We may never know the true story of what concessions (if any) were extended to the female Ranger candidates. There are certainly a number of people who claim to be in the know who say there were. And others, of course, who say otherwise. Unless you were there (and not necessarily even then!), you can not claim to have knowledge either way. Claiming that they are "BS conspiracy theories" doesn't make them so.
Knowing multiple YG2014 & 2015 LT's who tabbed, failed to tab, or are still trying to tab... there definitely appear to have been anomalies. Not compromising the "standards" per se. But opportunities rarely (if ever) provided to male officers. Ex:
- Not being dropped for failing the same phase on the same issue. (In this case, Darby graded patrols) Across 4 class groups DS and buddies had direct visibility to, it was never allowed. To the point it's considered a given
- Day one recycles. Virtually never given to officers, and rarely to enlisted, primarily batt boys. And then usually only if the 2nd failure was due to a different issue.
Did they change the "standards"? Technically, no. Was preferential treatment given? Relative to the norm of the last couple of years, it appears so. And that's not even considering multiple attempts at RTAC, special coaching, relative immunity from timelines, etc
By all accounts, day one recycles after two failed attempts at Darby, for the same thing, is pretty much unheard of recently for Officers. I'm sure we can find an exception somewhere. But in the community in the middle of that particular exercise, no one was able to recall that occurring in the last couple of years. Much less name one.
This does not invalidate the fact the females toughed it out. They may be fantastic people and officers. Incredible athletes, etc.
But is it OK to allow different rules about repeating phases based on gender in other pipelines? That's what bothers me. If the Army feels the need to do this, at least call it the Affirmative Action program it is. We will do special things to achieve a mandated result. And it's OK. That's what I think triggers the vitriol. And counter-vitriol.
Do you know the standards to which female infantry officers are held? Or female Ranger students?
With all respect to your service and skills: This type of attack really sidesteps the issue. I won't ask the same question to you out of respect for your service. I know you've done very hard things, and presumably will continue to do so.
But if only tabbed IN officers can comment or hold a viewpoint, then the pool becomes very small.
I'm just a parent of a LT who has been living in the world in question. I find the organizational dynamics interesting. And feel a bit for the ones who become collateral damage in this particular crusade. (Male and Female). I'm very thankful DS made it through the whirlpool and on to his unit smoothly and not impacted.
Having borne witness to a woman being the first of her kind in a unit that has never had women, I can tell you the road is anything but smooth. It's a slog.
I'm sure this is true. And by all accounts the three women who were awarded Ranger tabs are amazing officers. (Especially the Major!)
But this does not reduce the sting, or sense of inequity when some are given opportunities to repeat where others would be a drop, even when it's done with the best of intentions. How would pilots feel if washouts were handled differently for males vs females? (Maybe they already are, I don't know)
For what it's worth, DS and his RS buds (in all their cherry 2LT wisdom) think RTB played this masterfully. Three females have completed the course, and no formal standard was compromised. It clearly can be done. There is no reason to revisit the standards. This is life in the Infantry. (Which to a certain extent, it is). The IN training BN appears to have done so as well. For the last couple of years, the exit criteria for IBOLC is essentially a level of performance that should get you through RAP week and much of Darby. So no need to change the standard there either.
I'm not sure it will hold if pass rates continue to be abysmal. Then again, my read from the peanut gallery is that female pass rates should improve if they go through IBOLC and learn what they are trying to teach them. There is an academic side I'm sure they will learn. ("Army Training, Sir!") Hopefully they can also pick up on some of the leadership style stuff as well.
Likewise, most I know (young and old) are fairly supportive of the new MOS based aptitude test. Should make for a stronger Army. I've always been surprised there was not more of that before. There are defacto standards that exist, why not get a read early on if they will be able to meet them.
This is the easy part. It will be very interesting to see how CPT Greist's Infantry career will unfold - light or mech unit? Will she be assigned to a unit scheduled for a deployment? When will she command a company? Will she apply to be the 75th Ranger Regiment? I applaud her for leading the way. At the same time, I hope she is ready to take on the challenges as a failure is not an option for her.
I was curious if she would be at disadvantage trying to lead an IN company without having done PL time. But I've been told that while uncommon, branch transfers after MCCC are not new. They have already been giving Armor and other officers an IN company without having done IN PL time for years. So that should not be an issue.
The other aspect is that: good, bad or indifferent, she tabbed. I predict it will be a high vis light unit, probably stateside, probably Airborne if she has already been to BAC. (Or gets rushed through it) But that might be a disadvantage with no Jumpmaster/PF, so maybe not. But that would set her up well to put in a packet for the Regiment once she gets her KD time in as CPT.
If I were her Dad, I'd be hoping she does not become a show pony, and will be allowed to leave the circus behind and just do her job well! That will get her the most respect from her peers. And I'd be proud of her for all that she did to get there as well.