[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference back40::soapbox

Title:Soapbox. Just Soapbox.
Notice:No more new notes
Moderator:WAHOO::LEVESQUEONS
Created:Thu Nov 17 1994
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:862
Total number of notes:339684

502.0. "Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!" by MKOTS3::JMARTIN (I press on toward the goal) Tue Aug 01 1995 21:11

    No Girls Aloud....Kay!!!!?
    
    
    
    This is the message that the beloved Shannon Foster doesn't seem to be
    getting down in South Carolina.
    
    The Citadel is a top notch military school and has traditionally been
    for men only.  Yes, they do receive public funds from time to time but
    so does Virginia Military Academy which is all women.  Shannon Foster
    is not in this category as she has stated so!
    
    I'm not particularly picking on women who are publicity seekers and are
    attempting to plow the field for the inevitable...that being PC is
    kicking in and traditions that have proven successful will soon go out
    the door.  I am focusing here on one gender schools and the benefits of
    these schools to their students...both men and women.
    
    So you want to go to the Citadel?  Well, I'm sorry...this is an all
    mens school and you can't play.  You might say that diversity is
    wonderful in all cases.  I'm sorry but you are wrong.  In this case,
    diversity stinks so if you're really serious about joining the military
    and making a career out of it, then go to a school that caters to both
    genders and leave the Citadel alone!
    
    Men, you want to go to Wellesley College?  Well, my advice to you is to
    get a life and attend a school that has the same philosophies...like 
    Brandeis, Cambridge, or some other two gendered school that appeals to
    socialism.  You shouldn't be allowed there.  You're not a woman...you
    just delusions that you are going to be surrounded by women.  Well,
    that's television bud so get with the program.  You may not be good
    looking and after you graduate you still may not be good looking so it
    won't do you any good!
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
502.1CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanTue Aug 01 1995 21:5612


 allowed

 Shannon Faulkner





 nnttm
502.2LJSRV2::KALIKOWHi-ho! Yow! I'm surfing Arpanet!Tue Aug 01 1995 23:164
    Wait, wait, .1 -- methinks he LIKES wymminz when they ain't aloud.
    
    That's kinda his point donchaknow...  :-)
    
502.3SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Wed Aug 02 1995 02:3612
    Umm....
    
    VMI is quite definitely all male.
    
    Each new governor seems to try to make it a
    political issue to force the school to go co-ed.
    
    Always good for some blistering editorials from the Richmond papers...
    
    As for the topic:
    Nothing wrong in my book with private single-sex schools. Wouldn't send
    my kid to one, though.
502.4MKOTS3::CASHMONa kind of human gom jabbarWed Aug 02 1995 09:2625
    
    In Jack's 502.0, he mentioned Virginia Military Academy as being 
    all female.  As far as I know, there is no such place.  There is
    (as -.1 can attest) Virginia Military Institute (VMI), which was
    allowed to remain all male when they opened a military program
    for women at a nearby school.
    
    VMI grads would be very, ummm, interested to know that they
    went to an all-female school...;-)
    
    The Citadel's latest problem with Shannon Faulkner is that she
    is too fat to meet current cadet standards.  Cadets are routinely
    denied admittance if they exceed Army weight guidelines by more
    than twenty pounds.  Shannon's lawyer has stated that it is
    "not in keeping with their standards of gentlemanly behavior" for
    the school to bring up the matter of her excess baggage.
    
    Oh, are they also not being gentlemen when they keep out fat male
    cadets?
    
    
    
    
    Rob
     
502.5WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onWed Aug 02 1995 11:5528
    No doubt she expects to be the exception to other standards as well...
    
    I have a tough time with this one. On the one hand, I think that people
    ought to be able to do what they want regardless of gender or color,
    etc. On the other hand, it would seem that there is value added in
    having (at least some) single gender schools. I can't escape the notion
    that she is doing this for the publicity... Part of me says to just let
    her in and judge her with the same yardstick used on everybody else,
    and if she makes it give her the same accolades everybody else gets,
    but if she doesn't, make no special allowances. But while no special
    allowances should be made, they shouldn't go out of their way to make
    it harder on her either. And I don't think that they ought to make any
    special allowances for her in terms of hair length, either. If the
    standard is a crew cut, then crew cut it is.
    
     The recent case of a woman fighter pilot who crashed her F14 should
    give us all pause. Apparently, the standards for female pilots are
    lower than the standards for male pilots in terms of test scores,
    simulation results, etc. And it would appear that the crash was a
    direct result of these lower standards, to wit, two of the three things
    she had trouble with during training (which would have DQ'ed her had
    she been male) were things she did wrong on her fatal flight.
    
