On an unrelated note, also addressing Gator03, just in case y'all haven't heard, Gator Reunion is coming up in a few weeks here in BCS if you wanna see what else is currently going on in the outfit! Let me know if you need any other details or have any questions!
Why are some outfits all-male and how were they chosen?
28,632 Views |
148 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Talon 07
Just being curious, any particular reason he's going VMI instead of A&M? I too have some good VMI buddies and know a couple interesting ones. Suppose that's the case with any school.
They gutted E-1 this semester. They're trying to integrate it again for Fall of '17
H-1 is apparently getting a wag CO for Fall '17
There's also been some rumors around the quad that D-2 is getting integrated next year as well
Talking to my buddies in E-2 they've been saying that they're getting close to integrating but the whole Rev thing is delaying it for now.
H-1 is apparently getting a wag CO for Fall '17
There's also been some rumors around the quad that D-2 is getting integrated next year as well
Talking to my buddies in E-2 they've been saying that they're getting close to integrating but the whole Rev thing is delaying it for now.
CT20unkown said:
They gutted E-1 this semester. They're trying to integrate it again for Fall of '17
H-1 is apparently getting a wag CO for Fall '17
There's also been some rumors around the quad that D-2 is getting integrated next year as well
Talking to my buddies in E-2 they've been saying that they're getting close to integrating but the whole Rev thing is delaying it for now.
Good. After you graduate and join the big boy military, you will see how brainwashed you were in the corps with a 20th Century mindset.
E-2 is being integrated next fall. Just announced the 1st Sergeant and CO's for next year.
Though H-1 didn't get the long rumored wag CO
So far CT20 only has one thing right...
RIP Rebel E. Hard for me to believe there weren't excellent candidates within the outfit to fill that role but, with Ramirez as commandant, nothing surprises me anymore.
I could write a book on the current college admissions process. Of course, as frequently as they change the college admissions game, my book would be outdated before the ink was even dry. The short story is that my VMI Keydet didn't get in to A&M due to a paperwork snafu. Waitlisted at Colorado and Southern Cal but fully accepted at VMI. VMI and Colorado had an application deadline of Jan. 15th while most of the others were Dec. 1st.Jock 07 said:
Just being curious, any particular reason he's going VMI instead of A&M? I too have some good VMI buddies and know a couple interesting ones. Suppose that's the case with any school.
My main piece of advice for any HS student applying to college anywhere is to make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed on your college applications. And, apply early so you have enough time to verify that all of your paperwork has arrived and is correctly entered into the system.
As an example, let's say you didn't listen to your dad's advice and you didn't study for the SAT test the first two times you took it. But, on the 3rd go round, you finally took dad's advice and studied for the SAT and raised your score by like 150 points from the high 1200s into the low 1400s. IF... you never sent the scores from that 3rd SAT test to anybody, it's like your 3rd (and best) SAT test never happened. Our situation was that the 3rd round of scores along with some other paperwork (HS transcript) never made it into the A&M system before the Dec. 1st deadline. VMI was happy with the first two SAT tests and I think is tickled to death with the 3rd SAT test.
I think that deep down, my VMI cadet really wanted to plot a new course rather than just do a modern day repeat of what dad did at Texas A&M 25+ years ago. I get that. And as a parent, I'm actually glad things worked out this way. Because I'm just a casual observer on the VMI parents pages. Whereas if my kid was a cadet at A&M, I might be inclined to be on this forum or on FB saying, I heard this rumor or that rumor or whatever.
But, with another school where the traditions are older than A&M and are all new to me, it's a fresh experience. It's nice that the Corps of Cadets experience is similar to A&M but different enough to keep it interesting. A funny contrast between the schools - when I see VMI parents complaining about a class ring that costs $2000, I feel like telling them to stop complaining because a class ring and Senior Boots runs more than that these days.
Disclaimer - I'm a B-Company Street Fighter and fully on Team Ramirez so I'll get that bias out of the way.rebel06 said:
RIP Rebel E. Hard for me to believe there weren't excellent candidates within the outfit to fill that role but, with Ramirez as commandant, nothing surprises me anymore.
Unless you're there and have access to everybody's academic records, etc., there's no way to know what is or is not going on in any outfit with any particular class.
