Back to Women in the Military and in Combat topic area
Statement and Status Report
Congressional Commission on Military Training
and Gender-Related Issues
Anita K. Blair, Chairman
Honorable Frederick F.Y. Pang, Vice Chairman
Nancy Cantor, Ph.D.
LtGen George R. Christmas, USMC (Ret)
CSM Robert A. Dare, Jr., USA (Ret)
LtGen William M. Keys, USMC (Ret)
Honorable Barbara Spyridon Pope
Mady Wechsler Segal, Ph.D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 3
II. Background 4
A. Chronological Overview 5
B. Initial Entry Training (IET) Overview 6
C. Services' Operational Overview 7
D. Joint Operational Overview 8
III. Research Program 10
A. Overview 10
B. Objectives 10
C. Projects 10
IV. Cross-Gender Relationships 13
A. Statutory Requirements 13
B. The Review 13
C. Conclusions and Recommendations 14
V. Initial Entry Training with Emphasis on Basic Training 16
A. Statutory Requirements 16
B. The Review 16
C. Recent Changes in Initial Entry Training 23
D. Conclusions and Recommendations 27
VI. Gender-Integrated Military Training 31
A. Statutory Requirements 31
B. The Review 31
C. Discussion 31
D. Conclusions and Recommendations 34
VII. Closing Remarks 37
A. Commissioners' Biographies 38
B. Installation Visit Maps 57
C. Initial Entry Training (IET) Continuum Chart 59
D. Service Secretaries' Response to 61
Public Law 105-85, SEC. 562.(e)(2)
E. Minority Statements 78
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
We, the members of the Commission on Military Training and
Gender-Related Issues, are honored to appear before you today to present testimony on the
status of our work to date. As you know, we come to this task from different points of
view and with diverse backgrounds. Nevertheless, it is a collective effort. Commissioners
spent the past year making trips, attending hearings, and meeting together to assess the
data and information.
We acknowledge the work of our staff. The Army, Navy, Air Force and
Marine Corps provided us with excellent military liaison officers who have done the lion's
share of the work. This is tough duty - to assist a commission in investigating one's own
Service. They have walked that fine line and served well both the Commission and their
Service. The Pentagon detailed to us a Deputy Executive Director/Fiscal Officer without
peer and our Administrative Chief and Supply NCO who worked tirelessly. The Research Team
did the impossible given the short amount of time they were allotted. We commend the
Research Director and the principal researchers for the professional results of their
work. Our counsel and legal consultants labored to review, organize and present volumes of
regulations, policies and data to the commissioners in a coherent manner. Also, our
support staff met every requirement set by the commissioners. Finally, our special thanks
to the Executive Director for assembling a fine, capable team and ensuring the Commission
was provided the necessary resources to complete its mission.
We also commend all who cooperated in our efforts. In particular, we
acknowledge and commend the men and women in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
the Services for their assistance and their service to the Nation. We acknowledge also the
contributions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the General Accounting Office.
Both contributed generously to our work.
The Congress and your staff were instrumental in getting us started
last year. Your legislative road map gave us the directions. The answers were more complex
than perhaps even you contemplated. Indeed, the subject matter is neither simple nor
neutral, because almost everyone has an opinion on men and women in the military. Our
charge from the Congress was to answer the questions with facts and reasoned analysis.
We include herein basic conclusions and recommendations reached thus far. Our research program, discussed in Chapter III, is nearly complete, and we anticipate further recommendations favoring opening our research to the public and recommending further research.
Congress established the Commission on Military Training and
Gender-Related Issues (hereinafter "Commission") under Title V, Subtitle F
(Subtitle F) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98 DoD
Authorization Act). The mandate is set forth in Public Law 105-85 enacted on November 18,
1997. The Commission is composed of ten private citizens. Five commissioners were
appointed jointly by the chairman and ranking minority party member of the House Committee
on National Security, and five commissioners were appointed jointly by the chairman and
ranking minority party member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
Our mission was to review requirements and restrictions regarding
cross-gender relationships of members of the Armed Forces, to review the basic training
programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, and to make recommendations on
improvements to those programs, requirements, and restrictions. The focus of our efforts
was operational readiness as it relates to recruits and Initial Entry Training, with the
emphasis on basic training.
The statute required the Commission to review and assess laws,
regulations, policies and practices regarding cross-gender relationships in the Services.
We were also directed, with regard to Initial Entry Training, to look at all aspects of
gender-integrated (hereinafter "GI") training and gender-segregated/separate
(hereinafter "GS") training, including the effectiveness of each. We were
required to review a specific list of items set forth in Section 562(b)(2) and to make
factual determinations, qualitative assessments, and recommendations on GI and GS
training. We investigated and assessed the component parts of basic training in general to
determine whether or not the individual coming out of training meets the needs of the
gaining operational unit.
To achieve this mission, we organized into three working groups to
address the principal areas of concern: Adultery and Fraternization Rules, Basic Training
in General, and Gender Integration in Initial Entry Training. We adopted a chronological
model as the conceptual approach to assessing Initial Entry Training. The model, referred
to as the "Continuum," traces the steps from the Services' first contact with a
recruit, through Initial Entry Training, to assignment of the individual in an operational
unit. We applied various methods and techniques to acquire and evaluate information. By
design, these multiple approaches included a scientific research program. For most of the
work, we acted as a committee of the whole in reviewing and analyzing the information.
Thus, each commissioner acted upon both common and shared information.
We are close to completion of our findings of fact and the requisite
statutory analysis. We have identified all pertinent data. We are finalizing our
assessments and now are processing the information into a more expansive form than the one
being used in this report. Nonetheless, the basic assessments in this status report are
supported by us and will be reflected in our Final Report, which we expect to provide the
Congress in mid-April.
A. Chronological Overview
Source of Appointment
|Anita K. Blair, Esq.*||
Senate Armed Services Committee
|Honorable Frederick F.Y. Pang**||Senate Armed Services Committee|
|Nancy Cantor Ph.D.||Senate Armed Services Committee|
|LtGen George R. Christmas, USMC (Ret.)||House National Security Committee|
|CSM Robert A Dare, Jr., USA (Ret.)||House National Security Committee|
|LtGen William M. Keys, USMC (Ret.)||Senate Armed Services Committee|
|Thomas Moore||House National Security Committee|
|Charles Moskos, Ph.D.||Senate Armed Services Committee|
|Honorable Barbara Spyridon Pope||House National Security Committee|
|Mady Wechsler Segal, Ph.D.||House National Security Committee|
ANITA K. BLAIR, ESQ.
Born in Washington, D.C, Nov 15, 1950; married to Douglas Welty.
Education: B.A. (with high honors), University of Michigan 1971,
J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 1981. Executive Editor, Virginia Journal of
Bar Memberships: District of Columbia (1981) and Virginia (1988).
Public Appointment: Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors
(term: July 1,1995-June 30, 1999).
Attorney in Private Practice of Law: Co-founded Welty & Blair,
P.C., in October 1991. Formerly associated with Brownstein Zeidman and Schomer (1981-1984)
and Crowell & Moring (1984-1997), both Washington, D.C. law firms. Also, formerly Vice
President and General Counsel, Precision Tune, Inc., Sterling, Virginia (1988-1991).
Areas of Concentration:
Constitutional Law, Nonprofit Corporations.
Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Independent Women's
Forum Arlington, VA, (1992-present).
In addition to executive management duties oversee IWF's
participation as amicus curiae in constitutional equal protection cases including United
States v. Virginia (U.S. 1996); Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1997
cert. denied 1997). Board of Education of the township of Piscataway v. Taxman (3d.
