Common sense and co-ed training

By Elaine Donnelly
The Washington Times, 09 June 1998

Despite a rash of sensational sex scandals at military training bases, some members of
Congress
are reluctant to take action.

They don’t even want to answer simple questions, such as, should young women trainees at
boot
camp be sleeping side by side with young men? Should male drill instructors have after-hours
access to young women’s private quarters? Are co-ed training and sleeping facilities more or less
conducive to good order and discipline? And why does it take an act of Congress to mandate
common sense?

The reason is “fem fear,” an irrational anxiety that grips the hearts of otherwise-sensible men
when they contemplate doing anything that might annoy a feminist. In recent years, “fem fear”
has affected the judgment of Pentagon officials, both uniformed and civilian. Members of
Congress also are susceptible. How else to explain the actions of Sen. Dirk Kempthorne,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, who sponsored an amendment
with Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, calling for a “moratorium” on policies being reviewed by the
newly formed Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues.

This a disingenuous delaying tactic. The new commission won’t complete its work until well
into
1999, and Mr. Kempthorne’s subcommittee has yet to hear testimony on the 1997 report of a
similar advisory committee, chaired by former Kansas Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker.

Members of the Kassebaum Baker Commission, who were politically moderate-to-liberal but
largely independent of the current administration, voted unanimously for an end to co-ed living
conditions and basic training in small, platoon-sized units. (The Marine Corps retains gender
separation in larger units as well as platoons.) The commission also sent an emphatic message to
Congress: “The present organizational structure in integrated basic training is resulting in less
discipline, less unit cohesion and more distraction from training programs.”

To learn more about why Mrs. Kassebaum reached this conclusion, Republican Rep. Steve
Buyer of Indiana, chairman of the House National Security Personnel Subcommittee, scheduled a
full and balanced hearing on March 17. With a series of attentive questions, subcommittee
members elicited revealing information that turned the debate around. Army, Navy, Air Force
and Defense Department officials presented earnest arguments in support of the status quo, but
they struggled to answer questions honestly without violating the administration’s party line.

During the course of the hearing, Rep. James Talent noted that contemporary young men and
women are already accustomed to working with the opposite sex. Why is it necessary, therefore,
to complicate basic training programs with the burden of sexual distractions and special sensitivity
training? The ensuing colloquy was so convoluted, Mr. Buyer said it was beginning to persuade
him that the Army should follow the example of the Marine Corps. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of
Maryland complimented the Army representative for “doing a good job defending the
indefensible.”

Democrat Gene Taylor of Mississippi commented on the wide gap between current testimony
and
the private pleas of Army officers who dreaded inevitable problems associated with co-ed basic
training. Together with Reps. Buyer and Bartlett, Mr. Taylor later became a co-sponsor of
amendments to restore gender-separated living quarters and basic training in small units. During
the debate prior to adoption of the amendments by the full committee, Mr. Taylor spoke plainly:
“We’re trying to get basic training back to training recruits. There wasn’t a great deal of discussion
when they began mixing the sexes. We can’t wait forever.”

Forever seems fine to the feminists, who have been noticeably quiet about a new
Aberdeen-sized
scandal at the Navy’s Great Lakes Training Center. The Chicago Tribune reported on May 8 that
five drill instructors, called recruit division commanders in the Navy, have been charged with
fraternization, obstruction of justice, abuse of authority, and various kinds of sexual misconduct.
According to Mr. Bartlett, charges include voluntary sex games in exchange for special favors,
coercive oral sex, and the alleged impregnation of a female trainee by one of her instructors. The
parallel with Aberdeen is striking, and ominous.

Only a few months ago, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen was lauding Great Lakes, the
Navy’s only boot camp, as a “role model” for gender-integrated training. During a visit last
September, Mr. Cohen enthused about strong “leadership” and “accountability” that the experts
said would prevent sex scandals. Alas, the Navy’s own Titanic has just scraped the iceberg.

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is not willing to wait until three years after
Aberdeen
to do something about sex scandals in the military. An amendment to the Defense Authorization
Bill sponsored by Mr. Brownback and several other senators would mirror legislation, already
adopted by the House, requiring boot camps to separate men and women in their sleeping areas
after hours. Such a measure would be a modest first step to minimize a problem that isn’t going
away.

Basic training should not be a proving ground for feminist theories. It is the first building
block in
a process designed to teach discipline and military skills, including survival. To successfully
transform civilians into uniformed members of the armed forces, concentration is essential, and
distractions must be kept to a minimum.

After a five-year trial ending in 1982, gender-integrated basic training was declared a failure.
Women were suffering excessive injuries, and men were not being challenged enough.
Nevertheless, the Clinton administration revived the program in 1994, with no congressional
oversight or convincing justification. To avoid failure this time around, proponents have simply
redefined success, in terms of women’s morale. To accommodate women’s capabilities, physical
training components have been reduced or gender-normed, less-demanding requirements have
been assigned greater importance, and focus groups measure “cohesion” in terms of touchy-feely
emotions.

Reported benefits of gender-mixed basic training range from non-existent to minimal at best.
In
return, co-ed training and sleeping arrangements have led to sexual abuse and exploitation of
young women trainees, universal bewilderment about appropriate behavior, gender-normed
standards that reduce the challenge for men, an alarming decline in recruiting numbers (except in
the Marine Corps), and serious deficiencies in advanced training that may be related to boot camp
distractions.

Feminist advocates keep insisting “we must train as we fight.” But if we fight as we train –
burdened with unprecedented disciplinary problems that our potential enemies do not have –
America’s armed forces will be in deep trouble. As Mr. Taylor told military representatives back
in March, “You’re wasting a lot of time trying to gender-norm things. I think it’s crazy. . . . It’s
not OK. It’s not working.” Corrective measures are long overdue. As Congress prepares to act,
members have nothing to fear but “fem fear” itself.

Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, which specializes in
military
personnel issues.