes since it was. The Corps is now defined as a student organization on campus, just like any frat, student government, volunteer organization, professional society, etc. I'm absolutely not arguing it to be turned into a frat that just happens to wear a uniform.

---

That is incorrect, we still are.


Please see following:

https://www.txamfoundation.com/News/Texas-AM-The-Military-College-of-Texas.aspx

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2111a#f

Quote:

---

(f)Senior Military Colleges.The senior military colleges are the following:
(1)
Texas A&M University.
(2)
Norwich University.
(3)
The Virginia Military Institute.
(4)
The Citadel.
(5)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
(6)
The University of North Georgia.

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Texas A&M has not been just a senior military college for half a century. There have been many changes since it was. The Corps is now defined as a student organization on campus, just like any frat, student government, volunteer organization, professional society, etc. I'm absolutely not arguing it to be turned into a frat that just happens to wear a uniform.

---

From the CCA website:

https://corps.tamu.edu/future-cadets/?section=faq

Quote:

---

THE ULTIMATE AGGIE EXPERIENCE
"There is no military obligation for joining the Corps."

The Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is the largest, oldest and most visible student organization and leadership training program at Texas A&M University. The Corps develops well-educated leaders of character who embody the values of honor, courage, integrity, discipline and selfless service. They are academically successful, highly sought-after and prepared for global leadership challenges of the future.

The Corps, one of the largest uniformed bodies of students in the nation, provides hands-on leadership experience, enhances a world-class education from Texas A&M, and directly involves cadets in the traditions that make Aggieland so different from all other schools.
There are more than 2,000 cadets at Texas A&M, each with their
own reason for joining the Corps of Cadets. Below are just a few of the reasons students have joined the Corps.

---

G-1 '00. The vitriol towards us and the females in our outfit was still present, at least from certain other outfits. And the term Wag was still used in a very derogatory manner, although some of the female cadets tried to embrace it as a backhanded mark of distinction. Calling one of our female buddies a wag in our presence was a good way to start a fight, although a lot of that had been settled by our upperclassmen before we got there.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Texas A&M has not been just a senior military college for half a century. There have been many changes since it was. The Corps is now defined as a student organization on campus, just like any frat, student government, volunteer organization, professional society, etc. I'm absolutely not arguing it to be turned into a frat that just happens to wear a uniform.

---

---

Fair...reading comprehension is important.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Not as important to whom? The state of Texas or the USG?

The leadership learned by D&C cadets is valuable to the state and nation regardless of whether those leaders go on to careers in the military or civilian world. You could make the case that this kind of leadership is even more valuable and coveted in the civilian world, because there is every bit as much demand for leadership and fewer paths to develop it.

There's a nice balance now between 2 years ROTC for all cadets and the remaining D&C option. There is no need to create a false dichotomy or pit them against each other. The diversity probably makes the experience better for both contract and D&C cadets.

---

What we're arguing about is the purpose of the corps...I am stating the following:

The Corps historic and Title 10 responsibility is to produce military officers for the United States; the experience of DNC cadets is secondary to that.

The current model has had issues, especially with hazing (though down from the 70-90s), and has produced an un-balanced product and leadership experience. I am not opposed to the changes, in order to produce better leaders as a whole...because it falls in line with existing practice out of the service academies.

The complaint is that it dilutes the traditional DNC experience because it removes the centrality of the outfit...to wit...so what? That's not the Corps' reason for being around.

You're still going to get a leadership experience...just not in the way it used to be.

---

They state their mission on their website. It says nothing about producing military only leaders or that military trumps everything.

"The Corps of Cadets develops well-educated leaders of character who embody the values of Honor, Courage, Integrity, Discipline and Selfless Service, are academically successful, highly sought-after, and prepared for the global leadership challenges of the future."

The purpose of the corps is not limited to producing military officers. Even in the own mission it is broader than that. It is a primary focus, of course, but not exclusive. So I'm not even sure we can say that the D&C experience is secondary. You're assuming that they're not mutually supportive or that the D&C experience isn't shared by contract cadets in their whitebelt years.