As an example, not counting the sole academic superstar who was on Corps Staff, the class ahead of me had literally 1 guy out of 20 who was academically eligible to be 1SG and then again to be CO. And that was back when the minimum leadership requirement was only a 2.3. (yes, a two point three) In that situation, I'm just talking about academic eligibility, not even whether the guy was a good fit for the job (he wasn't).
Allowing transfers between outfits for leadership roles should give more qualified candidates a shot at leadership. That should produce a better overall result. Although the obvious sacrifice is likely going to be outfit identity and unique outfit traditions. In my era, my outfit was known for running Bloody Cross, poor grades and being hardasses. And of course, not having any females (we were the last holdout of a bygone male-only era - the main reason that only 13 out of 30 fish in my class made it to Final Review).
Which of those unique outfit characteristics is worth preserving? I don't know. The ship sailed long ago on my outfit not being a place for females. I personally hate running so losing Bloody Cross wouldn't make much difference to me. And in today's workplace, being a hardass all the time doesn't get you very far at a multi-national global company. If you could only retain 13/30 folks you brought in through the front door, you wouldn't do very well in any endeavour. So, if somebody else came in from an outside unit and improved my outfit while sacrificing some of our uniquenesses, that would probably be a net gain.
To me it has and always will come back to standards. You need to have standards in place that are clearly stated and that support the goals of the organization. The tricky part is defining what those standards should be and even more importantly, not deviating from them due to outside pressures, cultural slippage or even political correctness. These standards apply to everyone regardless of race, sex, gender, height, weight, color or any other metric.
I think most would agree that the Corps of Cadets should be a challenging endeavor, perhaps even something difficult for its members. Who wants to devote four years of their lives to something that isn't special and that almost anyone can do? Then it's just a club with a big time commitment and not a leadership organization. How does that prepare you for challenging situations in life, both on the battlefield or in the office?
I for one think it's healthy for the Corps of Cadets standards to be difficult enough that not everyone can do it, in fact I would say it is essential to meeting the goal of making fine, competent, and mentally tough leaders for our state and nation.
I think we often get way too focused on artificially making outfits look a certain way to meet political correctness objectives or to meet a retention goal or Corps growth number often at the expense of those standards that made the organization what it is.
At the end of the day only the cadets and their actions not the Trigon will decide if the standards of the Corps are still being met. I have my personal opinions, but only time will tell the truth.
I think most would agree that the Corps of Cadets should be a challenging endeavor, perhaps even something difficult for its members. Who wants to devote four years of their lives to something that isn't special and that almost anyone can do? Then it's just a club with a big time commitment and not a leadership organization. How does that prepare you for challenging situations in life, both on the battlefield or in the office?
I for one think it's healthy for the Corps of Cadets standards to be difficult enough that not everyone can do it, in fact I would say it is essential to meeting the goal of making fine, competent, and mentally tough leaders for our state and nation.
I think we often get way too focused on artificially making outfits look a certain way to meet political correctness objectives or to meet a retention goal or Corps growth number often at the expense of those standards that made the organization what it is.
At the end of the day only the cadets and their actions not the Trigon will decide if the standards of the Corps are still being met. I have my personal opinions, but only time will tell the truth.
RIP Epsilon Deuce.
I think bringing in a CO or 1SG from elsewhere should only be reserved for the most dire of circumstances. I cannot imagine E2 being in such circumstances either.
I know that is how the Academies do it....but we aren't the Academies. There is no company-level bond at them. That is/was a HUGE part of what makes the Corps special.
I know that is how the Academies do it....but we aren't the Academies. There is no company-level bond at them. That is/was a HUGE part of what makes the Corps special.
Incoming forced female MC in order for publicity. We're hearing now that the OOC and administration has taken away the selection of MC from E2.
I don't know why they are forcing all the outfits to integrate. You should have all female outfits for women that want that experience, mixed outfits for people who want that experience, and all male outfits for men who want that experience. I never joined the Corps to play army, I joined it for male camaraderie. All this forcing integration does is make quality students who would have considered the Corps for this reason, and possibly the Armed Forces after, to go join a Fraternity.
We used to at least pretend we were better than the service academies. Now we just aspire to be a cheap knockoff of them. And until that changes, the Corps won't see a dime from me.
We used to at least pretend we were better than the service academies. Now we just aspire to be a cheap knockoff of them. And until that changes, the Corps won't see a dime from me.
Where are you hearing that and who is "we?"
Commandant, care to opine? Will the Trigon/University be selecting our Mascot Corporal from now on?
