Posted on Aug 17, 2015
This is why standards should not be lowered in order to get anybody into SF's. Do you know Lt. Kara Hultgreen's story?
73.2K
424
154
69
68
1
This is NOT a thread to demonstrate why women shouldn't be in combat. It's a thread to demonstrate why standards shouldn't be lowered to get them (or anyone) there. Please be civil.
In the early 90's, the White house and Congress were fairly desperate to rid themselves of the stink of Tail Hook, and so instigated a program to allow women to become combat pilots in the Navy. Lt. Hultgreen was the first of these. During her training, she received several 'down' marks, any of which would have sent a male packing. Yet she continued to advance through her training. It cost her her life.
"Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR (Center for Military Readiness), shows that Lt. Hultgreen not only had subpar performance on several phases of her training but had four "downs" (major errors), just one or two of which are sufficient to justify the dismissal of a trainee. The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death. But the story doesn't end there. A second female F-14A pilot, identified by Elaine Donnelly only as Pilot B, has been allowed to continue training despite marginal scores and seven "downs", the last of which was not recorded so she could pass the final stages of training." -- "Costly Affirmative Action" -- Walter E Williams.
In the approach that killed her, she made five identified errors, causing a stall that had, up until that time, never been caused in such a manner in the F-14. She died for political correctness.
I am sure that Lt. Hultgreen was a fine person. She should have never been in that cockpit. Her RIO nearly died as a result. Her death lies squarely at the feet of the White House, Congress, and the Naval leadership that allowed this to happen.
Soon after her death, policy was changed that required females to meet the same standards. And as you know, today, there are plenty of excellent female fighter pilots who SHOULD be where they are.
Because they met the bar.
No more. No less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen
In the early 90's, the White house and Congress were fairly desperate to rid themselves of the stink of Tail Hook, and so instigated a program to allow women to become combat pilots in the Navy. Lt. Hultgreen was the first of these. During her training, she received several 'down' marks, any of which would have sent a male packing. Yet she continued to advance through her training. It cost her her life.
"Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR (Center for Military Readiness), shows that Lt. Hultgreen not only had subpar performance on several phases of her training but had four "downs" (major errors), just one or two of which are sufficient to justify the dismissal of a trainee. The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death. But the story doesn't end there. A second female F-14A pilot, identified by Elaine Donnelly only as Pilot B, has been allowed to continue training despite marginal scores and seven "downs", the last of which was not recorded so she could pass the final stages of training." -- "Costly Affirmative Action" -- Walter E Williams.
In the approach that killed her, she made five identified errors, causing a stall that had, up until that time, never been caused in such a manner in the F-14. She died for political correctness.
I am sure that Lt. Hultgreen was a fine person. She should have never been in that cockpit. Her RIO nearly died as a result. Her death lies squarely at the feet of the White House, Congress, and the Naval leadership that allowed this to happen.
Soon after her death, policy was changed that required females to meet the same standards. And as you know, today, there are plenty of excellent female fighter pilots who SHOULD be where they are.
Because they met the bar.
No more. No less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen
Military History
Political Correctness
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 53
28
28
0
There's another problem in today's society. We are too worried about the first woman, black, Hispanic or whatever and we have lost sight of having the most qualified. We are all warfighters, it doesn't matter what color or sex. You go on a submarine (and I assume surface ship) and everyone might as well be what the land forces call combat arms. Everyone has a battlestation that either performs damage control or puts weapons on target.
We get all happy about the "first" whatever and believe progress has been made even if that person can't find their ass with both hands.
We don't have a touchy-feely job, we exist to kill people. This is not the place to lower standards.
We get all happy about the "first" whatever and believe progress has been made even if that person can't find their ass with both hands.
We don't have a touchy-feely job, we exist to kill people. This is not the place to lower standards.
(28)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
CPO Joseph Grant - the problem with this thread is that it a NAVY guy takes shots at an ARMY instution and an ARMY school by using a NAVY issue. CPO Grant, please correct your sailor.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CPT Pedro Meza Maj Mike Sciales CPO Joseph Grant - First off, Captain, the Army doesn't lay special claim to SF's. You may have heard of Navy SEALs? Devgru? Force Recon? Combat Controllers? PJ's? (Hell, I'd include CG rescue swimmers in this group!) I did not single out ANY specific branch, contrary to your comment here. Furthermore, please show me in my post where I said anything about Rangers at all? Secondly, I wasn't taking shots at anybody but the leadership who, in an attempt to save face and their jobs, allowed someone who was not qualified to enter into a dangerous position. You're focusing on the title I used (which could have as easily read '...shouldn't be lowered to allow anybody into COMBAT...'), and completely ignoring the content.
I apologize if I have inadvertently offended you, but I am at a loss as to how I did. I assure you, Sir, I have nothing but respect for ALL our SF's, across all our branches. As I do for you.
I apologize if I have inadvertently offended you, but I am at a loss as to how I did. I assure you, Sir, I have nothing but respect for ALL our SF's, across all our branches. As I do for you.
(2)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
SN Greg Wright -- I wasn't offended. I'm a firm believer in maintenance of standards across the board. Our jobs are too important.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Maj Mike Sciales - Ah, my remarks were addressed to the Captain, Major. You were in the conversation so I included you in my response. Sorry for the confusion!
(0)
(0)
19
19
0
SN Greg Wright This is the first that I've heard of this story - thanks for sharing. Let's hope we don't lose anymore good people in the military because we cut corners. I'm a big proponent of female in combat positions and specialities, as long as they meet the standards. That goes for men as well. Standards, testing, and evaluation are there for a purpose.