I'm not sure what the current model is - I was one of your fish, so my reference point is nearly twenty years out of date. But this new proposed method seems a dramatic departure from not only the past few years but from the past 60+.

I don't think that the service academies should be the model for the corps of cadets. They have different purposes. Texas A&M is not a service academy.

You're presuming that the small-unit structure is somehow separable from the leadership training, that you can change the fundamental method of leadership training, get "a" leadership experience, and don't seem to see that those changes can be for the better or worse.

The real question to me is what is the intended outcome, and will the change achieve it? And, has any thought to secondary effects been considered? Like I said, making this change to first semester fish training is not an incremental shift, it is a complete paradigm change.

ELREY said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Comeby! said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Here's a thought. People like All Male and All Female outfits. Not everyone but most do. The opportunity to be in an All Male or All Female outfit is a very appealing one because you bond a hell of a lot closer than if you have an integrated outfit because the rules are the level of connection is going to be different.

---

I agree with everything you posted except this part. There was an all female unit years ago. I wasn't a part of the corps then but I'm sure that unit wasn't treated in a way a soldier, statesman and knightly gentleman should. Additionally with that logic, you could justify an all-white unit. It's what some cadets could really want, right? This isn't about what the cadets/recruit want,necessarily. It's what's best for the graduates of Texas A&M. Notice it didn't say anything about what's best for the military which I think is where we are misaligned with the commandant. He needs to realize that he's to be a steward of all Aggie cadets not just contract or what his prior job obligated him to be.

We and the commandant is not addressing the 'why aren't people joining the corps' part. Or the why aren't people whipping out. With his proposal, to some extent we are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

---

Actually I very much know what I am talking about. When I was a Freshman it was the last year before integration. We had an All Female outfit in my dorm a couple floors down. They did things a little differently but they had high retention numbers and high morale. They were treated with respect and if you said the "W" word or didn't treat upperclassmen with the same respect as you would any males you would feel the full fury and your buddies along with you.

Then they integrated and it was a disaster. There was a point I honestly wondered if they would have any females left. There were multiple sexual harassment cases that came about over the next couple of years and virtually all of them were dropped later as they were found to be false, one female cadet admitted she made it up because she just wanted to transfer and had to have an excuse or else she would lose her scholarship. Almost ruined a highly respected leader's life.

Over time they figured it out and it has improved. Still the point is that you can offer both experiences.

Oh and this couldn't be more different than an "All White" outfit and that's frankly insulting. You have legitimate logistical issues with an integrated outfit you don't have with a non integrated outfit. If you have 50 guys on a dorm room floor and 4 females the 50 guys get to share one bathroom and the 4 girls share the other for instance. Unless you have at least 10 females in an outfit it will be unbalanced because you won't have mentors of the same sex across classes and that absolutely matters, especially for female cadets. You can't have an upperclassman barge into a room. You have to be much more aware of what you say and do in an integrated environment that is a challenge in that environment. Female cadets obviously don't have their head shaved and are treated differently. Female cadets have different physical standards.

The irony of your statement is that race doesn't impact any of that and if you go back historically A&M actually integrated races much easier than Texas did. Why? The entire point of the Corps is everyone is treated the same and you have to earn respect. Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor or if your Daddy was a General. Everyone is just a fish and all that matters is what they do and earn on their own. That environment makes it easy for racial integration to occur. Sexual integration by definition though means you have different treatment for one sex vs another and that leads to a different experience.

I'm fine with integrated outfits and I think they absolutely have value. I know of many female cadets that are far superior to many male cadets including some that can kick their ass on a PT test. Still there are differences between the sexes and that is reflected by the mandated (and necessary) difference in treatment as I gave examples of above. I don't think there is any harm in allowing males or females an opportunity to have a non integrated outfit and the fact that half the Corps isn't joining the military makes that even more pointed.