Commandant, care to opine? Will the Trigon/University be selecting our Mascot Corporal from now on?
Former Rebels in communication all day today discussing what they've received from their contacts wherever and whoever they may be.3rdGenAg05 said:
Where are you hearing that and who is "we?"
Commandant, care to opine? Will the Trigon/University be selecting our Mascot Corporal from now on?
Disclaimer - So, I guess we aren't on the same team..........HollywoodBQ said:Disclaimer - I'm a B-Company Street Fighter and fully on Team Ramirez so I'll get that bias out of the way.rebel06 said:
RIP Rebel E. Hard for me to believe there weren't excellent candidates within the outfit to fill that role but, with Ramirez as commandant, nothing surprises me anymore.
The Corps is very much following the lead of the military today. The political leadership of the military has decided for the past few decades to make the military's priority political correctness based on societal norms instead of being the absolute fiercest fighting force in the world with one end goal which, at the end of the day, is to kill the enemy. The military is part social experiment laboratory. How much time and resources have been devoted to things that don't support the end mission?
The Corps of Cadets is no different. Good, politically correct PR is good for the Corps.
I am NOT saying that outfit integration is wrong and shouldn't happen. I believe there are very capable females who have earned the privilege to serve in the leadership roles assigned. They are squared away and deserve the honor. They've earned the right to be RVs, to be in the CAV, to be in all the special units, to be in leadership. However, when political correctness is at least a consideration, and if you think it's not.............well. If you've had any connection to the Corps for the past several years, you know, whether spoken or not, PC is a consideration. It looks good.
Several years ago, a Commandant said, and I paraphrase, "we WILL have a female Corps Commander very soon". The second that statement was made, it told me that "female" became a criteria, instead of being the best person for the job. It told me that political correctness was now a consideration. And a short time later, the Corps had its first female Corps Commander. And she WAS squared away, an impressive young lady and by all accounts did an outstanding job. I was proud to see her achieve what she did. But there was always the statement made by the Commandant that one of his goals was to have "a female Corps Commander". It says, if you have two equal persons in all respects, but one is a female, that becomes a determining criteria. At the same time, had the criteria been to choose the male only because he was a male, that is wrong as well. Gender should not be a consideration. Neither should race, ethnicity, anything else. Best person, period.
I still love the Corps. I think I would still recommend it for my own kids. I believe the Corps still teaches leadership and life lessons that can't be learned elsewhere. Cadets learn both positive and negative leadership. I do think cadets can also learn how NOT to lead from the Corps. They learn how to lead and not lead from both cadets and CTOs, and from their own successes and failures, if they are allowed to.
Just my thoughts. Not right, not wrong, just different.
Lots of rumors flying around today about E-2. Here is the TRUTH:
1. E-2 is going to be gender integrated next year. It was mentioned before that Title IX applies to the Corps just as it does to athletics. It does. Right now females are excluded from being considered for Mascot Corporal because E-2 is an all-male outfit - a violation of Title IX. It was either we gender integrate E-2, or we move Reveille out of E-2 to a gender integrated outfit. Period. So yes, E-2 is going to be gender-integrated next year.
2. There is NO truth to the rumor that the Trigon is going to select the Mascot Corporal from now on. Pure BOGINT. E-2's process for selecting the Mascot Corporal will remain the same. The only difference now is that females can now be considered for Mascot Corporal, which means we no longer violate Title IX.
3. THIS Commandant NEVER said we'd have a female Corps Commander soon. I NEVER said those words. I have said since day one that race, ethnicity, religion, and gender have NO impact on the selection of the best leaders to lead for the Corps. In the 6 years I have been Commandant, we have had male commanders at every level, female commanders at every level, and a multitude of different ethnicities commanding at every level. Most have done very well. Some have not. But regardless, we always selected the BEST candidates to command - including Corps Commander. I would challenge anyone to refute the fact that Alyssa Michalke was a superb Corps Commander (she was also the Corps CSM her junior year) - just like the many male Corps Commanders who preceded her, including Marquis Alexander, the first African-American Corps Commander. Nothing PC about it at all (I love the fact that when a minority or female is selected for anything, some argue that its PC - like they aren't good enough to achieve such a position on their own merit) - we select the very best to command. Period.
