There’s no truth to this, of course.
The state attorney general’s office is working to defend the Virginia Military Institute in what’s been a barely publicized 14-month federal probe into allegations that, more than a decade after enrolling its first female students, the school remains a hotbed of sexism.The complaint that prompted the investigation asserts not only that an overall hostile atmosphere exists at the school, but that its tough physical standards are unfair to women. Federal investigators halted their query into the physical standards, though, after VMI recently softened them
I never thought VMI should go private instead of accepting women and continuing on as a Commonwealth institution — we needed the ROTC programs and state funds. Now, I’m reconsidering. It’s becoming more and more clear that the VMI system and women are incompatible. Even after the slow dismantling of the freshman orientation process (the Ratline), tireless efforts on the part of the administration to “change the culture of VMI” (whatever that means), loosened physical standards, a thickened bureaucracy that includes Title IX, gender equality officers, female liasons, female commandant’s staff members, and a subtle-yet-obvious unspoken affirmative action policy that aggressively places women in influential regimental and student government positions — there are clearly still females that are unhappy with the atmosphere.
I readily admit that during my journey as a member of one of the first coed classes, there were some superb female cadets who cruised through the school without batting an eyelash. But is it sexist to concede that VMI is at a crossroads here, where they have to choose between safing barracks for females by completely neutralizing the natural male aggressiveness that made VMI men so remarkable on the battlefield, courts of law, and board rooms, or admitting that -despite the school’s best and noblest efforts to obey the rule of the law- there’s always been a discordance between the Institute’s spartan lifestyle and women’s natural biological construct?
It’s tough to get into these debates, because many are wont to call you a misogynist dinosaur and dismiss even tiny whispers that yes, single-sex education does have its benefits — particularly in the fierce military culture.
Honestly though, I’ve been numb to this fight for years. I just don’t care anymore. VMI is too old school for the 21st century society, where feelings truimph over virtue. It will continue to be the target of lawsuits and federal investigations and any other witchunt the culture police feel is necessary to usher along their vision of a neutral, mediocre, and thoroughly boring utopia. I’ll keep donating money to the school, because God I love it so, but not without a certain degree of sadness. Not at Supreme Court decisions or lowered standards, but because of the Institute’s devolution from national treasure to national pariah — and I don’t think there’s a road back.
VMI should be coed with how integrated the military is with women. Women now fight along side men in combat. They may not in combat arms jobs. But four women serving in GWOT were not awarded Silver Stars for gallantry serving behind a desk. Hopefully most of this stuff going on are just bad apples doing stupid shit.
“…but because of the Institute’s devolution from national treasure to national pariah — and I don’t think there’s a road back.”
One of the internet oracles over at Gates of Vienna mentioned yesterday about how the west is on track for a culture hiccup. That our society cannot function much longer under the worn out assumptions of PCism and other leftist doctrines of “fairness” that seemingly do little but erode the value of western thought.
If they are correct then it will be those last bastions of the “old school” you are a part of that will get us through the tough times ahead. Again, if true you are needed now more than ever before.
Heard that this was more of a facualty/staff issue than a cadet one. That I can see. But the the female facualty that was there when I was there, wasn’t all that impressive.
What kind of statement is this?
“But is it sexist to concede that VMI is at a crossroads here, where they have to choose between safing barracks for females by completely neutralizing the natural male aggressiveness that made VMI men so remarkable on the battlefield, courts of law, and board rooms, or admitting that -despite the school’s best and noblest efforts to obey the rule of the law- there’s always been a discordance between the Institute’s spartan lifestyle and women’s natural biological construct?”
That is the same foolish argument conservative Muslims use to force women to entirely cover themselves. That men cannot control themselves.
I would think VMI’s vaunted disciplinary system could ensure the safety of its female cadets. If a cadet cannot control his sexual urges in this type of setting then he certainly does not have the discipline to make a good officer.
I say go private and keep your values true, instead of watering yourself down to appease the jelly-spines of Washington.
Doug,
you cited John but your comment completely misses the quote.
“…there’s always been a discordance between the Institute’s spartan lifestyle and women’s natural biological construct?” -
“spartan lifestyle” v. “women biological construct” is NOT about a male cadet not able to control his sexual urges.
As a woman, I believe that I want to go to the military school like VMI or Citadel, I MUST complete the program as is, including physical part of it, not to ask to change/soften the program. That contadicts the whole idea of me, a woman, being as good as men are in everything that they do.
Whether by genetics or upbringing, the fact is that women on average suffer from lower starting points in upper body strength among other things. Being a statistical outlier or working harder to build muscle can equalize this, but lowering standards is not the answer. No matter what, you simply will not get similar percentages of men and women who can pass a given physical standard.
There’s nothing wrong with a woman who can pass a standard test, but there is something wrong with the stories I keep hearing about coed groups of soldiers having to distribute their female contingent’s baggage among the men because of double standards. Like any affirmative action program, this status quo undermines those who actually achieve parity.
Brain activity scans also show that information processing is substantially different between sexes, with each optimized to solve different spatial, psychological, and mathematical problems. Both styles may have a particular combat utility. I’d be interested to see how this fact could be exploited, but that’s probably too un-PC to ever happen.
You know, I’m a woman and I’m ALWAYS appalled at these sorts of things. Do I understand that sometimes a testosterone culture can be detrimental to a woman? Yes. BUT you VOLUNTEER for these things! Changing the standards for men and women only does everyone a disservice. The men have to pick up the slack where she can’t perform and really… WAR AND THE ENEMY DO NOT DIFFERENTIATE! (except of course that women are better hostages- the men see mom and sis) UGH! This, I believe, is part of the reason that the services suffer…
Can we agree that “..where feelings triumph over virtue” was the best summarization of progressive values?
Has this reporter put into context the 159 number? How about say in his report how many women have matriculated? Of course this reporter didn’t. VMI has bent over backwards to accomodate this, and this is what they get. These vultures will never leave VMI alone and will always be a target of the left. It has taken sometime after the ’96 decision, but they are here. Then when the damage is done, they will say VMI is very different but the same…just accept it. I agree things change over time, but change doesn’t mean it is automatically a good thing. VMI has radically changed, it is not good and I do not accept it.
Olga,
I agree that a woman should have to meet the generally accepted standards of the institution. The statement I quoted indicated that woman should not be allowed because the male cadets would not be able to control themselves in their presence. That is what I took exception to. Otherwise I totally agree with you.
Interestingly the investigation was started under Bush. Why did he do that?