---

Folks, We need to focus here! I know it is fun to talk about other issues the Corps faces, but the Corps is facing a potential crisis! Arguing over W-1 in 1974 isn't going to keep the Class of 28 fish from not living with their outfits. What you need to ask yourself is what are you going to do today to keep this from happening?

---

My point was around the importance of having outfits and being able to choose the type of outfit. Then someone said that having a single sex outfit was like having an All White outfit which was ridiculous and thus I responded to clarify. The point is a major benefit to having individual outfit identity is it allows for students to choose the specialties they are most interested in and that's a major advantage of the Corps. Essentially that you are part of an outfit that fits you as well as part of the larger organization.

aggiez03 said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

https://chancellor.tamus.edu/


FWIW, I sent an email to this guy tonight. Any suggestions on other folks to contact.

---

Head of CCA: bruce@corpsofcadets.org

Head of Rudder Association: President@rudderassociation.org
(Corps Commander '90)

Board of Regents: bor@tamus..edu

President: president@tamu.edu

Tyson Voelkel '96 Assoc Former Students ( have not found an email yet)
(Corps Commander '96)

---

Can confirm TRA is aware and not happy.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Texas A&M has not been just a senior military college for half a century. There have been many changes since it was. The Corps is now defined as a student organization on campus, just like any frat, student government, volunteer organization, professional society, etc. I'm absolutely not arguing it to be turned into a frat that just happens to wear a uniform.

---

---

Fair...reading comprehension is important.

---

No worries. I think what you are saying is important for the Corps and ROTC program, I'm just saying that A&M caused this change by labeling it as a student organization. The commandant (at least 10-15 years ago) is technically underneath the Vice President of Student Affairs. It caused a big stink by the commandant at the time when it happened.

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I believe this is an attack on D&C cadets.

aggiez03 said:

---

EagleCamden said:

---

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

Yes, a family friend who I was mentoring called. She was very upset. Evidently a male came out as identifying as a female. Would not shower with males any more and went to female crapper. They were up in arms and lost one of their crappers to stay away from him/her. Luckily it was second semester of her senior year. I d not know what happened after that.

---

holy frickin frick.

---

The transgender dude to chick is currently the outfit CO.

I was in shock that the Corps would allow someone with mental issues to be CO, but didn't affect my son, so let it be someone else's battle...

Just confirmed with my son. Everyone just pretends he is a girl so they don't get in trouble.

A fish whipped out last semester and kept calling him sir and got railed by the mental individual.

I told my son that back in my day, the fish class would have been ordered to seek, whipout, and intentionally call him Sir probably on a daily basis. We had some upper classmen that were not all-there. They would probably be in the Bull Ring, sitting Restricted Weekends or worse back then. Probably thrown out of the Corps the first time it happened in these times...

---

Good grief!

What outfit?

So if you get to the end of your pisshead year and decide not to sign a contract you have to get out of the Corps?

fc2112 said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

How big is the Va Tech Corps of Cadets?

---

About 1200 out of 29,000 undergraduates.

A&M is 2500 out of 57,000 undergraduates, so about the same ratio.

---

Also keep in mind that VMI has 1700 cadets just up the road from Virginia Tech.
A&M doesn't have an in-state competitor.

Virginia Tech is their Agriculture & Engineering school, exactly like Texas A&M in that regard.
They do give some admission preference to incoming freshmen joining their Corps of Cadets.

That's pretty much what will happen. They have two years to convince you to sign then you realize you serve no purpose as a D&C cadet.

fc2112 said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

A friend who graduated in the early 90's highlighted the unique thing about the Corps of Cadets. It is not an ROTC that meets periodically. It is Corps that that lives together. It is also not isolated like the military academies with only the Corps. Every day he stepped off the quad and had to interact in the civilian world. Really nothing else like it.

---

Actually, Virginia Tech is exactly the same.

---

As is The Citadel.