You don't have to agree with the decision to gender integrate E-2 - we fully expected there would be those who would NOT agree. I get it. But the decision had to be made to ensure the Corps was in compliance with Title IX and before "others" made the decision for us. We are going to ensure that E-2 remains the high caliber outfit that it always has been, and their internal processes for selecting the Mascot Corporal will NOT change.
There will probably be more rumors flying, and no doubt many more who will express their objection to this decision. I understand and accept that. I hope this at least makes it clear why the decision was made, and quells some of the rumors currently flying around out there.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment - not going to argue the point here, just explaining what has happened and why.
Gig 'em!
1. E-2 is going to be gender integrated next year. It was mentioned before that Title IX applies to the Corps just as it does to athletics. It does. Right now females are excluded from being considered for Mascot Corporal because E-2 is an all-male outfit - a violation of Title IX. It was either we gender integrate E-2, or we move Reveille out of E-2 to a gender integrated outfit. Period. So yes, E-2 is going to be gender-integrated next year.
2. There is NO truth to the rumor that the Trigon is going to select the Mascot Corporal from now on. Pure BOGINT. E-2's process for selecting the Mascot Corporal will remain the same. The only difference now is that females can now be considered for Mascot Corporal, which means we no longer violate Title IX.
3. THIS Commandant NEVER said we'd have a female Corps Commander soon. I NEVER said those words. I have said since day one that race, ethnicity, religion, and gender have NO impact on the selection of the best leaders to lead for the Corps. In the 6 years I have been Commandant, we have had male commanders at every level, female commanders at every level, and a multitude of different ethnicities commanding at every level. Most have done very well. Some have not. But regardless, we always selected the BEST candidates to command - including Corps Commander. I would challenge anyone to refute the fact that Alyssa Michalke was a superb Corps Commander (she was also the Corps CSM her junior year) - just like the many male Corps Commanders who preceded her, including Marquis Alexander, the first African-American Corps Commander. Nothing PC about it at all (I love the fact that when a minority or female is selected for anything, some argue that its PC - like they aren't good enough to achieve such a position on their own merit) - we select the very best to command. Period.
You don't have to agree with the decision to gender integrate E-2 - we fully expected there would be those who would NOT agree. I get it. But the decision had to be made to ensure the Corps was in compliance with Title IX and before "others" made the decision for us. We are going to ensure that E-2 remains the high caliber outfit that it always has been, and their internal processes for selecting the Mascot Corporal will NOT change.
There will probably be more rumors flying, and no doubt many more who will express their objection to this decision. I understand and accept that. I hope this at least makes it clear why the decision was made, and quells some of the rumors currently flying around out there.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment - not going to argue the point here, just explaining what has happened and why.
Gig 'em!
While I don't agree with every decision, i truly appreciate your participation on this forum.
Thanks for the reply sir.
E-2 '05
E-2 '05
Trinity Ag
Joined:
Oct 26, 1999
Posts:
27,708
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Funny since I had different expectations when joining the corps than when I choose to serve...I at least had the choice to be amongst other men for my Corps experience. Why? Because that's the environment I wanted to spend my college years in. Doesn't mean I have anything against women, it just means that I chose not to get involved with all the BS that comes with life in an integrated outfit.
I mean holy **** dude, I chose to leave a certain non integrated outfit because I had other intentions for my career and wanted my Corps experience to better reflect that.
Also nothing wrong with a "20th Century mindset"
It's the only thing preventing the madness that is millennial thinking from completely destroying this organization and our country.
Also in response to GRam,
You mentioned how y'all pick the best possible candidate for these leadership roles. So what you're telling us is that this girl was a better fit to be E-2s 1st Sgt than E-2s current guidon, who got pulled for 1st Sgt for S-2? I get you want to integrate RebelE to "be in compliance with Title IX" but why not just open up the outfit to class of 2021 next year?
RIP RebelE
I mean holy **** dude, I chose to leave a certain non integrated outfit because I had other intentions for my career and wanted my Corps experience to better reflect that.
Also nothing wrong with a "20th Century mindset"
It's the only thing preventing the madness that is millennial thinking from completely destroying this organization and our country.
Also in response to GRam,
You mentioned how y'all pick the best possible candidate for these leadership roles. So what you're telling us is that this girl was a better fit to be E-2s 1st Sgt than E-2s current guidon, who got pulled for 1st Sgt for S-2? I get you want to integrate RebelE to "be in compliance with Title IX" but why not just open up the outfit to class of 2021 next year?
RIP RebelE
If you're still on the quad I'd suggest asking him in person instead of behind a username.
