HollywoodBQ said:

---

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.

---

Thanks for clarity.
I was on the field for the tu game when that went down in '92. It was a mess. I knew some of them.

Troy91 said:

---

Sounds like something cut through the noise.

---

Sounds like people were ready to pull donations…

Happy to see the acknowledgement that the plan was a problem.

Question number 3 is the one that needs to be focused on.

What is exactly are the perceived differences that he is referring to? Are they really a bad thing? Not all differences need to be squashed. Perhaps the differences are the strength of the Corps

I am leery of this as sounding like a concession but not really being one.

The Commandant has decided that things need to change so the Corps can "evolve" and as such things are going to change.

I would suggest that his starting assumption (things need to change) is at best deeply flawed.

Unless and until the underlying assumption can be discussed I think something radical is still likely to happen.

Definitely a "send me an email and we will save the responses in a special folder."

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.

---

I may be wrong but I don't think fish and heads are required to take ROTC for two years anymore. That's why so many underclassman don't have a branches ROTC patch

Eh, shows how much I know. Thanks for clarifying.

Zobel said:

---

Eh, shows how much I know. Thanks for clarifying.

---

Like I said I may be wrong but it seems like I heard this fairly recently when discussing it with some buddies

maverick2076 said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

Sounds like something cut through the noise.

---

Sounds like someone is desperate to get the discussion off social media and into a forum that he can control. It is very clear that the commandant plans to "adapt and adjust toward an implementation plan" whether anyone agrees with him or not.

---

I am not sure that is what happened.

That is a corporate white flag. He is standing by the need for improvement which is likely a safe spot. He is not proceeding with implementation. There are only a few more weeks left to make any changes for next school year.

Cadets were sent a survey.

We should remain vigilant and ensure that he gets improvement ideas for the Corps and not just criticism of the prior plan.

Let him learn from this and we can push to keep the Corps culture positives while improving in agreed areas.

NICU Dad said:

---

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?

---

Not sure and I am not gonna dox and get banned while this is going on.

I saw the outfit with my own two eyes during final review and confirmed with my son before posting to make sure it was accurate.

JABQ04 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Eh, shows how much I know. Thanks for clarifying.

---

Like I said I may be wrong but it seems like I heard this fairly recently when discussing it with some buddies

---

They do. My son is a fish. He's in Naval Sciences. Has no desire to take a contract

Ok. Thanks for the clear up. Not the first time I've been wrong nor will it be the last.

aggiez03 said:

---

oh and by the way, the Military board on Texags is worthless...

---

Don't do that. You're getting butthurt for no reason.

93Spur said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

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.

---

Thanks for clarity.
I was on the field for the tu game when that went down in '92. It was a mess. I knew some of them.

---

Those 3 girls who started in the fall of 1985 didn't have it easy. They lived in Dorm 5, and I had to go get them every morning and bring them to dorm 11 before 630am so they would be with their fish buddies.

2 of the 3 were gone by Christmas. The one that remained was tough, and mean

K2-HMFIC said:

---

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.

---

Agree. The primary mission is to create leaders, focus should be military, secondary should be civilian leadership.

Contracts are highly competitive. A&M gets assigned so many commission slots per year, based on needs. What the Trigon needs to do is also help give out information on other ways to get a commission.

Dark_Knight said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

oh and by the way, the Military board on Texags is worthless...

---

Don't do that. You're getting butthurt for no reason.

---

Not sure about that. I bring information over there that former CTs should embrace.

Instead they basically say D&C people are non-regs, D&C doesn't matter, and the Corps only focus should be training officers, nothing else matters. And obviously they need fish training because the pisshead post said they hissed the commandant cause he never listens to them.

Not expecting you to understand. Pretty sure you were hive fiving them as they made comments.

Quote:

---

D&C cadets were always the most out of shape, lacked discipline and had the good ol boy attitude.