---

The Citadel is all Corps for undergraduate but they do have a graduate school which is civilian.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

El Guero said:

---

You forget the part that there are a ton of kids that want to join the Corps for the fraternal part. The frats are all boys and sororities are all girls for a reason. If the non integrated outfits are the ones with the waiting lists, they are doing something right. I know there was an all girl outfit at one time that did not work. But, why won't it now that there are so many more female cadets. Have the female cadets ever been asked if they would like an all female outfit?

And don't tell me that you need to learn to follow orders from females because you will have to in the real world or in the military world. That's not what this is about. I was in an all male outfit and I have never had a problem taking orders from a female. Not in the working world or any of the countless boards I've served on....And my wife tells me what to wear .

---

I think this is why people make fun of the Aggie Corps. Like when Mike Leach ripped them.

most people in the country think of people dressing up in military uniforms as being part of the Reserve Officer Training Corps and going on to become military officers.

if someone wants to join a fraternity as the poster above states- JOIN A FRATERNITY.

other than just being a weird hybrid legacy at Texas A&M, why would the US military care about if undergrads want to join a fraternity?!

it's hard enough to find people to serve in the Army, why not just focus on actually creating well trained Army officers rather than a fun social life?

---

If you think that the Corps is just another Frat, Please move along and get off this thread.

The Corps membership is majority D&C, not contract cadets and has been for 20+ years.

The Commandant was hired to run the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets, not to run an ROTC detachment. There is a difference.

---

There in lies the issue...

Does the Corps exist to build officers for the military? It's historic mission...

Or does it exist to be a fraternal organization that has a leadership component?

---

The Corps exists to build leaders for the State and Nation. Part of that is certainly military officers but it is not the entire mission. If it was then it would be a purely ROTC detachment. A significant percentage of D&C Cadets have an openness to joining the military and this gives them the opportunity to explore that as well. Still many don't want to or aren't able to because of a medical or other issue. So unless you want to have massive attrition you need to have a path for that significant percentage of kids that are not taking a contract.

My buddy class had 10 of us that Marched Final Review together. 4 went in the military. Of the other 6 at least half strongly considered it. Some didn't because they were cutting back on pilot slots and that path was basically closed. For me I went back and forth and ended up going D&C. Had I known more about Reserve or Guard options I likely would have gone that route but they never talked about that as an option in our ROTC classes so I kind of let that opportunity go by.

Of the 6 of us that didn't take contracts all have been successful and have used what we learned to achieve that success.

tamc93 said:

---

I think C-2 was Navy shortly there after.

I wonder if they still have a "Bag a Wag" ribbon or if it became something different?

---

C-2 "Old Army Cock Company" was the first Navy Marine outfit to integrate.
You can guess what kind of joke were told.

With all the cadet dating that happens now, I'm sure they stopped awarding ribbons for it.

93Spur said:

---

Prior to 1990 (and after) It was unequal. Outside of the FTAB, which was already fully integrated, Corps upperclassmen would instruct fish not to whip out to Wags (a term made derogatory during the time, but which has vacillated over time as acceptable), for those fish to walk across the street or take any other evasive action. Rams were preferred to treating Wags as equals. It didn't matter that some of those women could smoke you on the PT test, were more knowledgeable about the Corps, or were just good people.

---

I like your comment about history being written by those who were there and I just want to provide some color to the "Band was fully integrated" comment.

A number of females joined in the early years but, the only ones who survived were:
'89 - 1 (A-Batt)
'90 - 1 (A-Batt)
'91 - 2 (both A-Co)
'92 - 1 who made it to Final Review (B-Battery) but did not return
'93 - 2 plus 1 who was part of the group who walked off the field rather than perform with the Longhorn Band in Fall 1992. I believe there were about 7 or 8 cadets who were kicked out of the FTAB for that incident.
'94 - was our first female cadet who made it in B-Company
'95 - we didn't have any females in B-Company, there were probably 5 or 6 in other FTAB outfits

So "fully integrated" wasn't very "full" for a long time.

Sounds like something cut through the noise.

Thank you for sharing.

Whether it was the current cadets or former who got to him, keep the pressure on.