It's also pretty obvious it's to ease the transition into integration. It doesn't work out so well to just throw females into an outfit.
It's also pretty obvious it's to ease the transition into integration. It doesn't work out so well to just throw females into an outfit.
I guess under the guise of Title IX I can apply for the Women's Chorus or the Softball team. Wondering why this is all of a sudden just now popping up.CT20unkown said:
Funny since I had different expectations when joining the corps than when I choose to serve...I at least had the choice to be amongst other men for my Corps experience. Why? Because that's the environment I wanted to spend my college years in. Doesn't mean I have anything against women, it just means that I chose not to get involved with all the BS that comes with life in an integrated outfit.
I mean holy **** dude, I chose to leave a certain non integrated outfit because I had other intentions for my career and wanted my Corps experience to better reflect that.
Also nothing wrong with a "20th Century mindset"
It's the only thing preventing the madness that is millennial thinking from completely destroying this organization and our country.
Also in response to GRam,
You mentioned how y'all pick the best possible candidate for these leadership roles. So what you're telling us is that this girl was a better fit to be E-2s 1st Sgt than E-2s current guidon, who got pulled for 1st Sgt for S-2? I get you want to integrate RebelE to "be in compliance with Title IX" but why not just open up the outfit to class of 2021 next year?
RIP RebelE
It's "just now popping up" to you, not to the people whose opinions actually matter. Yes, you could be on the Women's Chorus.JCRebel13 said:I guess under the guise of Title IX I can apply for the Women's Chorus or the Softball team. Wondering why this is all of a sudden just now popping up.CT20unkown said:
Funny since I had different expectations when joining the corps than when I choose to serve...I at least had the choice to be amongst other men for my Corps experience. Why? Because that's the environment I wanted to spend my college years in. Doesn't mean I have anything against women, it just means that I chose not to get involved with all the BS that comes with life in an integrated outfit.
I mean holy **** dude, I chose to leave a certain non integrated outfit because I had other intentions for my career and wanted my Corps experience to better reflect that.
Also nothing wrong with a "20th Century mindset"
It's the only thing preventing the madness that is millennial thinking from completely destroying this organization and our country.
Also in response to GRam,
You mentioned how y'all pick the best possible candidate for these leadership roles. So what you're telling us is that this girl was a better fit to be E-2s 1st Sgt than E-2s current guidon, who got pulled for 1st Sgt for S-2? I get you want to integrate RebelE to "be in compliance with Title IX" but why not just open up the outfit to class of 2021 next year?
RIP RebelE
Tribe2013 said:It's "just now popping up" to you, not to the people whose opinions actually matter. Yes, you could be on the Women's Chorus.JCRebel13 said:I guess under the guise of Title IX I can apply for the Women's Chorus or the Softball team. Wondering why this is all of a sudden just now popping up.CT20unkown said:
Funny since I had different expectations when joining the corps than when I choose to serve...I at least had the choice to be amongst other men for my Corps experience. Why? Because that's the environment I wanted to spend my college years in. Doesn't mean I have anything against women, it just means that I chose not to get involved with all the BS that comes with life in an integrated outfit.
I mean holy **** dude, I chose to leave a certain non integrated outfit because I had other intentions for my career and wanted my Corps experience to better reflect that.
Also nothing wrong with a "20th Century mindset"
It's the only thing preventing the madness that is millennial thinking from completely destroying this organization and our country.
Also in response to GRam,
You mentioned how y'all pick the best possible candidate for these leadership roles. So what you're telling us is that this girl was a better fit to be E-2s 1st Sgt than E-2s current guidon, who got pulled for 1st Sgt for S-2? I get you want to integrate RebelE to "be in compliance with Title IX" but why not just open up the outfit to class of 2021 next year?
RIP RebelE
You don't see the obvious problem with allowing men to join the women's softball team?
I ignored the softball team remark, because gender dysphoria is a recognized mental illness and not just a political fad. That's governed by the NCAA Politburo. Student groups at A&M are governed by A&MChamp Bailey said:Tribe2013 said:It's "just now popping up" to you, not to the people whose opinions actually matter. Yes, you could be on the Women's Chorus.JCRebel13 said:I guess under the guise of Title IX I can apply for the Women's Chorus or the Softball team. Wondering why this is all of a sudden just now popping up.CT20unkown said:
Funny since I had different expectations when joining the corps than when I choose to serve...I at least had the choice to be amongst other men for my Corps experience. Why? Because that's the environment I wanted to spend my college years in. Doesn't mean I have anything against women, it just means that I chose not to get involved with all the BS that comes with life in an integrated outfit.
