Doesn't the Corps have their own E walk?

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Doesn't the Corps have their own E walk?

---

No, we walked as a class.

Roger Goodell said:

---

So will my money.

---

Why let it go that far?
Going to continue supporting for another 2-8 years, funding these beliefs and thoughts then cut funding?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10156293074102885&id=44694017884

Back in my day we didn't let the political agenda get in the way of tradition.

So I have no problem with stopping financial support, but you gotta make sure you let someone know why. Like I know a few people that just stopped donating to the CCA without telling them, or sending a letter or anything.

My son is a junior in HS and did spend the night with the corps this past Monday night. He asked the cadets who hosted him about the whole Sully/E walk thing. They said most of the seniors and the corps guys especially still stopped at Sully and didn't care what the student government snowflakes said.

This is not meant to disagree or to flame, just to give a little historical perspective. I was a cradle Aggie, born while my dad was at A&M. From the time I can remember I was counting the days 'til it was my turn to wear the boots,
I was in high school when the official word came down about the name change, optional Corps, and admitting women. I heard the same thing from the Old Ags of that day, "not another dime".
How's that worked out?

Roger Goodell said:

---

Back in my day we didn't let the political agenda get in the way of tradition.

---

I doubt that...but I have to ask. What year are we talking?

Fly Army 97 said:

---

Roger Goodell said:

---

Back in my day we didn't let the political agenda get in the way of tradition.

---

---

Clearly not the 1980s or 1990s.
Agendas included
- ensuring equal opportunities for women in the Corps, including in the RVs and Cav, in leadership positions, and in ultimately eliminating the single-sex units for women in favor of fully integrated units. Traditionally all male.
- addressing hazing, including in response to a fatality and enactment of statutes, such as controls on punitive PT. Traditionally hazing was a constant presence in the all male Corps.
- addressing academic performance, including ever-increasing emphasis on grades. Traditionally, (see Batt, December 1, 1893) not enough time to study in light of Corps games.

1890s

aggiejim70 said:

---

This is not meant to disagree or to flame, just to give a little historical perspective. I was a cradle Aggie, born while my dad was at A&M. From the time I can remember I was counting the days 'til it was my turn to wear the boots,
I was in high school when the official word came down about the name change, optional Corps, and admitting women. I heard the same thing from the Old Ags of that day, "not another dime".
How's that worked out?

---

There are too many Ags who love A&M warts and all to include changing with the times (good or bad). Not sure what the future holds for Sully, but I'd wager big $$ people will still give regardless.

Back in my day, we washed sully every day and polished him monthly. And people respected our traditions!

Quote:

---

addressing hazing, including in response to a fatality and enactment of statutes, such as controls on punitive PT. Traditionally hazing was a constant presence in the all male Corps.

---

That fatality happened in August of 1984; why was it still being discussed in the 90's?

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

addressing hazing, including in response to a fatality and enactment of statutes, such as controls on punitive PT. Traditionally hazing was a constant presence in the all male Corps.

---

That fatality happened in August of 1984; why was it still being discussed in the 90's?

---

Are we expected to learn from these events? Maybe a caution to 19 year old pissheads that taking it a bit too far may have consequences as we unfortunately experienced 10 years ago?

We talk about aircraft, tank, infantry accidents that took place 10 years ago...all the time.

Fly Army 97 said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

addressing hazing, including in response to a fatality and enactment of statutes, such as controls on punitive PT. Traditionally hazing was a constant presence in the all male Corps.

---

That fatality happened in August of 1984; why was it still being discussed in the 90's?

---

Are we expected to learn from these events? Maybe a caution to 19 year old pissheads that taking it a bit too far may have consequences as we unfortunately experienced 10 years ago?

We talk about aircraft, tank, infantry accidents that took place 10 years ago...all the time.

---

Watch the Stanford Experiment on Netflix. It's eerily close to pissheads in the hallway

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Quote:

---

addressing hazing, including in response to a fatality and enactment of statutes, such as controls on punitive PT. Traditionally hazing was a constant presence in the all male Corps.

---

That fatality happened in August of 1984; why was it still being discussed in the 90's?

---

Because the new state hazing statute was enacted in 1987 and the new Commandant made a priority of ensuring compliance with the law.

Roger Goodell said:

---

Back in my day, we washed sully every day and polished him monthly. And people respected our traditions!

---

And you were eroding him away. That's why it stopped.