Cir. 1996; U.S. appeal dismissed 1997); Cohen v. Brown University (1st
Cir. 1996, cert. denied 1997).
Author and commentator on legal and economic issues concerning
women, including affirmative action, "gender" issues, women in business, women
in the military, single-sex education and violence against women.
Publications include articles in the Wall Street Journal, the
Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the
New York Times. Media appearances include CNN's Crossfire, C-SPAN's Washington
Journal, NBC's Today Show, and PBS's NewsHour. Testimony before
Congressional Committees. Frequent public speaking engagements.
Business Franchise, Licensing and Distribution Law.
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising (1981-present)
Virginia State Bar Section on Antitrust, Franchise and Trade
Regulation (Member, Board of Governors, 1991-present; vice chairman 1997-1998).
International Bar Association Committee on International
Union Internationale des Advocats Commission de la Franchise
Government/Industry Advisory Committees:
North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) Franchise
Advisory Committee (1990-1996).
American Arbitration Association Panel of Commercial
International Franchise Association Legal/Legislative Committee (Vice-Chairman, 1989-1990); Council of Franchise Suppliers(1991-1996).
FREDERICK F.Y. PANG
Mr. Pang is the President and founder of Fred Pang Associates (FPA),
Inc. FPA provides professional and technical services to business and government. These
services include matters involving: the substance and processes of human resource
management; corporate and business development; government relations; and the operation
and management of healthcare systems.
Prior to founding FPA, Mr. Pang served as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Force Management Policy. As Assistant Secretary he acted on matters pertaining
to military and civilian manpower and personnel in the Department of Defense. In this
position Mr. Pang had Defense-wide policy responsibility for the recruitment, training,
career development, compensation, retention, quality of life, equal opportunity, and
readiness of Defense personnel. In addition, Mr. Pang was designated as the Principal
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Previously Mr. Pang served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs where he acted on matters pertaining to Navy and Marine
Corps personnel, reserve, and medical policies and programs within the Department of the
Before his appointments in the Executive Branch, Mr. Pang served as a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In this key role, he exercised policy and legislative oversight on Defense-wide personnel, reserve, and medical programs.
Prior to joining the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Pang
served as a regular officer in the United States Air Force. He attained the grade of
colonel before retiring with 27 years of service in 1986.
During his Air Force career, he served in a variety of operational
and staff assignments including tours of duty in Vietnam, Headquarters United States Air
Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, he served as the Director of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management and as the
Director of Compensation before he retired from active duty.
Mr. Pang grew up in Honolulu, Hawaii. He graduated from McKinley
High School in 1954, and graduated from the University of Hawaii in 1958 with a Bachelors
Degree in Education. He earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration in 1972 from
the University of Hawaii under the Air Force Institute of Technology Civilian Institutions
Scholarship Program, and completed the National and International Security Program at
Harvard University in 1988.
Mr. Pang is married to Brenda W. I. Tom, of Honolulu, and they
reside with their daughter, Susan, in Arlington, Virginia. Their son, Douglas, is a
Lieutenant in the United States Navy. His mother, Mrs. Henry K. Pang, lives in Honolulu,
NANCY CANTOR, PH.D.
Dr. Cantor received her A.B. from Sarah Lawrence College in 1974 and
her Ph.D. in Psychology at Stanford University in 1978. She currently serves as Provost
and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Michigan. Prior to
this appointment, Dr. Cantor served as Vice Provost for Academic Affairs-Graduate Studies
and Dean of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of
Prior to July, 1996 she served as Chair of the Department of
Psychology and Professor of Psychology at Princeton University. Dr. Cantor spent ten years
as a faculty member in the Department of Psychology and the Institute for Social Research
at the University of Michigan, serving as Associate Dean for Faculty Programs at the
Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies from 1989-1991 when she left Michigan to join
the faculty at Princeton. Among her many publications in the area of personality and
social psychology, she has contributed a monograph with John Kihlstrom (Personality and
Social Intelligence, 1987) and a recent review article (Life Task Problem Solving:
Situational Affordances and Personal Needs, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
1994). Dr. Cantor received the Distinguished Scientific Award for an Early Career
Contribution to Psychology of the American Psychological Association (1985), and was
President of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (Division 8, APA
1992-1993). She has served as Associate Editor of Psychological Bulletin
(1986-1989), Journal of Personality (1986-1988), and Personality and Social
Psychology Review (1996-98).
Dr. Cantor has been a member of study sections and advisory boards
at the National Science Foundation, and served on the task force that recommended
establishing a new directorate of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (1990-1991).
She served as a member of the National Research Council Committee on National Needs in
Biomedical and Behavioral Science Research (1992-1993), and as a member (1993-1996) and
Vice-Chair of the National Research Council Committee on Women in Science and Engineering
(1995-1996). She recently served as a member of the National Research Council Advisory
Committee for the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel (1997-1998), and is
currently of the board of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation.
LIEUTENANT GENERAL GEORGE R. CHRISTMAS,
Lieutenant General George R. Christmas retired from the U.S. Marine
Corps on July 26, 1996. His last active duty assignment was as the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.
LtGen Christmas was born on March 11, 1940 in Philadelphia, PA. Upon
graduation from the University of Pennsylvania with a B.A. degree in 1962, he was
commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps Reserve through the
NROTC program. He also holds a M.S. degree from Shippensburg University (1982).
After completion of The Basic School at Quantico, VA, LtGen
Christmas was assigned as a platoon commander in Company L, 3d Battalion, 2d
Marines, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C. He later served as the
Battalion Personnel Officer. While at Camp Lejeune, he was promoted to first lieutenant in
December 1963. He augmented into the regular establishment in 1965.
In May 1965, he was assigned to the Marine Barracks, 8th
& I Sts., S.E. Washington, D.C. where he served as the Executive Officer, and upon
promotion to Captain in June 1966, as Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Service
He transferred to the Republic of Vietnam in July 1967 where he
served successively as Commanding Officer, Service Company, Headquarters Battalion, and
Commanding Officer Company H, 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st
Marine Division, FMF. During the Battle for Hue City, Tet '68, LtGen Christmas was
severely wounded and evacuated to the Philadelphia Naval Hospital. For his actions in Hue
City, he was awarded the Navy Cross.
After hospitalization, he was assigned to the staff of the Basic
School, MCDEC, Quantico, VA, in October 1968 and subsequently attended the Amphibious
Warfare School graduating with distinction. Following graduation in July 1969, he was
assigned as an instructor at the U.S. Army's John F. Kennedy Institute for Military
Assistance, Ft. Bragg, N.C.
Transferring to Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington D.C. in July
1971, LtGen Christmas served as the Special Assistant and Aide to the Assistant Commandant
of the Marine Corps, until April 1973. During his assignment at Headquarters, he was
promoted to Major in February 1972.
He returned to The Basic School where he served successively as the Company Tactics Chief, Commanding Officer, Student Company A, and the Tactics Group Chief. From The Basic School, he transferred to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College as a student.
LtGen Christmas returned overseas in July 1975, for duty as the
Operations Officer and later, Executive Officer 3d Battalion, 4th Marines, 3rd
Marine Division, FMF, on Okinawa. He transferred back to the States in August 1976 and was
assigned as the Commanding Officer, Marine Barracks, Annapolis, MD. While there, he was
promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in September 1978.
From August 1979 until May 1981, he was assigned as the Commanding
Officer, First Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C.
He was selected to attend the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA and participated
in the Cooperative Degree Program at Shippensburg University, leading to his Master's
Degree in Public Administration.