I mean holy **** dude, I chose to leave a certain non integrated outfit because I had other intentions for my career and wanted my Corps experience to better reflect that.
Also nothing wrong with a "20th Century mindset"
It's the only thing preventing the madness that is millennial thinking from completely destroying this organization and our country.
Also in response to GRam,
You mentioned how y'all pick the best possible candidate for these leadership roles. So what you're telling us is that this girl was a better fit to be E-2s 1st Sgt than E-2s current guidon, who got pulled for 1st Sgt for S-2? I get you want to integrate RebelE to "be in compliance with Title IX" but why not just open up the outfit to class of 2021 next year?
RIP RebelE
You don't see the obvious problem with allowing men to join the women's softball team?
Sir,Commandant79 said:
Lots of rumors flying around today about E-2. Here is the TRUTH:
Why are you always having to get on TexAgs to defend your actions or squash rumors and tell the TRUTH?
Why do you not utilize the CCA or internal communication channels to get out in front of these changes to outfits?
This current situation you are facing in E-2, last year with I-1, The Spirit of '02 placement in Kyle Field, the dadgum Trees on the Quad, Aggie Band travel, and similar examples within Facebook Forums and this TexAgs page. You've had to get on here and defend/reason your thought process and final decisions rather than providing the correct information FIRST within the former student ranks.
What is the purpose of the CCA then if not utilized to get our feedback or disseminate information to your greatest support/fan/donor base?? Is it just a non-profit used to support the ancillary cadet life experiences beyond the OOC budget? Or is it really an association of former members of the Corps of Cadets? I realize you can punt these questions to Col. Crawford and his staff but I believe they are valid questions.
You allow for a lot of rumors to be created by not getting out in front of the story. I am a Former Rebel, Class of 2009, and the within the different text groups and facebook messages flying around over the past 72 hours, what is true and not true to this situation has drastically varied.
I am not on this forum to challenge your Title IX reasoning of integration of E-2, I will allow myself the time to ask questions and have that conversation in person with you, if given that opportunity, for dialogue.
I am here to ask you to please start to get ahead of these stories. Some decisions/actions I understand you'll never know if they create tension with fans/supporters/donors of the Corps until they have been made, a la Quad Trees, but you KNEW the integration of E-2 was not just going to happen quietly. But you chose for all of us to find out buried within a Facebook post.
Forrest Gump said:Sir,Commandant79 said:
Lots of rumors flying around today about E-2. Here is the TRUTH:
Why are you always having to get on TexAgs to defend your actions or squash rumors and tell the TRUTH?
Why do you not utilize the CCA or internal communication channels to get out in front of these changes to outfits?
This current situation you are facing in E-2, last year with I-1, The Spirit of '02 placement in Kyle Field, the dadgum Trees on the Quad, Aggie Band travel, and similar examples within Facebook Forums and this TexAgs page. You've had to get on here and defend/reason your thought process and final decisions rather than providing the correct information FIRST within the former student ranks.
What is the purpose of the CCA then if not utilized to get our feedback or disseminate information to your greatest support/fan/donor base?? Is it just a non-profit used to support the ancillary cadet life experiences beyond the OOC budget? Or is it really an association of former members of the Corps of Cadets? I realize you can punt these questions to Col. Crawford and his staff but I believe they are valid questions.
You allow for a lot of rumors to be created by not getting out in front of the story. I am a Former Rebel, Class of 2009, and the within the different text groups and facebook messages flying around over the past 72 hours, what is true and not true to this situation has drastically varied.
I am not on this forum to challenge your Title IX reasoning of integration of E-2, I will allow myself the time to ask questions and have that conversation in person with you, if given that opportunity, for dialogue.
I am here to ask you to please start to get ahead of these stories. Some decisions/actions I understand you'll never know if they create tension with fans/supporters/donors of the Corps until they have been made, a la Quad Trees, but you KNEW the integration of E-2 was not just going to happen quietly. But you chose for all of us to find out buried within a Facebook post.
Not only us, but the boys in E2 NOW who specifically selected E2 because of its background and now have found out via Facebook of all things.
