UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
ROCKING THE BOAT: WOMEN ENTER MILITARY ACADEMIES THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN RETROSPECT
1973-1975
InternationalA.C. Showers Affairs Major
Class of 2010
April 22, 2008 Introduction
The position of Secretary of Defense still plaques scholars and politicians alike. The range of responsibilities cannot be gauged and the job most certainly does not come with a manual. Every Secretary will have their own trials and their own unique experiences during their time in office. The 1970’s were especially action-packed and posed many challenges for
Secretary James Schlesinger. Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War, changes in US Nuclear Policy and the conversion to an all volunteer military were just a few key issues in the limelight during
Secretary Schlesinger’s time in office from 1973-1975. A slightly less well known, although very significant event also occurred during Dr. Schlesinger’s time and resulted in a permanent alteration of the military and the reshaping of American society. On October 7, 1975, President
Ford signed Public Law 94-106, authorizing women to be admitted into the service academies, and subsequently changed the military forever (94th Cong, 1st sess, 1975). Secretary Schlesinger was at the forefront of this change by directly and indirectly influencing its development. The succession of events leading up to the eventual signing of the law was painstakingly problematic and prolonged. The military as an institution was forced to examine its organization, structure, traditions and most importantly, values. For women in the military, the related history and struggles leading up to this transformation is where this story begins.
Background
The first time that legislation regarding the admission of women into the service academies was introduced into Congress was in November of 1944. Congressman Eugene E. Cox of Georgia
2 introduced a bill proposing a plan to create a service academy for women, a step towards giving them permanent military status (Res 314, 1944). The bill never went anywhere. In 1945,
Congressman James G. Fulton of Massachusetts introduced a bill to establish an academy for aviators and another for women (Res 3403, 1945). This bill also failed miserably. In February
1955, Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico introduced a joint resolution to establish a
Women’s Armed Services Academy. During that time, Congress was also considering a bill to establish an Air Force Academy. Senator Chavez said, “It is now fitting and proper that the opportunities for education and training afforded to selected young men in our service academies be now extended in full measure to our young womanhood with the same purpose and objective in view” (Res 48, 84th Cong 1st sess, 1955). The bill to establish the Air Force Academy passed, but the bill for the Women’s Service Academy did not.
It wasn’t until 1969, that the women’s rights movement began impacting policies regarding women in the service academies. Politicians even embraced the movement in hopes of capturing the women’s vote during the 1972 national primaries. In March of 1972, the Equal
Rights Amendment bill passed in the Senate and the House by a crushing majority, sending it to the states for ratification. This created a snowball effect and soon after, the public began to direct questions to Congress and the Pentagon about how this was going to affect women in the military. Unexpectedly, the idea was brought up internally by John W. Thompson, Jr., a civilian aid to Secretary of the Army Robert Froehlke. Thompson said, “With the emphasis on women in the service, I am wondering if the time has not come to establish a National Defense Academy for Women, for women at the officer level similar to the three academies.” Secretary Froehlke replied that such an academy was “unnecessary since sufficient women are coming in the Army under existing programs” (Ltr from Thompson to SecArmy and Reply, 1972).
3 Nevertheless, the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) recommended that if the Equal Rights
Amendment (ERA) became part of the constitution, that enrollment in the service academies be open to men and women equally. The office of the Secretary of Defense responded in April
1972, when Assistant Secretary of Defense (M&RA) Roger T. Kelley said, “Separate organizations and restricted assignments do not provide adequate career opportunities for women” (Memo from Kelley, Apr 1972). In spite of this, there remained differing opinions within the Department of Defense. Secretary of the Navy, John Chafee denied admission to the
U.S. Naval Academy to two women nominated by Senator Jacob Javits of New York and
Congressman Jack McDonald of Michigan in 1972. The legislators responded by introducing bills in both houses to make it illegal for the services to deny admission to the academies on the basis of sex (Boylan, 1972). The objections to opening the doors of the service academies to women came flooding in.