     I have no problem with women being fighter pilots; in fact I think
    that's a good place for them since women's differences (like upper body
    strength) are not a disadvantage. However, they absolutely must be held
    to the same standards as men; the standards ought not be seen as being
    per gender but per job.
502.6PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 12:213
	Jack, since it's your basenote, what do you think are the
	benefits? 
502.7CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenWed Aug 02 1995 12:301
    Not only that, but what good do you think would come of it?  
502.8DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundWed Aug 02 1995 13:412
    .5 Well said!!
    
502.9LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 14:185
Then there's the problem of bathroom usage.  I mean,
you let one in and you're gonna havta make restrooms
for 'em.  After that, tampon machines.  Then, you 
gotta put up with the PMS.  Not to mention the sexual
tension the boyz will experience, even if they are fat.
502.10GAVEL::JANDROWFriendsRtheFamilyUChooseForYourselfWed Aug 02 1995 15:313
    are you for real???
    
    
502.11MKOTS3::RAUHI survived the Cruel SpaWed Aug 02 1995 15:389
    I donno. I would like to say nice things about this string.. ... and I
    try to see it both ways. With the fighter pilot, welcome to real world.
    She probably was very well trained, and I rather doubt that there is a
    training issue here. I think that its more, when you mess with the gods
    your bond to get burnt. Remember that there are many Men before her who
    have burried themselfs a grave well beyond Marc2 into a hill side. And
    few tears have been shed over them, execpt it. I guess.
    
    
502.12CSOA1::LEECHDia do bheatha.Wed Aug 02 1995 15:395
    What is wrong with having a school as single gendered?  Why can't
    people respect this?  
    
    
    -steve
502.13It has long since been solved.COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertWed Aug 02 1995 15:427
re .9

That actually was a real problem for the couple of dozen Co-Techs at Georgia
Tech in the late sixties.  There were several buildings on campus (Lyman Hall
Laboratory of Chemistry, for example) which had no restrooms for women.

/john
502.14NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 02 1995 15:461
Was there Kotex in the Co-Techs?
502.15WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onWed Aug 02 1995 16:164
    >What is wrong with having a school as single gendered?
    
     Nothing, so long as an equivalent education can be obtained for the
    other gender elsewhere.
502.16SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoWed Aug 02 1995 16:2026
    WRT Falkner and the Citadel, she was within weight standards when she
    was accepted, and had they not forbidden her entrance then she would
    have stayed in shape (cadets *do*).  So if she doesn't make the
    standards now because she's been fighting a court case instead of being
    enrolled its partly their fault.  Give Faulkner a corrective action
    program after she's enrolled and give her the chance.  I do not support
    any institution, especially a publicly endowed one like the Citadel
    (they're a land-grant school) having the power to discriminate on
    admissions criteria for gender.
    
    .0 was a deliberate Citadel swipe at VMI (all female) not an innocent
    mistake.  Boys will be boys, you know, and some military school boys
    never outgrow playing male one-upsmanship games with each other.  Learn
    to spot the silly swagger, downgrade your estimate of the source's
    intelligence a few notches, and move on.
    
    > The recent case of a woman fighter pilot who crashed her F14 should
    > give us all pause. Apparently, the standards for female pilots are
    > lower than the standards for male pilots in terms of test scores,
    > simulation results, etc.
    
    I never got full news reports of this- the information that came out
    was contradictory, and I considered it an unverified rumor.  Did you
    get different information?  
    
    DougO
502.17MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalWed Aug 02 1995 16:2532
    Here I am.  Going to the DVN now but would like to briefly explain.
    
    Sorry about aloud...realized the error on the way in today and figured
    I'd get more abuse over such a simple word than I did.  Thank you for
    your graciousness.  Also, I thought Brudnoy had stated VMA (I) was an
    all women military academy....so again my mistake.  My lack of
    sensitivity in the basenote was actually in hopes to kind of shake a
    bee hive and get alot of involvement and variety of opinions.  I see
    the traditions of certain schools as one gendered as a benefit to those
    who wish to participate in them.  There are, for example, many benefits
    to the Citadel being all male.  There is no social stigmas going on
    between the cadets, there is none of the typical leftist nonsense you
    see at places such as Harvard, UPenn, and Yale.  The Citadel has a
    reputation for excellence...and this means that fat men, fat women,
    whatever...cannot participate because they don't meet standards.  If I
    tried to attend, I would be laughed out of the office so I include
    myself in that list of horizontally challenged.
    