That's unacceptable. I'm sorry, but I'm going to call that out. Unless I'm simply misinformed about that, if I was in the outfit, I would have appreciated a simple heads up. Not finding out on social media and leaving room for rumors to run amuk.
First, I really appreciate the Commandant getting on here and responding to questions.
But this thread is a microcosm for how the whole process has played out over the past couple of decades.
I think there is the idea amongst some people that some outfits "naturally" integrated and other didn't. That's just not the case. Gator 2 in particular was down to one female after final review '04 but constantly had new female recruits "directed" towards the outfit to make sure we stayed integrated.
E-2 is about to get the same treatment.
Having said all that, I don't think having one female affected my class in any way. We are all still really tight, hang out for beers once every week or two, keep up with each other, etc.
But the big drawback to being integrated, even if it is only a few females, is that it demotes your outfit from the majors into AAA. Sorry to say it, but the all-male outfits will never have the same respect for your outfit no matter what you do. The reactions I'm seeing from E-2 guys on here are pretty painful because that's exactly what happened to other outfits over the years.
Best advice I could give is to be glad that your outfit held on as long as it did.
But this thread is a microcosm for how the whole process has played out over the past couple of decades.
I think there is the idea amongst some people that some outfits "naturally" integrated and other didn't. That's just not the case. Gator 2 in particular was down to one female after final review '04 but constantly had new female recruits "directed" towards the outfit to make sure we stayed integrated.
E-2 is about to get the same treatment.
Having said all that, I don't think having one female affected my class in any way. We are all still really tight, hang out for beers once every week or two, keep up with each other, etc.
But the big drawback to being integrated, even if it is only a few females, is that it demotes your outfit from the majors into AAA. Sorry to say it, but the all-male outfits will never have the same respect for your outfit no matter what you do. The reactions I'm seeing from E-2 guys on here are pretty painful because that's exactly what happened to other outfits over the years.
Best advice I could give is to be glad that your outfit held on as long as it did.
In response to Forrest Gump: I have never come on TexAgs to "defend my actions." Not the way I operate. Despite the fact that I have been advised by MANY not to come on TexAgs and comment, I do so merely to put out the truth about issues/rumors/mistruths/etc concerning the Corps. I do NOT do so to solicit anyone's approval or to try and defend myself against those who disagree with a policy or decision I make - or others make - concerning the Corps. No matter what decisions are made, there will always be those who disagree and will express their disapproval in a variety of ways - including posting on TexAgs. Nothing that I say or do is going to change that, and I accept that.
As I said in my previous post, I am not going to debate or argue my decisions or policies on TexAgs with anyone. I will put out the truth about a particular issue, then let those who choose to disagree do so as they choose to on these threads. Again, no matter what is said, it won't change some people's minds about a particular decision, and that is fine with me.
There is no "getting ahead of stories" when it comes to these matters. I don't make decisions based on what I think the former students want, or may feel about a particular issue. I would never be able to make a decision if I operated that way. I operate under the rules, policies, and guidelines of Texas A&M University. I make decisions that I feel are in the best interest of our cadets and our Corps, given those rules, policies, and guidelines. Exactly why we have grown the Corps to 2500 cadets, why our GPA is now over a 3.0, why we are leading the nation in commissioning officers outside the academies, why our indiscipline rates are at their lowest numbers ever, why more cadets go abroad through the OOC than ever before, why our Quad has undergone the largest renovation since it was built in 1939, etc. You don't have to agree with the decisions or the process - again, I fully accept that some won't - but I do all of this with the full support of the University administration and with the input and advice of a very experienced and seasoned staff. I make the decisions I make for the good of the cadets and the Corps, and while some may disagree, you have to trust that that is exactly why I do what I do - just as I did as leader in the Army.
Again, many have advised me to stay off TexAgs, and to be honest, I have often considered just dropping off and leaving the in-fighting to those of you who are regular visitors/posters on TexAgs. Given what you have written in your post, Forrest, it may be time for me to do just that. Before I do, however, I will say again, that the decision on E-2 has been made, it goes into effect next year, and it was a move that needed to be made. My staff and I are going to do all we can to ensure that this transition for E-2 is successful, and I firmly believe it will be. While I know some old Rebel E alums are not happy about it, I hope they will eventually understand why the decision had to be made, and support the cadets who carry on the proud tradition of E-2. I can assure you that the cadets in E-2 will make all of us proud.