In July 1982, LtGen Christmas served for a year as a Naval
Operations Officer, J3 Directorate, USCINCPAC. Camp H.M. Smith Hawaii, and upon selection
to colonel assumed duties as Chief of Protocol, USCINCPAC. In September 1984, he was
reassigned as Commanding Officer, 3rd Marine Regiment (Reinforced), 1st
Marine Amphibious Brigade.
In July 1986, LtGen Christmas was assigned duty as Director,
Amphibious Warfare School. While serving in this capacity, he was selected for promotion
to brigadier general in December 1987. He was advanced to brigadier general on May 13,
1988 and assigned duty as the Assistant Division Commander, 3rd Marine
Division, FMF/Commanding General, 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade Okinawa,
Japan in June 1988. He assumed command of the 3rd Force Service Support Group
on August 18,1989. On 18 May 1990, he again took command of the 9th MEB in
addition to his duties as Commanding General 3rd FSSG. He was advanced to Major
General on June 27th, 1991.
General Christmas was assigned duty as the Director for Operations
(J3), U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith Hawaii on July 26th 1991. He was
advanced to Lieutenant General on July 8th 1993 and assumed duties as
Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California the same day.
On July 15, 1994, he assumed duties as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve
His personal decorations and medals include: the Navy Cross; Defense
Distinguished Service Medal; Navy Distinguished Service Medal; Defense Superior Service
Medal; Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal; and three gold stars in lieu of
consecutive awards; the Army Commendation Medal and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with
Lieutenant General Christmas is married to the former Sherrill J. Lownds. They have four children, Tracy, Jim, Kevin and Brian. His current projects include being a
Senior Mentor for Marine Corps and Joint Training; serving on various advisory boards; and as President, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation.
COMMAND SARGEANT MAJOR ROBERT A. DARE,
Command Sergeant Major Robert A. Dare Jr., USA (Ret.) was born in
Lansing, Michigan on 9 September 1950. He joined the Army in June 1968 after graduation
from high school. He served in numerous assignments during his 28 year career including
tours with the 24th Infantry Division at Forts Riley and Stewart, the 23rd Infantry
Division (AMERICAL), Republic of Viet Nam, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 25th
Infantry Division, Hawaii and the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea.
CSM Dare served as a drill sergeant from 1974 to 1978 at Fort Ord,
California and Fort Gordon, Georgia. He served as First Sergeant of Company A, the
Commander in Chief's Guard, 3rd U.S. Infantry, The Old Guard, Washington D.C. from April
1983 through June 1986. He served as an instructor at the Operations and
Intelligence course U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, Fort Bliss, Texas, from January
1987 through December 1987. He served in every NCO leadership position from team leader
through Command Sergeant Major. Including Command Sergeant Major, Special Troops
Battalion, 3rd Corps Support Command, Wiesbaden, Germany, Sergeant Major, 5th Battalion
(Mechanized), 8th Infantry Division, Germany. Command Sergeant Major 2nd Brigade, 8th
lnfantry Division. Division Command Sergeant Major, 2nd Brigade 1st Armored
In September of 1987 CSM Dare was selected to serve as Command
Sergeant Major, 25th Infantry Division (light) and United States Army, Hawaii. He served
in that position until 31 January, 1994 when he was selected to serve as Command Sergeant
Major, United States Army, Pacific. In June 1995, CSM Dare was selected to serve as
Command Sergeant Major, United States Army, Forces Command. He served in that position
until his retirement on 1 July, 1996.
CSM Dare is a graduate of the 25th Infantry Division NCO Academy,
Airborne School, Infantry Advanced NCO Course, Master Fitness Trainer, Operations and
Intelligence Course and Class 28 of the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. He has a
liberal arts degree from St. Leo College. His awards and decorations include: the Combat
Infantryman's Badge, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze
Star, the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation.
CSM Dare and his wife Karen, reside in Duluth, Georgia. Their son
Matt is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Wyoming. Their daughter Wendi is married to
Sergeant Shawne Maile, a New York State Trooper.
Since his retirement from the Army in 1996, CSM Dare (Ret.) has served as a Marketing Manager for an Atlanta-based technology company.
LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM M. KEYS, USMC
Lieutenant General William M. Keys (Ret.) was the Commander, U.S.
Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic; Commanding General Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic; Commanding
General II Marine Expeditionary Force; Commander, Marine Striking Force, Atlantic,
Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South (Designate); and the Commander, U.S. Marine
Corps Forces, Europe (Designate). He was advanced to his present grade and assumed his
duties on June 25, 1991.
A native of Fredericktown, PA, LtGen Keys was commissioned a second
lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps upon his graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy with a
B.S. degree in June 1960. His professional education includes The Basic School; Amphibious
Warfare School and the Command and Staff College, all at Quantico, VA. LtGen Keys is also
a graduate of the National War College in Washington, D.C. and holds a M.S. degree from
American University and an honorary Ph.D. in Public Service from Washington and Jefferson
Designated an Infantry officer, LtGen Keys has served at every level of operational command: initially as a platoon leader with 3d Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment; as a company commander with the 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment in Vietnam; as Commanding Officer, 3d Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment; as Regimental Commander of the 6th Marines; and as Commanding General, 2d Marine Division during DESERT STORM combat operations in Southwest Asia. There he led the Division in its successful assault across the Kuwaiti border, breaching Iraqi barriers and minefields, and into Kuwait City. He also served an early tour with the Marine Detachment aboard the USS Long Beach, and a second tour in Vietnam as an advisor
to the Vietnamese Marine Corps.
He has held the following principal staff assignments: Infantry
Officers' Monitor, Personnel Management Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, Marine Corps
Liaison Officer to the US. Senate; Special Projects Directorate in the Office of the
Commandant; Aide de Camp to the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps; Deputy Director,
and subsequently Director, Personnel Management Division, Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department, HQMC; and the Deputy, Joint Secretariat, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington,
LtGen Keys' decorations and medals include: the Navy Cross; Distinguished Service Medal with one star, Defense Distinguised Service Medal, Silver Star Medal; Legion of Merit with Combat "V"; Bronze Star with Combat "V'; Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Combat Action Ribbon; Presidential Unit Citation; Navy Unit Commendation; Meritorious Unit Commendation; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze stars: Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze stars; Republic of Viet Nam Cross of Gallantry with Palm and Silver Star; Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal (First Class); Republic of Vietnam
Meritorious Unit Citation (Gallantry Cross Color); Republic of Vietnam Meritorious Unit Citation (Civil Actions Color); the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Kuwait Liberation Medal.
Thomas Moore is a Washington-based writer, military historian, and
national security analyst. Currently, he is Director of International Studies (formally,
Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for International Studies) at The
Heritage Foundation, one of America's leading public policy research institutions. He is
responsible for the day-to-day management of national defense and foreign policy studies.
Prior to joining Heritage, he was a Professional Staff Member on the Armed Services
Committee of the United States Senate, where he was responsible for defense policy, global
strategy, inter-national security, and military operations abroad. Before taking the
Committee staff position, he was Senator Malcolm Wallop's (R-WY) chief aide on defense and
foreign policy, and served six years in the Reagan Administration, ending his Executive
branch service in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
A native of Charleston, South Carolina, Moore was graduated from The
Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; studied in France under the Fulbright
program, and earned a Masters degree in national security affairs from Georgetown
University. He has lived in Europe, speaks French and German; and has traveled throughout
the Middle East, Russia, the Far Fast, the Caribbean, and South America. He was an Army
Reserve officer (Major, Armor), and held numerous troop unit and staff assignments in the
U.S. and Germany.
