THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, August 7, 1996 TAG: 9608070006
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: By MICHAEL F. COHEN
LENGTH: 65 lines
With its decision that VMI must now admit women, the Supreme Court has done it again - another victory for special interests, another defeat for common sense.
It's also becoming clear that VMI officials and alumni were justified in their observation that a mixed-gender VMI will not be the same institution. As pointed out by many previous contributors to this column, it is a matter of record at the major service academies that physical standards had to be lowered and indoctrination practices eased so that enough women could graduate to satisfy the meddling legislators who forced their admission. Sure enough, the ink is barely dry on the court's decision and already a feminist group is whining that VMI has no intention of relaxing its physical standards. They all want to play lumberjack, but holding up their end of the log is a different story.
Further, Shannon Faulkner's false start at The Citadel gave us reason to seriously question the motivation of young women who seek admission to such strictly male-oriented institutions. Ms. Faulkner proved that she could squeeze through a loophole in the admission process, but it is now clear that her desire for publicity was stronger than her desire to actually endure the rigors of a military-training program.
This controversy has produced a mind-set that we should not spend state funds on an institution that does not admit women - regardless of whether or not they can reasonably be accommodated at that institution. In view of the proven necessity to lower standards for women at military academies, it is time to question the wisdom of spending state funds on an institution that will be forced to produce inferior graduates.
Even more shocking to me was the opinion expressed by fellow Naval Academy alumnus David Beemer in his July 22 letter. To be sure, women have served with distinction, but we must always attach an asterisk and the footnote that their progress in combat units has been in a peacetime military. We must also weigh such alleged progress against the billions of tax dollars we have spent turning facilities upside down to accommodate women and the disruption of discipline that has occurred in virtually every mixed-gender unit - not to mention the careers of decorated admirals and aviators that have been destroyed over trivial issues. We must consider the useless liability that a pregnant sailor or soldier becomes and realize the wartime implications.
Further, Mr. Beemer admits that female officer candidates have not had to meet the same physical standards as men, but rhetorically asks, ``So what?'' As a career officer, especially an Annapolis graduate, he of all people should know that physical-strength standards were established for a reason. Despite the high-tech nature of modern warfare, the only real difference is in the accuracy with which the weapons are delivered. The situations where physical strength has always been critical will continue to exist, regardless of whether the damage was caused by missile, a projectile or a machine gun. Ships will suffer battle damage that must be shored up, female pilots will be shot down and have to endure unimaginable abuse as POWs, and there will be the necessity to carry wounded comrades from hazardous areas. Physical standards were based on those scenarios, and good damage control saved many ships during World War II.
In the next war, the physical inferiority of those who have not been required to measure up in the selection process will cost us ships and lives.
Worst of all, this ``progress'' will soon backfire as we see our mothers, daughters and sisters drafted. Everyone who thinks that is a good idea should send in their letters now. MEMO: Mr. Cohen lives in Virginia Beach. by CNB