Signing off the net. Thanks for your support, and for your personal insights, even if I didn't always agree with you and you didn't always agree with me. Your love and support of Texas A&M and our Corps is evident in all of you who post, and I certainly can't find any fault in that. That is one thing we all share in common, even if we may disagree on other things.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Gig 'em!
As I said in my previous post, I am not going to debate or argue my decisions or policies on TexAgs with anyone. I will put out the truth about a particular issue, then let those who choose to disagree do so as they choose to on these threads. Again, no matter what is said, it won't change some people's minds about a particular decision, and that is fine with me.
There is no "getting ahead of stories" when it comes to these matters. I don't make decisions based on what I think the former students want, or may feel about a particular issue. I would never be able to make a decision if I operated that way. I operate under the rules, policies, and guidelines of Texas A&M University. I make decisions that I feel are in the best interest of our cadets and our Corps, given those rules, policies, and guidelines. Exactly why we have grown the Corps to 2500 cadets, why our GPA is now over a 3.0, why we are leading the nation in commissioning officers outside the academies, why our indiscipline rates are at their lowest numbers ever, why more cadets go abroad through the OOC than ever before, why our Quad has undergone the largest renovation since it was built in 1939, etc. You don't have to agree with the decisions or the process - again, I fully accept that some won't - but I do all of this with the full support of the University administration and with the input and advice of a very experienced and seasoned staff. I make the decisions I make for the good of the cadets and the Corps, and while some may disagree, you have to trust that that is exactly why I do what I do - just as I did as leader in the Army.
Again, many have advised me to stay off TexAgs, and to be honest, I have often considered just dropping off and leaving the in-fighting to those of you who are regular visitors/posters on TexAgs. Given what you have written in your post, Forrest, it may be time for me to do just that. Before I do, however, I will say again, that the decision on E-2 has been made, it goes into effect next year, and it was a move that needed to be made. My staff and I are going to do all we can to ensure that this transition for E-2 is successful, and I firmly believe it will be. While I know some old Rebel E alums are not happy about it, I hope they will eventually understand why the decision had to be made, and support the cadets who carry on the proud tradition of E-2. I can assure you that the cadets in E-2 will make all of us proud.
Signing off the net. Thanks for your support, and for your personal insights, even if I didn't always agree with you and you didn't always agree with me. Your love and support of Texas A&M and our Corps is evident in all of you who post, and I certainly can't find any fault in that. That is one thing we all share in common, even if we may disagree on other things.
Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Gig 'em!
If you want to integrate E-2 that's one thing. But to take someone who has put in 2 years in one of the toughest outfits in the corps, was guidon this year, is academically successful in engineering, most likely going to be a marine contract by the end of the semester, and move him to S-2 just so you can make a political statement by putting a female as 1st sgt of E-2 is so wrong. If he's good enough to be 1st sgt of S-2, then how is he not good enough to be in the same position in the outfit he's spent two years in than someone moving in from another outfit whether it be a male or female? You should think about the effects it has on cadets before making political statements.
Crbreuer said:
If you want to integrate E-2 that's one thing. But to take someone who has put in 2 years in one of the toughest outfits in the corps, was guidon this year, is academically successful in engineering, most likely going to be a marine contract by the end of the semester, and move him to S-2 just so you can make a political statement by putting a female as 1st sgt of E-2 is so wrong. If he's good enough to be 1st sgt of S-2, then how is he not good enough to be in the same position in the outfit he's spent two years in than someone moving in from another outfit whether it be a male or female? You should think about the effects it has on cadets before making political statements.
Not only that, but this new S2 first sergeant is from an outfit that's never been integrated and you're putting him into an outfit that is integrated with peers he doesn't know and expecting him to succeed. Likewise for this Lindsay moving to E2 and expecting her to succeed in an outfit about to be integrated alongside peers who have been apart of an all male outfit and choose to be in an all male outfit when they joined the Corps. Is this new E2 first sergeant going to go through Mascot training? Is she going to learn the operation orders and procedures that the entire outfit has learned regarding the mascot for the University? Everyone in E2 needs to know it and now there's an individual in the outfit that has zero training on that matter and now she's expected to lead the charge towards integration. Still curious why the young men in E2 are finding this out on social media. I'd love an answer to that one.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
3h ago
3.8k
12:07
2h ago
3.7k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
17h ago
967
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger
Colonel Ingus
"We are not a team built to play from behind" - Elko
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29