CHARLES MOSKOS, PH.D
Charles Moskos is professor of sociology at Northwestern University
at Evanston, Illinois where he holds the Anderson Chair in the College of Arts and
Sciences. He received his bachelor's degree, cum laude, at Princeton University in 1956.
After graduation from college, he served as a draftee in the U.S, Army combat engineers in
Germany. Following his military service, he attended the University of California at Los
Angeles where he received his Ph.D. in 1963. Since 1988, he has been chairman of the
Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.
Professor Moskos is the author of many books including The American Enlisted Man, The Military-More than Just a Job? Soldiers and Sociologists, The New Conscientious Objection, A Call to Civic Service, and Reporting War when there is No War. His latest book (with John Butler), All That We Can Bear, Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way, has attracted national political attention and won the Washington Monthly award for the best political book of 1997. In addition to over one hundred articles in scholarly journals, he has published pieces in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, and The New Republic. His writings have been translated into fourteen languages.
The Wall St. Journal calls Dr. Moskos the nation's "most
influential military sociologist.' His research has taken him to combat units in Vietnam,
the Dominican Republic, Korea, Germany, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia,
Dr. Moskos testifies frequently before Congress on issues of military personnel policy. He
was appointed by George Bush to the President's Commission on Women in the Military
(1992). In 1993, he advised Nelson Mandela on ways to racially integrate a post-apartheid
military in South Africa. In 1994, President Clinton cited Professor Moskos on national
television in announcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on homosexuals in the
military and again in 1996 as the inspiration for his national service program.
The Department of Defense awarded Dr. Moskos a medal for his
research in DESERT SHIELD/STORM. He holds the Distinguished Service Medal the U.S. Army's
highest decoration for a civilian. Dr. Moskos has also been decorated by the governments
of France and the Netherlands for his international research on armed forces and society.
Dr. Moskos has appeared on national television numerous times including Night Line,
Cross Fire, and Larry King Live.
Charles Moskos has been a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, an Annenberg Fellow, and a Guggenheim Fellow. He is listed In Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.
HONORABLE BARBARA SPYRIDON POPE
Barbara Spyridon Pope is president of The Pope Group, a management
firm committed to developing client-tailored programs in the areas of human resource
management and government liaison. She is a management expert with 20 years of leadership
experience, who serves as a Title VII expert for the Department of Justice. Pope is
certified as a federal mediator and as an administrator of the Myers-Briggs Type
The Pope Group has successfully assisted its clients in the design,
development and implementation of innovative programs to address executive development,
leadership, work force "diversity," sexual harassment and other management
issues. Mrs. Pope has an extensive record of developing creative solutions to difficult
problems and coalescing disparate groups to generate unified policies.
Mrs. Pope utilizes the Ethical Arts Players, a unique educational
performing troupe of skilled professional actors, to present real-life workplace
situations involving harassment, diversity, ethics and other leadership issues. In
contrast to traditional lectures and panel formats, presenting hypothetical scenarios
using dramas comedy and improvisation allows the most subtle and complex issues to be
raised. This format has proven to turn the most dreaded training seminars into memorable
sessions that are as effective as they are popular.
The first female Assistant Secretary and senior female in the Navy's
217 year history, Mrs. Pope served from 1989 to 1993. She was responsible for recruiting,
educating, housing, childcare, medical delivery, and discipline for the nation's sailors,
Marines, civilians and their families.
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Family Support,
Education and Safety), from 1986 to 1989, Mrs. Pope was responsible for the Department of
Defense Dependents Schools (ninth largest U.S. school), the Family Policy Office, the DOD
Explosive Safety Board, and the Safety and Occupational Health Policy Office. Prior to
1986, Mrs. Pope served as the Acting Chief of Staff for the Small Business Administration
and the Executive Director to President Reagan's Advisory Committee on Women Business
Ownership. She began her career on Capitol Hill on Senator Barry Goldwater's staff.
Mrs. Pope is a frequent speaker for conferences, seminars, television and radio including CNN, McNeil/Lehrer, Crossfire, National Public Radio, Canadian Public Radio, Australian Dateline and the Larry King Radio Show.
MADY WECHSLER SEGAL, PH.D
While Mady Wechsler Segal has spent most of professional life in the
academic world, in positions ranging from Lecturer on Sociology at Eastern Michigan
University to Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean at the University of Maryland, her
career has been punctuated by involvement with the American armed forces over a
twenty-five year period.
*In 1973-1974--the first years of the volunteer force--she was a
Senior Research Scientist at the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences conducting research on manpower accession.
*From 1980-1982 she was a Research Sociologist and from 1982-1990,
she was a Guest Scientist in the Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research, conducting research on military families and on women in the
*In 1981-1983, she was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the
Committee on Women in the NATO Forces.
*From 1983-1989 she was a member of the National Research
Council/Academy of Sciences Committee on the Performance of Military Personnel which dealt
with the appropriateness of criteria used to select and assign first-term occupational
*In 1988-1989, she was Distinguished Visiting Professor in
the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the United States
Military Academy, West Point.
*In 1992-1993, she served as a Human Resource Consultant Army, to
the Secretary of the Army, advising the Secretary on issues of diversity.
*From 1993-1994, she served as a special assistant to the Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Army, dealing with family separation of soldiers on peacekeeping
*In 1996, the President of the United States appointed her to the
Board of Visitors of the United States Military Academy, West Point. In 1997, she was
appointed to the executive committee of the West Point Board of Visitors.
*In 1996-1997, the Secretary of the Army appointed her as a consultant to the
Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment.
*In 1998, she was appointed by the U.S. House of Representatives to the
Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues
In addition to numerous academic honors, in 1989 Professor Segal was
awarded the Department of the Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal. Professor Segal
currently serves as Associate Director of the Center for Research on Military Organization
at the University of Maryland.
Mady Wechsler Segal earned her Ph.D. at the University of Chicago.
She is Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, faculty affiliate of the
Women's Studies Program and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
(CISSM), and Associate Director of the Center for Research on Military Organization.
Professor Segal was appointed by President Clinton to a 3-year term on the Board of
Visitors of the U.S. Military Academy in 1996. She has been Associate Dean for
Undergraduate Studies at the University of Maryland, a guest scientist at the Walter Read
Army Institute of Research, and a visiting Professor at the United States Military
Academy, West Point. She has served as chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the
U.S. Army Research Institutes Army Family Research Program, as a member of the National
Academy of Sciences Committee on the Performance of Military Personnel, as a Human
Resource Consultant to the Secretary of the Army, as a Special Assistant to the Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Army, and as a consultant to the Army's Senior Review Panel an Sexual
Harassment. She is currently on the Council of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed
Forces and Society (IUS), on the Executive Committee of the Research Committee on Armed
Forces and Conflict Resolution of the International Sociological Association, and the
Council of the Section on Peace and War of the American Sociological Association.
Mady Segal's recent research has focussed on military personnel
issues, with particular attention to military women and military families. She is
currently studying family impacts of peacekeeping duty for reserve and National Guard
soldiers. Her publications include "Value Rationales in Policy Debates on Women in
the Military: A Content Analysis of Congressional Testimony, 1941-1985". (Social
Science Quarterly, 1992;) 'The Military and the Family as Greedy Institutions" (Armed
Forces and Society, 1986); "Military Women in NATO" (Armed Forces and
Society, 1988); 'The Nature of Work and Family Linkages: A Theoretical
Perspective" (in Bowen and Orthner, eds. The Organization Family, 1989):
'Women's Military Roles Cross-Nationally: Past, Present, and Future" (Gender and
Society, 1995): and "Gender Integration in Armed Forces: Recent Policy
Developments in the United Kingdom' (Armed Forces & Society, 1996). Dr. Segal
is the primary author of a report for military leaders on the policy implications of
research findings on military families. ("What We Know About Army Families") and
a co-author of How to Support Families during Overseas Deployments: A Sourcebook for
Service Providers (both published by the Army Research Institute). She has
written (with David R. Segal) a book on Peacekeepers and their Wives. She has a
chapter on "Gender and the Military" forthcoming in the Handbook of Gender
Sociology (edited by Janet Chafetz).