---

Quote:

---

Let me guess the F16 folks have labeled the Commandant Woke, the Trigon a bunch of Libtards or demorats, and declared they will never send another dime to Texas A&M.

There hasn't been a legitimate discussion on that forum for years, I have no interest in going back.

---

Quote:

---

I'd like to keep our designation as a Senior Military College and not remain in the past because a bunch of old D&C cadets are mad

---

Quote:

---

I think some changes are needed. I'm open to it.

Everyone is freaking out and having knee jerk reactions because of nostalgia and "it's always been this way".

---

Quote:

---

Is not your Corps of Cadets anymore.

It's time to let it go.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine taking the word of a 19-20 year old who is proud to have hissed at a retired general so now he "won't show his face" anymore as gospel.

Comical to act like you should be able to discipline fish at will when you can't even hold your peers to a level where they can listen and work against a change effectively.

---

Quote:

---

I will never forget what one of my most respected Army ROTC instructors said, CAG now, told me when I was a cadet.

We were talking about peer leadership and struggles with getting people to stay motivated and physically fit.

"Well it's hard because you have non-regs in your formation"

"Oh no sir, they are called D&C"

"Yeah, nonregs"

---

aggiez03 said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

aggiez03 said:

---

oh and by the way, the Military board on Texags is worthless...

---

Don't do that. You're getting butthurt for no reason.

---

Not sure about that. I bring information over there that former CTs should embrace.

Instead they basically say D&C people are non-regs, D&C doesn't matter, and the Corps only focus should be training officers, nothing else matters. And obviously they need fish training because the pisshead post said they hissed the commandant cause he never listens to them.

Not expecting you to understand. Pretty sure you were hive fiving them as they made comments.

Quote:

---

D&C cadets were always the most out of shape, lacked discipline and had the good ol boy attitude.

---

Quote:

---

Let me guess the F16 folks have labeled the Commandant Woke, the Trigon a bunch of Libtards or demorats, and declared they will never send another dime to Texas A&M.

There hasn't been a legitimate discussion on that forum for years, I have no interest in going back.

---

Quote:

---

I'd like to keep our designation as a Senior Military College and not remain in the past because a bunch of old D&C cadets are mad

---

Quote:

---

I think some changes are needed. I'm open to it.

Everyone is freaking out and having knee jerk reactions because of nostalgia and "it's always been this way".

---

Quote:

---

Is not your Corps of Cadets anymore.

It's time to let it go.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine taking the word of a 19-20 year old who is proud to have hissed at a retired general so now he "won't show his face" anymore as gospel.

Comical to act like you should be able to discipline fish at will when you can't even hold your peers to a level where they can listen and work against a change effectively.

---

Quote:

---

I will never forget what one of my most respected Army ROTC instructors said, CAG now, told me when I was a cadet.

We were talking about peer leadership and struggles with getting people to stay motivated and physically fit.

"Well it's hard because you have non-regs in your formation"

"Oh no sir, they are called D&C"

"Yeah, nonregs"

---

---

A great summation of why military guys have had an hard time understanding for decades of why they can't grow the corps. They don't want any more people who don't think exactly like them. Yet they depend on the people who don't think exactly like them for donations and scholarships.

You should view D&C guys as potential recruits, even if they drop out of ROTC after their sophomore year. Not as a bunch of Dorfman's you have to tolerate.

Yea I agree with a lot of the sentiments. I do think it should focus on military, but can marry in the civilian leadership for the D&C. They were getting that going as I left the Corps. I also believe the Trigon should push other ways to gain a contract outside of ROTC. Even just being in the Corps for 4 years, you can get a commission in the USCG. They have a special route for those who attended a senior military college. There's Marine PLC and other OCS schools to directly apply for. A lot of D&C didn't know about these, I found out about Marine PLC from an upperclassmen. I bet you'd see commission rates come up to 50% or more.