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, then Lt. Gen.
Bernard W. Rogers, concurred with the recommendations of the WAC in all areas except the admission of women to the academies. He ordered that no actions be taken at the time regarding registration, or induction (Memo from Rogers, Jan 1973). By February of 1973, the force of the women’s rights movement and the WAC, led General Rogers to reevaluate his original stance on the issue. He directed his staff to “review where we stand and where we should go” and develop a plan of action for working with the WAC. General Rogers’ guidance to his staff was fairly brief – “do what is best for the Army and best for women.” Any recommendations for change would be judged on their potential to enhance Army effectiveness, not on their popularity
(Memo from Rogers, Feb 1973).
4 In a ninety minute conference with Chief of Staff, General Creighton Abrams, General
Mildred Bailey (director WAC), expressed her concerns. She said that for thirty-one years women had had to accept discrimination and exist on motivation, innovation, and pride, even though they were highly qualified, underutilized, and slighted on resources. “Today’s women, more vocal and militant, would not be satisfied as the women of World War II had been. They would demand the same opportunities men have.” She concluded by saying that the WAC and its director were needed to ensure that the Army lived up to its promises and commitments to women (DWAC/Chief of Staff Conference, Oct 1973).
Furthermore, the deputy assistant secretary of defense (M&RA) for military personnel policy, Lt. Gen. Leo E. Benade, sternly reminded the services: “It is the intent of the Secretary of
Defense to eliminate all laws and regulations which make an unnecessary distinction in the treatment of men and women…and [further] to assure that women are accorded equal treatment.”
(Memo from Benade, Dec 1973). A few months prior, in September of 1973, the two women who had been denied entry to the Naval Academy filed suit in Federal District Court Washington
D.C., claiming that their civil rights had been violated. The court ruled in June 1974, that because the law precluded women from serving in combat, no need existed for them to attend the academy. A federal appeals court overturned this ruling later and ordered the case to trial
(Robinson, 1974).
The focus on achieving the academy continued to drive forward and when the 94th
Congress opened in January 1975, six bills to admit women to the service academies were introduced; five in the House, and one in the Senate (HR 1461, HR 1051, HRs 3837, 3838, and
3839, S 334). The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS) was also very active and repeatedly recommended to Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger that
5 women should be admitted to the service academies. But, Secretary Schlesinger was adamant, telling members that until such time as Congress or the public decided that women should enter combat, the services would educate only men at the nation’s military academies (Mtg.
DACOWITS , Spring 1975). Reflecting back on the issue, Secretary Schlesinger said,
“authorizing women to enter the academies was bound to happen, it just needed time to hatch out of its shell.” He also said jokingly, “…solving the issue of women in the service academies was a job for the Secretary of the Army, so in my prudent cowardice, I stood clear of it and let him handle it.” (Personal interview, 2008)
The Debate
The debate regarding women in the service academies really had nothing to do with physical or mental abilities, but rather fed off of societal attitudes and political pressures. All of the service secretaries, the chiefs of staff and the chief of naval operations expressed strong objections to the resolutions. Additionally, the historical mission of the military academies was primarily “warrior focused” and therefore, objectively “combat” orientated. Since women were not allowed in combat roles and the mission of the academies was to train combat ready commissioned officers, this appeared to be an open and shut case. Clearly, putting women into combat roles stretched the limits of psychological and social realms, something that American leaders were not ready or willing to do. Most of my research highlighted the fact that in the
1970’s, women were perceived as a potential threat to the productivity and cohesion of the service academies and challenged the cultural values and gender roles of a masculine dominated niche in the armed forces.
6 Air Force Academy Superintendent, Lt. Gen. A. P. Clark, presented further objections to the standard argument against authorizing women to enter the ranks of the service academy.
General Clark expressed concerns about integrating the dormitories, suggesting that this integration would lead to marriages, pregnancies, and abortions. He feared decrease in discipline and morale as a direct result of integrating women into the Academy (Foster, 1974).