Among the courses Professor Segal teaches at the University of Maryland are Military Sociology, Women in the Military, Military Families, and Introductory Statistics for Sociology. She was named Distinguished Scholar-Teacher in 1985, and was honored as the university's Outstanding Woman Faculty Member in 1988. In 1994 she was awarded the first Teaching Mentorship Award by the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. She holds the Department of the Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal. She was named the 1994 Helen MacGill Hughes Lecturer on Women and Social Change by Sociologists for Women in Society.
INSTALLATION VISIT MAPS
INITIAL ENTRY TRAINING (IET) CONTINUUM CHART
SERVICE SECRETARIES' RESPONSES PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC LAW 105-85, SEC. 562.(e)(2)
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
January 25, 1999
Ms. Anita K. Blair
Congressional Commission on Military Training
and Gender-Related Issues
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 940
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3283
Dear Chairman Blair:
In your correspondence dated December 31, 1998 you requested that I
respond to two questions ((O) and (P)) set forth in Section 562(e)(2) of your charter. I
appreciate the opportunity to provide my views on these important issues. The questions
and responses are set forth below:
(O) Assess the feasibility and implications of conducting basic
training (or equivalent training) at the company level and below through separate units
for male and female recruits, including the costs and other resource commitments required
to implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and the implications for
readiness and unit cohesion.
While it may be feasible to conduct basic combat training at the
company level and below through separate units for male and female recruits, it would be
detrimental to readiness and cohesion and result in increased costs during a time of
The U.S. Army trains in segregated units in those military
occupational specialties (MOSs) that are not open to women. Virtually all of our combat
MOS soldiers (about 30 thousand a year) are trained in a gender-segregated environment.
Therefore, the question for the Army is the feasibility, costs, and implications of
training men and women in separate units with respect to those combat support and combat
service support MOSs in which both men and women serve.
Empirical studies show that women perform better, and men perform
equally well, in gender-integrated basic combat training. Moreover, gender-integrated
training is an important part of the soldierization process for soldiers who will serve in
Basic combat training is a critical period of time when we transform young men and women into soldiers. During this time, the ratio of leaders (drill sergeants) to soldiers is higher than at any other point in a soldier's career. During this period, soldiers must learn "the rules" of being on the Army team, including treating every soldier, regardless of race, gender, or creed, as a valued member of the team. Our experience is very clear-it is best to begin from "day one" learning acceptable behavior
for the environment our soldiers will face daily, throughout their
term of service. Postponing the integration of male and female soldiers only defers this
responsibility to either advanced individual training or our operational units. There is
no reason to believe that "later" is an easier or better time to introduce this
concept. Indeed, there is reason to believe it is the wrong time.
Segregated training creates perceptions of inequality of desire,
ability, and achievement. It runs counter to the imperatives of teamwork and cohesion,
which are at the heart of why soldiers are willing to sacrifice for each other. In other
words, perceived inequality erodes unit cohesion and tears at the spirit of a fighting
force. Integrated training causes soldiers to learn to rely on each other and builds
confidence in each other's training and abilities. The Army cannot afford to foster in its
new soldiers the prejudices that can result from segregated training.
Separating trainees at the company level and below virtually
eliminates gender- integrated training. Indeed, basic combat training is primarily
conducted at the platoon level and below. Gender segregation by company or platoon would
create two separate and different training experiences, resulting in the perception that
the others training was inferior-competition and divisiveness would likely replace
cooperation and team spirit.
The cost of segregating basic training units depends on the level at
which the segregation occurs. Gender segregation at the company level only minimally
increases facility costs, but significantly increases operating costs. At the platoon
level, the facilities cost is significant. After a preliminary analysis of the training
load, the Army estimates it would require approximately an additional $271 million (M) to
house recruits in a segregated manner at platoon level. The breakout is as follows:
Location No. & Type of Building Cost
Fort Jackson 2 Starships $90M
Fort Leonard Wood 2 Starships $90M
1 Modified Starship (RS) $23M
Fort Sill 1 Starship $45M
1 Modified Starship (RS) $23M
BCT TOTAL $271 M
Notes: Starship: Building with 5 wings with platoon areas separated by
doors that may be secured. Usually a 3-story building.
RS: Reception Station.
1 Starship Barracks costs approximately $45M.
1 Modified Starship Barracks costs approximately $23M.
Segregating male and female recruits by company does not allow for the full and best utilization of the barracks or manpower. During the summer months, when the greatest numbers of recruits undergo basic training, the gender composition of the new recruit classes is not predictable. With fixed, gender-segregated facilities, logistical and morale problems would result when one group is crowded and the other has more
space, or when large groups of trainees and drill sergeants
experience significant down time while awaiting sufficient soldiers to fill a
gender-segregated company. Equity of treatment is important when recruits are struggling
to adjust to the rigors of the basic training environment. Furthermore, a workload
imbalance in gender-segregated training will create divisiveness between the cadres of the
(P) Assess the feasibility and implications of requiring drill
instructors for basic training units to be of the same sex as the recruits in those units
if the basic training were to be conducted as described in subparagraph (0).
Army readiness will be degraded if drill sergeants are required to
be of the same sex as their trainees. Implementing such a proposal would require a
significant increase in the number of women assigned as drill sergeants and a decrease in
women serving in operational units. The alternative, recruiting fewer women, is
The Army would have to move female non-commissioned officers (NCOs)
from operational units to assignments as drill sergeants. The Army is already struggling
with a complex array of personnel readiness challenges, including a shortage of as many as
6,000 NCOs. Pulling qualified female leaders out of the field will create turbulence in
our personnel system and exacerbate the skill imbalances caused by the shortage of NCOs.
Additionally, it would create MOS shortfalls in such skills as Signal, Quartermaster,
Military Intelligence and Ordnance that cannot be filled by displaced male NCO drill
sergeants holding primarily combat arms MOS. In short, requiring drill sergeants to be the
same sex as their trainees will have a profound, detrimental impact on the readiness of
our warfighting units at a time when they are already contending with serious readiness
We estimate the Army will require 245 additional female drill
sergeants if drill sergeants are required to be the same sex as their recruits. We simply
do not have enough female NCOs to assign to the training base without depleting the ranks
of female soldiers from the operational jobs that represent their primary military
mission. To do so would impact their opportunities, morale, and willingness to serve.
Additionally, the separation of drill sergeants by gender would
negatively affect the training of women soldiers. In the majority of cases, basic training
is our sole opportunity to establish a baseline training of combat skills by a mix of
drill sergeants from the combat, combat support and combat service support branches.
Separating women drill sergeants, to train women recruits, takes from that mix the combat
arms experience that we deliberately intersperse into our training base. This does a
disservice to both the female soldiers trained, the drill sergeants training them, and the
operational units that will receive them after training. Additionally, restricting female
drill sergeants to training female recruits precludes male recruits from experiencing
female leadership and authority-an experience that is important for all soldiers, but
especially for those recruits who grew up in male-oriented environments.
The United States Army has been successful on the battlefield and in
countless other missions the Army is asked to perform around the world. This success is
the direct result of the skills and teamwork of trained and ready soldiers.