You do seem to be chomping at the bit, having some knee jerk reactions. I feel you're catastrophizing the situation a bit.
The Corps isn't just about the D&C just because they are the greater number. It boils down to the question, what is the role and mission of the Corps of Cadets? I think that is being lost in all the emotion.

Can you elaborate on the story? I'm not familiar with that one.

Edit: to be more specific, I am referring to the '92 t.u. halftime incident you referred to.

JABQ04 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.

---

I may be wrong but I don't think fish and heads are required to take ROTC for two years anymore. That's why so many underclassman don't have a branches ROTC patch

---

Man that is super depressing.

so what you are claiming is that most of the people in a "Corps of Cadets" are actually taking leadership classes rather than training to become military officers.

why are they wearing fake military uniforms then? Mike Leach had a point about that.

why not just wear three piece business suits if they aren't actually training to be in the US military? I was under the impression that some funding from the American military was involved with this Corps.

is that not correct?

Dark_Knight said:

---

Yea I agree with a lot of the sentiments. I do think it should focus on military, but can marry in the civilian leadership for the D&C. They were getting that going as I left the Corps. I also believe the Trigon should push other ways to gain a contract outside of ROTC. Even just being in the Corps for 4 years, you can get a commission in the USCG. They have a special route for those who attended a senior military college. There's Marine PLC and other OCS schools to directly apply for. A lot of D&C didn't know about these, I found out about Marine PLC from an upperclassmen. I bet you'd see commission rates come up to 50% or more.

You do seem to be chomping at the bit, having some knee jerk reactions. I feel you're catastrophizing the situation a bit.
The Corps isn't just about the D&C just because they are the greater number. It boils down to the question, what is the role and mission of the Corps of Cadets? I think that is being lost in all the emotion.

---

Feel free to leave this thread.

No one I have talked to on the inside or the outside thinks this is a good idea.

I have known it was a possibility for over 2 months now, so just because I posted it a few days ago, doesn't mean I have not contemplated what this will do to the outfits, the upperclassmen and fish retention and thus the Corps. This is far from a knee jerk reaction.

I additionally knew about a bunch of the other changes that he has been proposing and while not agreeing with all of them, that is no different when I was in the Corps. We used to say, the Corps succeeds in spite of the decisions the Trigon makes.

The role of the Corps is to create leaders in all walks of life, but you military folks think that D&C cadets don't matter even though the Corps is mostly D&C.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Those 3 girls who started in the fall of 1985 didn't have it easy. They lived in Dorm 5, and I had to go get them every morning and bring them to dorm 11 before 630am so they would be with their fish buddies.

2 of the 3 were gone by Christmas. The one that remained was tough, and mean

---

And by the time I arrived on campus in fall of '88 (not in band) it was Howdy Miss Abat ma'am. She was one upperclassman who was easy to remember so I appreciated her for that.

LMCane said:

---

JABQ04 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.

---

I may be wrong but I don't think fish and heads are required to take ROTC for two years anymore. That's why so many underclassman don't have a branches ROTC patch

---

Man that is super depressing.

so what you are claiming is that most of the people in a "Corps of Cadets" are actually taking leadership classes rather than training to become military officers.

why are they wearing fake military uniforms then? Mike Leach had a point about that.

why not just wear three piece business suits if they aren't actually training to be in the US military? I was under the impression that some funding from the American military was involved with this Corps.

is that not correct?

---

I love how you keep bringing up the Mike leach thing as if we care. It's not an insult to most of us even though you're continuously trying to make it one.

Your opinions are empty and terrible especially on this topic. Welcome to the ignore list.

Dude, that's not even what I'm saying, never said D&C didn't matter. Just tells me you didn't actually read what I've been saying or you're warping what is being said to fit your narrative.
No, I'm not leaving the thread. Wow, you are getting petty.

So you supposedly knew about it for 2months prior? See, there's a lot of fishy things like this that causes me to question the validity of all the claims.

nm

Dark_Knight said:

---

Dude, that's not even what I'm saying, never said D&C didn't matter.
No, I'm not leaving the thread. Wow, you are getting petty.