Additionally, General Clark discussed the potentially negative impact on military training at the
Academy: "I am vitally concerned that this proposed reorientation of Academy life to accommodate females would provide continuing disruptive and adverse influence on the discipline and morale which underlies the motivation of the cadet wing." (Foster, 1974) General
Clark was not alone in his reasoning.
Secretary of the Army Howard H. Callaway, a West Point graduate, argued. “The United
States Military Academy is dedicated to the development of combat leaders.” To accommodate women, he said, the US Military Academy at West Point would be required to adopt less demanding standards, which would lower the standards for men and dilute the quality of male graduates. He warned, “Admitting women to West Point will irrevocably change the Academy.
And…the change can only be for the worse.” (2d sess., 93d Cong, 3 Jul 74). The attitudes within the Office of the Secretary of Defense appeared to influence those of the Secretary of the Army.
In April 1974, previous to that particular session of Congress, Deputy Secretary of Defense
William Clements, in a memorandum to the service secretaries, discouraged the integration of women into the service academies. He described other means for women to achieve a college education and commission in the armed forces. Clements stated that, “…until the American people, through Congress, expressed interest in making academies co-ed, they should continue to educate only men” (Memo fm Secretary Clements, Apr 1974). When asked about this specific
7 memorandum, Secretary Schlesinger replied, “Clements was just a Texas oil man with a tendency to be blunt…he just wanted to avoid the issue just like the rest of us” (Personal
Interview, 2008). He later stated, “It is a proud man who believes that it is better to have a man with the IQ of 90 than a woman with the IQ of 130”. In short, the increasingly technical jobs in the military can and should be done by the individual with the higher intellect, whether it is a man or woman (Personal Interview, 2008).
In spite of this, the objections came from all corners of the country. Jacqueline Cohran
(leader of the Women Air Service Pilots in WWII and first woman pilot to break the sound barrier) testified before the House of Representatives against integrating women into the service academies. Drawing from her experiences, she claimed that women were not as suited for military service as men (Air Force Times, Aug 1974). Virginia Dondy, from the Center for
Women Policy Studies, testified in opposition to Cochran's statements. She asserted that women are fully capable of succeeding at the service academies and should have the same physical and educational standards as male cadets. Dondy insisted that any alterations to the Academy curriculums and training would deny the rights of women. She expressed the importance of staffing the academies with more women and integrating women into the student bodies based on qualifications, not gender quotas. Dondy declared that a qualified woman could lead in combat as well as a qualified man. In support of this claim, Lt. Col. Grace King (USAR) presented results of a survey she conducted during the previous two years. The results showed 80 percent of surveyed civilian and military citizens favored the acceptance of women to the service academies. Additionally, 73 percent of those surveyed supported altering the law to allow women to volunteer to serve in combat (Air Force Times, Aug 1974).
8 The issue of gender integration of the service academies ran deeper than the composition of schools and the “combat problem”. The bottom line was that the service academies existed to train officers for combat and they intended to preserve this legacy. As long as they did so—no value existed in educating women at the academies, until women could serve in combat
(DeFleur,1985). Women trained as officers, while prohibited from filling that function, would be pointless. Congressman Stratton sought to dethrone this ‘straw man’ argument. In May
1975, Stratton attached an amendment to open the academies to women to the Defense
Authorization Bill of 1976. In the amendment, he cited a General Accounting Office (GAO) report showing that of the 30,000 service academy graduates on duty on 1 October 1974, 3,777
(12.3%) had never held a combat assignment. The GAO report also included the judgment that women who met the physical requirements for entry into the services could successfully accomplish the rigorous physical training programs at the academies (94th Cong, 1st sess, 1975).
This shook up Congress, because it proved that women could meet all requirements and if 12% of academy graduates held non-combat positions, than adequate assignment opportunities existed for future female graduates (Stevens, 1975).
Outcome
After the United States made the leap to a volunteer military, the concept of quality over quantity became increasingly apparent. Additionally, recruitment of women also encouraged the growing tendency to see the armed forces as an occupation that reflects the labor market rather than as an institution that embodies traditional, corporate values (Moskos, 1977, 1986).