Without question, the Army's method of integrated training produces
world class soldiers for our country. The commissioned and noncommissioned officers who
will be called to lead these soldiers in combat are convinced they are doing
gender-integrated training right and respectfully ask to be able to continue to train in
the manner they think best: in the manner they will fight.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide my views and I hope
that as the Commission completes this difficult but important work, its recommendation
will preserve the Army's flexibility to train America's soldiers in the way experience has
taught us works best.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000
22 JAN 1999
The Honorable Anita K. Blair
Chairman, Congressional Commission on Military Training and
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 940
Arlington, VA 22202-3283
Dear Madam Chairperson:
Thank you for your letters of December 31, 1998 to the Secretary of the
Navy requesting information from Navy and Marine Corps pertinent to your final set of
hearings on 28-29 January 1999. Service responses appear as enclosures to this letter.
ASN (M&RA) points of contact are CDR E. Carson, 693-0696, and
LCDR D. Goodwin, 693-0229. If I may be of further assistance, please let me know.
CAROLYN H. BECRAFT
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower
and Reserve Affai
H. R. 1119. 562 (b) (2) (o) - Assess the feasibility and implications of
conducting basic training (or equivalent training) at the company level and below through
separate units for male and female recruits, including the costs and other resource
commitments required to implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and the
implications for readiness and unit cohesion.
Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes does not have the facilities, land
or manning to accommodate segregation of genders at the recruit and staff levels. Based on
existing facilities, the minimum cost for separate recruit training facilities is in
excess of $350M. This does not include the cost for acquisition of land, nor the utility
infrastructure required to support these new facilities.
The gender integrated recruit training environment has been established as the Navy's most effective means to best prepare Sailors to live, deploy, operate, fight, and win aboard gender integrated ships and squadrons. The rigorous evolution prepares the recruit for follow-on training and ultimate assignment to fleet service. The process ensures the recruit is physically
and mentally ready for the rigors of the fleet environment by instilling discipline and
proper behavior and emphasizing wellness and physical fitness. Each recruit must
demonstrate dedication, teamwork and endurance through practical application of basic Navy
skills and Core Values of Honor, Courage and Commitment.
Early experiences are relevant. Recruits are taught from day one that the Navy's
business is to deploy and to arrive on station ready to fight. The initial training
program is designed to enable men and women to report to their first ship/squadron fully
prepared to meet that challenge. The Navy's basic training requirements and objectives
maximize training opportunities for replicating life aboard fleet operational units and
instilling and enforcing the warrior's ethos of sacrifice, endurance, teamwork and
dedication. The CNO directed, Recruit Training Blue Ribbon Panel reinforced this training
philosophy in 1993. The panel determined that the Navy's gender integrated training, which
had begun in 1992, was very successful in promoting professional relationships between men
and women. The unique relationship established during recruit training between shipmates
is exclusive of gender, and is an essential contributor to follow-on Navy unit cohesion.
Deferring gender-integration until after recruit training transfers the burden to the
fleet or follow-on technical training commands. If the Navy forestalls gender integration
of its Sailors until they enter the fleet or begin follow-on technical training, the
impact at Recruit Training Command would be as follows:
Gender Segregated Berthing and Facilities. Based on projected female accessions,
gender segregated berthing at RTC Great Lakes would require the use of three barracks
buildings. Extensive modifications of existing structures would be necessary. The
estimated cost for these renovations would be $1.1M.
Separate training creates numerous scheduling and facility utilization
inefficiencies. There will be built in inefficiencies of berthing assignments, classroom
utilization, etc., due to arrival numbers and population onboard. Two sets of classrooms,
labs, instructors, etc., would have to be used to support gender segregation when only one
would be necessary with integrated divisions. During surge months (May-November), boot
camp capabilities are stretched to the limit. Scheduling must be even more precise. Gender
segregated berthing would create unoccupied spaces at the time when space is needed most.
Manning. Gender segregation would require a significant increase in female RDC
billets (from 88 to 114). The Navy is already severely challenged to provide numbers of
female RDCs for current operations; there simply are not enough females available for this
Training. Gender segregated training at the division level and below would impose dramatic limitations on the existing training plan. Currently, classroom instruction is provided for two divisions simultaneously, regardless of gender, and is scheduled based on the divisions' DOT for the particular lesson being taught. Segregating training by gender would impose inefficiency when odd numbers of male or female divisions require instruction on the same lesson topics. Fourteen additional instructors would be required to provide adequate training in the Naval Orientation, Fire Fighting and Seamanship courses. To facilitate single- division instruction, two additional fire fighting classrooms would be required (approximate cost $1.2M). To facilitate training of basic seamanship skills, construction of a second Marlinespike trainer (ship mock-up) would be required (approximate cost $1.4M) or a reduction in the amount of hands-on training currently provided would be necessary. These basic skills are used extensively during Battle
Stations; a reduction in the amount of hands-on training would
significantly degrade the recruit's ability to successfully complete this culminating
event of recruit training.
Training separately, in areas such as fire fighting, would deprive
recruits of the team building that is essential for warfighting readiness. Navy ships do
not employ separate male and female fire fighting parties. Many recruits are only weeks
away from assignment to deployed units and squadrons. Gender integration in training labs
and during Battle Stations allows all recruits to develop the synergy required for working
in gender integrated units. In post-Battle Stations surveys of recruits the male recruits
reported having learned analytical skills from female counterparts; females reported
having learned to develop and use their physical strengths.
Readiness and Unit Cohesion. In 1987 and 1990, noting the increasing need to
improve integration of women into the fleet, SECNAV directed initial and follow-on Navy
Women's Study Groups. The 1990 study indicated that "non-acceptance of women began at
the training centers;" this finding prompted implementation of a 1992 pilot program
to integrate accession training in Orlando.
Habitability considerations are the sole factor in determining moments assignability to
combatant ships. As a result, even in peacetime as a routine part of the Navy's
forward-presence responsibilities around the world, men and women live and work in close
proximity, sharing the unique challenges of serving aboard a warship.
Navy recruit training is designed to minimize differences between recruits; they must
meet the same performance standards. The only required variant is physical readiness
testing. Navy physical fitness standards for both age and gender apply to all Service
members. The standards were recently revised to make the minimum standards for the female
run more challenging, in line with male standards. All recruits are required to pass the
Navy's physical fitness test with a score of 'good' or better in each category (pushups,
curl-ups and run), based on the standards for the recruit's age and gender.
The morale of a unit is a function primarily of the leadership of that unit. Gender
integrated training commenced in FY95. Graduates of this format are 'first-termers"
(our most junior personnel), who have not yet assumed positions of leadership, and whose
influence on the morale of a unit would be minimal.
However, since these individuals are so junior, they are ideally positioned to be
positively influenced by both male and female role models and respected leaders. This
influence is essential in preparing recruits to become Sailors who will progress through
their Naval careers and gradually assume higher positions of leadership. Following their
experience as Recruit Division Commanders and Instructors, experienced Petty Officers
return to fleet leadership positions, where they can continue to convey the positive
aspects of gender integrated training.
The Navy has found the integrated training experience ideal to train recruits for the
integrated environment they will meet in the fleet.
H. R. 1119.562 (b) (2) (p) - Assess the feasibility and implications of
requiring drill instructors for basic training unit to be of the same sex as the recruits
in those units if the basic training were to be conducted as described in subparagraph
To be fully prepared to enter an operational unit, Sailors must understand, from day
one, that the Navy is gender integrated throughout all levels of the chain of command. It
is essential that RDCs be allowed to train recruits of the opposite gender. It is useful
both for the men and the women to see women in authority positions and as valued and
qualified instructors throughout the recruit training environment. Without exposure to an
RDC of the opposite sex (whether it is male or female) the training foundation could be
adversely impacted and ultimately impact the development of unity, trust and teamwork.