So you supposedly knew about it for 2months prior? See, there's a lot of fishy things like this that causes me to question the validity of all the claims.

---

What are the claims exactly?

Did you see the Commandants plan that was released without consulting stakeholders?

Did you see the retraction on the previous page due to the enormous pushback?

What do you think is fishy?

Dark_Knight said:

---

Dude, that's not even what I'm saying, never said D&C didn't matter.
No, I'm not leaving the thread. Wow, you are getting petty.

So you supposedly knew about it for 2months prior? See, there's a lot of fishy things like this that causes me to question the validity of all the claims.

---

I think he jumped to that conclusion when you said you agreed with a lot of the sentiments posted by others when his point was talking about how D&C cadets are at best tolerated.


I know recruiting in general for the military is down nationwide. I'm sure the Corps is struggling as well. But you already have thousands of kids going through your adjacent ROTC program. Those are your biggest opportunities at bringing in fresh numbers. So figure out why D&C kids aren't taking commissions. Then figure out how you can increase recruitment in both D&C type guys and Contract guys. If they are the same strategies, great. If they are different, then that's fine too. If some outfits have waiting lists for one or the other, figure out why those outfits are so successful and help them grow based on their strategies and culture they have built up over decades.

Dark_Knight said:

---

Yea I agree with a lot of the sentiments. I do think it should focus on military, but can marry in the civilian leadership for the D&C. They were getting that going as I left the Corps. I also believe the Trigon should push other ways to gain a contract outside of ROTC. Even just being in the Corps for 4 years, you can get a commission in the USCG. They have a special route for those who attended a senior military college. There's Marine PLC and other OCS schools to directly apply for. A lot of D&C didn't know about these, I found out about Marine PLC from an upperclassmen. I bet you'd see commission rates come up to 50% or more.

You do seem to be chomping at the bit, having some knee jerk reactions. I feel you're catastrophizing the situation a bit.
The Corps isn't just about the D&C just because they are the greater number. It boils down to the question, what is the role and mission of the Corps of Cadets? I think that is being lost in all the emotion.

---

Agree with this. There's alot of emotional hyperventilating with the reaction to this. I think the Commandant is trying to make improvements and listening to feedback. It's pretty sad so many feel the need to disparage the man.

Yea I read it, 2nd hand. None of what I've seen "written" by the Commandant seemed to be written by someone with his rank. The writing was atrocious.

Yea the retraction seemed a bit vague.

What's fishy is that you seemingly knew about this 2 months ago, but nothing said until a couple days ago. All of this is based off some Facebook post from a private group, no screenshots. Getting hearsay from a handful of people or "cadets" about what's going on from copy-pasted text is a red flag for me.

Yea it smells.

JB99 said:

---

Dark_Knight said:

---

Yea I agree with a lot of the sentiments. I do think it should focus on military, but can marry in the civilian leadership for the D&C. They were getting that going as I left the Corps. I also believe the Trigon should push other ways to gain a contract outside of ROTC. Even just being in the Corps for 4 years, you can get a commission in the USCG. They have a special route for those who attended a senior military college. There's Marine PLC and other OCS schools to directly apply for. A lot of D&C didn't know about these, I found out about Marine PLC from an upperclassmen. I bet you'd see commission rates come up to 50% or more.

You do seem to be chomping at the bit, having some knee jerk reactions. I feel you're catastrophizing the situation a bit.
The Corps isn't just about the D&C just because they are the greater number. It boils down to the question, what is the role and mission of the Corps of Cadets? I think that is being lost in all the emotion.

---

Agree with this. There's alot of emotional hyperventilating with the reaction to this. I think the Commandant is trying to make improvements and listening to feedback. It's pretty sad so many feel the need to disparage the man.

---

Calling a stupid plan what it is doesn't necessarily mean we hate the guy.