Nevertheless, as women embraced changes in equal opportunity, they still encountered many
9 obstacles. The services continued to ‘stick to their guns’ and argue that the laws and regulations excluded women from serving in combat, so therefore excluded them from the academies.
Congress felt the pressure to resolve this issue of women in combat, but eventually declared it irrelevant. According to an article in Army, “Efforts to settle this aspect before proceeding with debate on the admission amendment were beaten back and denounced by the measure’s supporters as a ‘red herring’ (Binder, 1975).
On 20 May 1975, the House of Representatives voted 303 to 96 to approve the amendment proposed by Congressman Stratton to the Defense Authorization Bill of 1976 to admit women into the service academies. On 6 June, the Senate followed suit with an approving voice. On 7 October 1975, President Ford signed the bill into law (94th Cong, 1st sess). Many high ranking officials were shocked, but they had no choice but to obey a lawful order.
Embarrassed by the whole ordeal, the superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy even considered submitting a letter of resignation but eventually recanted. In an open letter to the graduates of the academy, he wrote, “Since it is the will of Congress and the President, we are welcoming women candidates as we welcome men candidates to West Point. We expect to make this change smoothly and efficiently.” (Ltr fm LtGen Barry, 1975)
The Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, Lt. Gen. James R. Allen, stated that the
Academy began planning to include women when Congress raised the issue in 1972. In
September 1972, the Academy drafted its first contingency plan to include women. After the bill
10 was signed, General Allen announced that the Academy was prepared to accept between 100 and
150 women into the next class. (USAF Release 328)
H. Minton Francis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity, praised the Air Force Academy's preparations for integrating women into the Academy, adding that it surpassed the preparations of the other academies. After analyzing the Academy's preparations,
Mr. Francis determined they were nearly prepared to admit women in (Mckenzie, 1974). Of course, the arrival of female midshipmen at the US Naval Academy was met with some sarcasms and antidotes. Commenting on the perceived idea that women were stealing men’s places at
Annapolis, the ‘The LOG’, the midshipmen’s entertainment magazine featured a cartoon in which a female plebe arrives at the Academy with an astronaut’s helmet. When an officer questions her about the helmet, the female midshipman replies that her uncle “said all of us girls at the Academy would be taking up space.” (Tygstad, 1976).
Looking at the public attitudes in retrospect, it is easy to catch oneself flinching at the single-mindedness of a very educated group of American military leaders. For example, the single factor that undid much of the established cohesion of the female and male midshipmen, was the publication of James Webb’s article “Women Can’t Fight.” A 1968 graduate who spent two months as a “writer-in-residence” at Annapolis, Webb argued that the presence of women
“sterilized” the Academy by turning it into “a test tube for social experimentation.” Webb hit a powerful chord in the minds of many Naval Academy alumni, particularly those who, like him, had battle experience, and believed that women did not belong in combat and, by extension, at
Annapolis. Claiming that women “poisoned” the institution, Webb declared that he would never want to be in combat with any of the female midshipmen he knew. (Webb,1979) As male
11 midshipmen pasted copies of the article on the walls of Bancroft Hall, the women realized that
Webb had undermined any respect and acceptance that they had managed to achieve during their four years at the Academy. (Gelfand, 2002)
Implications
In spite of the original forecasts that women would lower standards and disrupt cadet life at West Point, the "long grey line" admirably survived the monster known as “woman”. A report prepared at West Point after graduation of three classes that included women (classes of
1980, 1981, and 1982) showed that women received lower ratings than men in physical training, leadership, military science, and some applied science courses, but that they did better than men in the humanities, social sciences, and behavioral science courses. Enduring common hardships and rigorous training led to some development of camaraderie, but a strong anti-female bias persisted on the campus and increased the women's hardships. Despite that, the report concluded with optimism: "After three years of coeducation, it appears that the majority of male cadets understand that coeducation can and will work at West Point. This realistic view will help prepare all graduates to lead in an Army which requires the full, integrated services of men and women.” (Adams, 1979)
The admittance of women into the service academies paved the way for many more positive changes in the military. For example, in December 1991, after heated debate, the passage of the 1992 Defense Authorization Act resulted in the repeal of laws banning women from flying on combat missions in the Air Force and Navy. That legislation also established the
12 Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, and it authorized the Secretary of Defense to waive the remaining combat exclusion law to conduct test assignments of female service personnel in combat positions (PL 102-190). Though the Commission's work was to be completed one year later, the controversy remains, as women continue to be excluded from direct combat roles in many fields (Scarborough, 2004).