Gender segregation would require a significant increase in the number of female RDCs
(from 88 to 114) assigned to Great Lakes for duty.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
COMMISSION ON MILITARY TRAINING AND GENDER-RELATED ISSUES
29 JANUARY 1999
Good morning, Madame Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Commission. In response to part one of your 31 December, 1998, letter regarding "revisions or updates" to initial entry level training, we can simply say that we have made no changes since our brief to you in June, 1998. You have seen our training at the Recruit Deports, Schools of Infantry and some of our MOS producing schools. Nothing has changed since your visits and we do not anticipate making any changes in the foreseeable future.
In part two, you asked for an assessment of the "feasibility and implications" of training men and women in separate units at the company level and below. As you well know, we have historically done just that and we continue to do it that way today. You also asked about "requiring Drill Instructors to be the same sex as the recruit." Again, as you know, that is how we conduct our gender segregated recruit training at the Marine Corps Recruits Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina.
For us then, there are no assessments to make. As a result, I am prepared to answer
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
JAN 2 7 1999
Ms. Anita K. Blair
Chairman, Congressional Commission on Military and Training
and Gender-Related Issues
Dear Ms. Blair:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide an assessment regarding the
feasibility and implications of providing separate basic military training for male and
female recruits at the flight level and below in separate units. Our response covers the
issues of readiness and unit cohesion, as well as the feasibility and implications of
requiring drill instructors to be of the same sex as the recruits.
Since this is a final request for information and culminates your inquiry, our expanded
response provides a restatement of our training philosophy, a historical perspective, as
well as the specific information requested in the congressional language. We believe you
will find this a useful summary of the Air Force position on gender integration throughout
our training continuum and into our operational units.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions. We have and will
continue to support the efforts of your commission in this most important inquiry.
Air Force Response
Air Force Response
Congressional Commission on Military Training
and Gender Related Issues
Required by PL 105-85, Section 562(b)(2) and (e)(2), and at the behest of the
Congressional Commission, the Air Force was asked to provide a written assessment
regarding the feasibility and implications of conducting basic training at the flight
level and below through separate units for male and female recruits. The response is
required to include an assessment of the costs and other resource commitments required to
implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and the implications for readiness
and unit cohesion.
Also, we were asked to assess the feasibility and implications of requiring drill instructors for basic training units to be of the same sex as the recruits in those units if the basic training were to be conducted as described in the previous paragraph.
During the 1970s, the number of women in the military began to increase as a result of
changing societal views on the role of women in America and the transition of the military
to an all-volunteer force. The Air Force faced labor force constraints brought about by
the abolition of conscription in 1973. Women began to enter the Air Force in increasing
numbers after the inauguration of the all-volunteer force, and this was consistent with
the rise of women in the U.S. labor force, which also began a sustained increase in the
The rising number of women meant that the investment in training women in a segregated
environment was growing proportionately. The senior leadership of the Air Force noted that
continuance of separate, redundant systems of basic training required overlapping
organizational structures, facilities, and training cadre that were both inefficient and
costly. While records are not exact on documenting the reason for going to integrated
training, it was intuitive that it was a more efficient way to employ our training
resources and more economical to develop and maintain the supporting infrastructure (i.e.,
training staff, living quarters, classrooms, etc.).
Over time our process has evolved and has been institutionalized and instilled in our
philosophy which is, " we train the way we operate/fight". . . integrated from
day one. We now have more than twenty years of experience with gender integrated training
and our training effectiveness measures indicate it works well. Today, approximately
35,000 raw recruits begin basic training each year. Last year, 8.3 percent did not
graduate from basic training and an additional 5-6 percent failed to make the cut in
technical school, for various reasons. This is in line with historical averages and the
best success rate in DoD.
The implications of gender separate training
The current rationale for the use of gender integrated Basic Military Training (BMT) is
based on the fact that readiness is impacted by our airmen's ability to conduct themselves
appropriately at all times, especially under stressful conditions. Appropriate conduct
involves accepting opposite gender airmen as both peers and leaders. It involves knowing
how to interact with the opposite sex, because our operational environments are also mixed
gender; and it involves being able to discipline one's self in the conduct of professional
relationships so that personal behavior does not impair unit discipline or mission
accomplishment. Foundations are built at the beginning, not in the middle or at the end of
any construction process. Therefore, the Air Force prefers gender integrated basic
training in order to teach and reinforce these standards of appropriate conduct from the
first day of duty. From this starting point we establish a strong and correct foundation
upon which to build further training and insure that the highest possible level of Mission
Ready Airmen (MRA) arrive at operational units.
Young recruits of opposite gender may well be challenged to focus on training and to
maintain a professional decorum. But singling out sexuality as too difficult or
distracting to control during basic training sends the wrong message to recruits. It also
argues that, if it's too difficult to do during basic training, in a tightly controlled
training environment, it will be far more difficult in advanced skill training or when
they are manning critical positions in operational units.
We also feel it is essential to expose both men and women to female Military Training
Instructors (MTIs) during basic training. This not only affords a positive role model for
women but also allows young men to accept the fact that women will routinely and
successfully occupy high positions throughout the USAF rank structure. Mixed gender flight
formations promote inter-gender teamwork, training standardization, and a mutual
acceptance of each other as peers.
The implication of a gender segregated training environment is to risk losing the
opportunity to expose our recruits to the reality of military life from a social and
operational perspective from the first day of active duty.
Implications for readiness and unit cohesion
Trainees who can demonstrate gender discipline and work well with members of the
opposite sex are more ready to operate in a gender integrated environment. Gender
integrated training operations are consistent with Air Force employment and deployment
scenarios, and because this is so, basic training is the best preparation for professional
life. Since 99 percent of our career fields are open to women, they stand shoulder to
shoulder with male airmen daily in the routine execution of our mission. To conduct basic
training in a segregated environment, therefore, would be to prepare trainees for a false
reality and thus would place a burden on operational units to expose and re-educate new
airmen about technical and operational
environments. The impact of gender segregated basic training would be to shift the burden of making airmen "mission ready" from BMT to technical schools and first duty stations.
BMT shares a training continuum with advanced schools, so another measure of merit with regard to the current practice of gender integrated training is the technical school's survey of their graduate effectiveness as evaluated by operational units. Of all who graduate basic and advanced training, 94 percent are rated satisfactory or higher by their first line supervisors in both job-related skills and military bearing. This suggests that graduates of our schools are extremely well prepared to make a positive contribution to unit readiness.
Also, as previously discussed, the evidence supporting a positive link between our decades-long practice of gender integrated training is our long record of success across the spectrum of operations. This is no accident. Gender integrated training ensures airmen are
better prepared for the challenges of the real Air Force when trained as they will
operate--in units that are diverse in nature. The training requirements for basic training
are similar to those of operational units because our Service employs reality-based
training scenarios whenever possible in order to demonstrate learning objectives.
Separating the genders in events such as our field training exercise, confidence course,
M-16 qualification, and soon to be implemented Warrior Week would impact resource
scheduling and imply different standards and a different culture for men and women.
Finally, gender integrated basic training has been validated and linked to readiness by the BMT Review Committee whose members are senior officers and enlisted personnel throughout the Air Force. Every aspect of the basic training Plan of Instruction (POI) is based on operational requirements which are established and validated by line officer and enlisted senior leadership through the BMT Review (a sort of board of directors) which is accomplished at least every three years.