(19)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO2 Melanye Francisco
Capt Jeff S. - Actually, several news sources have reported that they were recycled, failed and then offered a Day 1 restart, which not many men, who are offered the same thing, take. Yet, these two ladies did.
The standards are not lowered for those doing a recycle nor are they lowered for someone doing a Day 1 re-start in the Rangers, male or female. And while not all news sources were sharing that information, sometimes it is up to us, the readers, to do a bit more research to find more info.
As for the story about Lt. Hultgreen, it is the unfortunate truth. She should have never been in that aircraft. Being a woman, I had to prove that I could do the job as well as, if not better, than the men I was stationed with. Standards for qualifications didn't change, however, I do know that several women that were assigned to the line shack with me had signatures 'gun-decked'. Entering in 1992, women were not yet allowed on aircraft carriers. That didn't happen until 1993. I worked for and earned every single thing that I got while in the Navy.
I was even in a rate that was almost 85% male, as a front line right-there-with-the-guys worker. Again, our standards didn't change.
As long as the standards are kept the same for everyone, not lowered or altered in any way, I'm all for women entering other areas that were once only open to men. However, the moment those standards are lowered, or they are changed so that women can pass, like what happened with Lt. Hultgreen, I object. For if they cannot meet those standards in training, then they are unreliable in the field. More people would be put at risk as soon as a long held standard is changed in order to get women into the special forces in any branch.
The standards are not lowered for those doing a recycle nor are they lowered for someone doing a Day 1 re-start in the Rangers, male or female. And while not all news sources were sharing that information, sometimes it is up to us, the readers, to do a bit more research to find more info.
As for the story about Lt. Hultgreen, it is the unfortunate truth. She should have never been in that aircraft. Being a woman, I had to prove that I could do the job as well as, if not better, than the men I was stationed with. Standards for qualifications didn't change, however, I do know that several women that were assigned to the line shack with me had signatures 'gun-decked'. Entering in 1992, women were not yet allowed on aircraft carriers. That didn't happen until 1993. I worked for and earned every single thing that I got while in the Navy.
I was even in a rate that was almost 85% male, as a front line right-there-with-the-guys worker. Again, our standards didn't change.
As long as the standards are kept the same for everyone, not lowered or altered in any way, I'm all for women entering other areas that were once only open to men. However, the moment those standards are lowered, or they are changed so that women can pass, like what happened with Lt. Hultgreen, I object. For if they cannot meet those standards in training, then they are unreliable in the field. More people would be put at risk as soon as a long held standard is changed in order to get women into the special forces in any branch.
(3)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
You brought up many good points but did not address the high failure rate for women and what that translates into as far as money wasted that could have been used more productively buying/modernizing equipment, conducting other types of training and advancing operational capabilities. And you also made no mention of the fact that women require more healthcare -- even when they're not in the woods.
What is it worth for us to say we have female combat soldiers when men pass at a much higher rate? And how does adding women to combat infantry benefit our overall operational capabilities? What gain offsets the increased cost of training women, accommodating their special needs and keeping them healthy?
How much money should taxpayers absorb as an acceptable amount of waste, just so that we can boast about our political correctness?
What is it worth for us to say we have female combat soldiers when men pass at a much higher rate? And how does adding women to combat infantry benefit our overall operational capabilities? What gain offsets the increased cost of training women, accommodating their special needs and keeping them healthy?
How much money should taxpayers absorb as an acceptable amount of waste, just so that we can boast about our political correctness?
(0)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
Capt Jeff Schwager - Could not disagree more. Standards are what makes the DoD such a revolutionary model. It encourages improvement. Your complaint seems to be with the political pressures brought to bear that resulted in that Navy pilot case. Political pressures are inconstant with military operations, but they pop up all the time. A tragic example is the April 3, 1996 crash of a USAF CT-43 (Boeing 737) VIP package flying out of the 89th Wing at Andrews, AFB, MD - Special Air Mission (SAM) with then Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. They were flying into Dubrovnik in bad weather - fog - against advice, missed and crashed into a mountain. Officially they say "pilot error and command error" led to the crash but the "command error" part is a bit vague. It should talk about the "political imperative" as a part of the "command error" label. Some pilots in his sqadron said:
"... of Captain Davis and Captain Schafer colleagues in the 76th Airlift Squadron, based in Ramstein, Germany, say they must cope with "get-there-itis," which pits prudence against punctuality when carrying distinguished passengers on tight schedules.
"It's inherent, because you know they have important meetings," said one squadron member. General McCarthy said "there is some pressure from the V.I.P. to get there," but he and other Air Force officers say they are successfully combating the problem."
Me again: This is why we have standards and this is why we cannot waive them for political expediency.
"... of Captain Davis and Captain Schafer colleagues in the 76th Airlift Squadron, based in Ramstein, Germany, say they must cope with "get-there-itis," which pits prudence against punctuality when carrying distinguished passengers on tight schedules.
"It's inherent, because you know they have important meetings," said one squadron member. General McCarthy said "there is some pressure from the V.I.P. to get there," but he and other Air Force officers say they are successfully combating the problem."
Me again: This is why we have standards and this is why we cannot waive them for political expediency.
(2)
(0)
16
16
0
I hadn't heard this but it doesn't surprise me. We often push too hard to cause equality at the eventual detriment of exactly that. It ends up causing animosity and potential discrimination to those who actually are qualified in the future.
(16)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google