The stage was set when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006, enhancing the role of women in the military yet again. In that legislation,
Congress added [section] 652 to Title 10 of the United States Code. This section requires, among other things, that Congress be notified if the Secretary of Defense (1) proposes to make any change to the ground combat exclusion policy or (2) opens or closes any military career designator to women in the service. The Secretary of Defense's proposed change can only take place after the end of a period of sixty days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which such report is received. (U.S.C Title 10). Additionally, in 10 U.S.C. [section] 652(a)
(6), the Secretary of Defense must notify Congress in advance of making assignments available to women for service aboard any class of combat vessel, on any type of combat platform, or with any ground combat unit. As with the many controversies that have embattled progress for women at every step in their integration into the Armed Services, the issue of women in combat evokes a strong emotional response whenever it is raised.
In spite of resistance to their presence, women have experienced success at the academies. Women have thrived at USNA in academics, athletics, and leadership, proving beyond question that they are capable of handling the Academy’s training program and, as Navy 13 Admiral Michael Boorda told male midshipmen during a 1990 speech, “women belong here.”
(Boorda, 1990)
In the May 2007 symposium issue and in a June 2006 article, Elaine Donnelly of the
Center for Military Readiness argued that women should no longer be permitted to serve in the roles in which they are currently serving in Iraq. (Donnelly, 2007) Donnelly has strongly opposed an increased role for women in the military and has specifically opposed any use of women in combat roles. Nevertheless, the views among women in today’s military as well as key leaders, point toward a sound decision made by America’s military and political leaders leading up to appointments for women to military academies and increased combat roles.
So what? The big picture is that the military affects society in substantial ways. The cycle begins in the military, but is continued beyond a typical military term of service when the socializing effects on members of the military are carried through to the civilian sector. Military values and attitudes influence civilian values and attitudes. The cumulative impact on a culture and a society as a whole can be tremendous. In my own experience, defending one’s country holds symbolic importance. It is a “unique sense of duty and purpose”. In some ways, being barred from sharing in all areas of this responsibility creates a feeling of being substandard.
Conversely, I do not believe that the identity of women in the military can be explained simply in terms of this brief look at the history of women’s activism in the military. Analyzing the opportunities that the democratic system of the United States, which has allowed women to challenge gender discriminatory practices within the armed forces gets us closer to the core of
14 the identity of women in the service. The women of today’s military in the higher echelons of leadership, emphasize merit based promotion and recruitment. In the closing remarks of the
1980 Air Force Academy graduation, 2nd Lt. Marianne Owens said, “Needless to say, it’s been no picnic here. Yet many of us have made it through under the same conditions as the men.
Therefore, we say: Don’t point us out; don’t applaud us, or you’ll be ruining what we’ve been trying to establish. We’ve come so far in fighting the hard feelings ... It is the goal ... for us, to simply leave this institution, not as the first women graduates, but as deserving, hard-working graduates to enter the Air Force.
Conclusion
Women in the military still have a long path ahead of them. "What all the women in the service need ..." says former Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.),"is a statement from the very top.
A president has yet to say, 'Women are full members of the military team, and if you can't treat them that way, get out.' (Graff, 2003) Nevertheless, this is an exciting time to be a woman in the service and I am eager to see all the changes that await me as a future naval officer.
15