Implications for safety and security
The Air Force approaches the security and safety of its new recruits with the same seriousness it applies to training. Again, we start early in BMT teaching the discipline of living and training together so problems with distraction can be corrected early. Strong, well-trained leadership and good discipline policy, not reorganizing, is the key to producing MRA. Our data show no evidence of discipline problems as evidenced by the fact that less than one in thirty-four hundred BMT airmen (0.03%) have had misconduct requiring UCMJ discipline.
In BMT, security is tight in the one thousand person living quarters with strict, but fair, rules of social conduct and access control. Men and women live in separate bays and are separated by steel doors, locks, and permanent party monitors twenty-four hours per day. Control rosters and identification badges limit access to the building and routine/random inspections are performed to ensure compliance. BMT leadership is actively involved to ensure trainee security and safety and hold the permanent party personnel and students themselves accountable to properly manage the barracks' security programs. Security is a top priority, and we continue to seek new and innovative ways, with enhanced technology, to improve.
While BMT's billeting procedures do not put male and female recruits in totally separate buildings, we believe the gender separation by floor or bays, coupled with strict entry procedures and validated by the very low rate of disciplinary actions, meet the highest standards reasonably possible to ensure safety and security for our trainees. There is no evidence that providing separate living quarters for men and women will provide a measurable improvement in the safety or security for our recruits.
Cost and resource commitments and resulting inefficiencies
Gender integrated basic training fosters more effective and efficient resource management. Conversely, gender separate training would impose artificial barriers to resource effectiveness. A good example may be found in dormitory utilization.
Each of our squadrons is housed in a self-contained facility, which sleeps up to 1,000 trainees, referred to as Recruit Housing and Training Facilities (RH&T). With the activation of the 324th Training Squadron on 1 March 1999, BMT will utilize six of the seven available facilities. The unused RH&T will be rotated until the remaining three RH&Ts can complete renovation in FY02. In the short term, placing males and females in separate facilities would require use of the seventh RH&T and would preclude this phase renovation program from being completed. Long term, it would result in under-utilization and uneconomical dorm loading since only 26 percent of recruits are women. It is estimated that gender segregated training would result in approximately a 65 percent average occupancy rate.
In addition, the cost to activate a new facility is roughly estimated to be $1.4M. The annual operating cost would be $1.3M. Finally, we would also need two officers and four enlisted personnel to staff an additional command structure.
Human resource commitments and implications of requiring drill instructors to be the same sex as their recruits.
Modern notions of human resource management involve selecting, training, and employing people with the right talent/job match. A segregated training environment would force us to put trainees into student leadership positions based on gender and not on the best use of their potential. It would make us assign MTIs according to gender and not best utilization. It could lead to the widening of gaps between genders in the standardization of their training and in their readiness to meet Air Force standards and would not be reflective of operational realities.
It would also pose training force management barriers and place disproportionate burdens on the training cadre. For example, it is feasible to provide same sex drill instructors. However, to do this, we would have to restrict our assignment of female training instructors at flight level positions due to staffing constraints. Currently, women comprise 18 percent of the USAF. Female MTIs make up 18 percent of our cadre. However, currently 27 percent of the basic trainee population is female. Assignment restriction would ultimately hurt female MTI advancement into supervisory and other career enhancing leadership positions. In our opinion, this factor alone would hurt female instructor recruiting.
Same sex drill instructors would not allow recruits to routinely interact with role models of the opposite gender. A crucial aspect of learning and internalizing values involves practice and learning through observation. The absence of an opposite gender role model sends the
strong message that diversity is too tough to deal with in basic training and therefore
must be too tough to deal with at the operational level. This postpones and transfers the
need to deal with the inevitability of later gender integrated interactions that will
occur in the field, adding an extra burden on the field commander. Same gender
training does not reflect the reality of the Air Force.
The overriding goal and rationale of the basic training process is to transform
civilian recruits into airmen-warriors whose behavior is consistent with the standards,
values, and beliefs of the Air Force. Entry-level training molds the individual's personal
approach to military duty, ethics, and relationships with others, and it serves as the
foundation for building this airmanship. Gender integrated basic training provides the
smoothest transition into the operational, gender integrated Air Force.
As the controlled environment of basic military training is the starting point for military professionalism, the teaching of discipline and professional relationships must not exclude
related gender issues generated by the interaction of men and women at the most basic
unit in their training--that of the flight. Such training prepares young airmen for the
realities of a gender integrated Air Force where 99 percent of all career fields are open
to women. It also prevents passing the burden of responsibility to do this on to technical
training and operational commanders.
ANITA K. BLAIR, LTGEN WILLIAM M. KEYS, USMC (RET.)
and THOMAS MOOREStatement of Commissioner Moskos
This is to explain my abstention from the Commission's
Recommendation #1 on page 34 that each Service be allowed to conduct Initial Entry
Training (IET) as it presently does. I do concur with the general finding of
Recommendation #1 on page 34 that the Services are, by and large, providing the trained
personnel to carry out their assigned missions. But I am not in full accord with the
overall tone of Recommendation #1 as it implies there are no serious problems in IET
beyond those identified by the Services.
My evaluation is based on information the Commission
collected from a variety of sources: quantitative survey data, analyses of comments
written on surveys, focus groups, field observations, and training statistics. I was
particularly struck by the overwhelming consensus among trainers that something is
seriously flawed in gender-integrated training. At the same time, it must be noted that
recruits in gender-integrated settings are much more positive about IET than are the
To be sure, many of the problems noted by the trainers -
quality and attitude of trainees, excessive time spent on supervisory activities,
understaffed training base, etc. - are of a non-gender nature. Indeed, the unanimous
recommendations of the Commission go a long way toward addressing these problems. I
commend my fellow Commissioners for their hard work and judgment on these complex issues.
But we ought not ignore the recurrent theme among trainers
that a core set of problems does derive from gender-integrated settings. These include
physical strength differences between the sexes, maintenance of privacy of the sexes,
sexual distractions, and perceptions of double standards applied to men and women in
disciplinary actions and accusations of sexual harassment.
Although the overall state of gender relations in the
Services is positive, this should not exclude consideration of alternatives in the
physical training of men and women at the IET level. What the precise nature of such
partial separation for physical training might be, I cannot state. But testing some
alternate models from the status quo on a limited basis ought not be ruled out. I am
particularly perturbed by the high physical injury rate of women trainees compared to men.
Likewise, I am put off by the double-talk in training standards that often obscures
physical strength differences between men and women. The extraordinarily high dropout rate
of women in IET cannot be overlooked. The bottom line must be what improves military
Finally, I note that a persistent complaint among the trainers is that their concerns are not attended to by the higher command or oversight groups such as the Commission. Rather than ignore the widespread concerns of the trainers, I abstain from Recommendation #1 on page 34.
Statement of Commissioners Blair, Keys, Moore
We agree with the Statement of Commissioner Charles Moskos. We write separately to add our view that, not only is there evidence of serious problems in gender-integrated training, but there is also substantial evidence that gender-separate training produces superior results. The Marine Corps is the only service that uses only gender-separate basic training. The Army, Navy and Air Force have made it clear to this Commission that they are satisfied with their current training and do not plan to change from gender-integrated to gender-separate basic training, even in view of the Kassebaum-Baker recommendations (the vast majority of which were readily adopted by those Services). We believe the Army, Navy and Air Force should (a) collect data to permit objective evaluation of existing gender-integrated training; and (b) test alternate models to generate comparative data on the military effectiveness of gender-integrated versus gender-separate training. These studies should be performed under the auspices of qualified, impartial outside organizations.