    All men and all women schools are freed from the distractions of the
    opposite sex.  On average, there are fewer discipline problems, the
    students maintain a decorum of respect for the faculty, and the
    teachers can in essence pour their lives into the students with fewer
    problems.  Furthermore, scholastically these schools produce better
    students...both men and women alike.
    
    But the biggie I see here is that traditionally, the Citadel has
    maintained standards of excellence.  The military is not supposed to be
    a career.  It is a group of men and women with similar cause...to kill
    people and to break things.  Ms. Faulkner doesn't have the drive
    necessary to get through the Citadel based on what she has said!
    
    -Jack
502.18WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onWed Aug 02 1995 16:278
    >I never got full news reports of this- the information that came out
    >was contradictory, and I considered it an unverified rumor.  Did you
    >get different information?  
    
     I read something about it earlier this week or last week, but it
    wasn't a press release about any report into the incident. It may have
    been an op-ed piece, so the facts may or may not be as stated. I was
    skimming and not paying strict attention.
502.19Yawn...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 16:319
    
      Well, I attended such a college - I won't say when.  It changed
     from all-male to co-ed in the 70's or so, for outright financial
     reasons.  The male applicant pool just wasn't big enough.
    
      So far as I can tell, it makes practically no difference.  We did
     not live as monks, you know.  There was a female college downstreet.
    
      bb
502.20PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 16:4514
>>       <<< Note 502.17 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
    
>>    But the biggie I see here is that traditionally, the Citadel has
>>    maintained standards of excellence.  The military is not supposed to be
>>    a career.  It is a group of men and women with similar cause...to kill
>>    people and to break things.  Ms. Faulkner doesn't have the drive
>>    necessary to get through the Citadel based on what she has said!

	So, let me get this straight here - does your concern rest with
	Shannon Faulkner and what you perceive to be her lack of drive, or with
	preserving single-gendered institutions in general, as the basenote
	would tend to indicate?  In other words, is Shannon a red
	herring?
	
502.21LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 17:084
.10  are you for real???

Yup.  And in some circles, so are the attitudes
expressed in .9.
502.22SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherWed Aug 02 1995 17:1412
    I'm not sure there are any.  And I have some experience in this 
    area, I spent 3 years in an all-girl private high school
    (would've graduated, but the school closed).  
    
    Life isn't single-gendered,  why should school be?  Segregation 
    doesn't teach you anything about getting along with the other gender.
    
    If we weren't taught from birth to treat each other differently,
    it wouldn't matter in the least.  Perhaps THAT is what should
    change.
    
    Mary-Michael
502.23PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 17:197
	maybe we need some sort of a little
	sarcasm symbol to avoid these situations.
	whaddya think, Oph?

	i'd be using it all the time.

502.24MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 17:2122
    
    jack is right... not that his delivery couldn't use a bit
    of polish, mind you... but as we strive to homogenize
    sexual identity we lose sight of the fact that we
    compromise the training of men -- who presently are the only
    ones allowed to engage in combat -- by establishing physical
    standards that both sexes can meet. sorry goilz, but
    the truth is that while they may be equally matched
    among themselves, you would be hard pressed to produce
    a specimen from your sex that a marine couldn't grind
    into a pulp in a nanosecond. if given a choice between
    fighting units consisting of

    1. a bunch of sexist pigs who happen to kick ass...

    2. a nice group of sensytyve people who wish everyone could
       just get along...

    guess where my money is when the fertilizer hits the
    ventilator?

    -b
502.25NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Wed Aug 02 1995 17:219
    
    
    Homogonize sexual Identitiy??  Where's that Box word/phrases
    topic?!?!?!?!?!?!?  :*))
    
    
    
    Terrie
    
502.28SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherWed Aug 02 1995 17:2718
    re :.24
    
    Whoeee, isn't *that* special?!  Where's your smiley face?
    
    So our only two choices for combat are groups of men who
    think with their brain and groups of men who won't wrestle 
    with unimportant things like verbal skills and a three digit IQ? 
    
    So there is no value in intelligent thought, only in
    armed conflict?
    
    So men who are ill-bred and violent are more useful to
    society than men who can think and feel?
    
    Oohhhh, I love your world.....:-)
    
    Mary-Michael
    
502.29WWII women pilotsSMURF::WALTERSWed Aug 02 1995 17:3911
    
    I saw a good program a while back about women pilots who used to ferry
    Spitfires and Hurricanes from factories to airfields during WWII.   
    Most of them clocked up hundreds more flying hours than the average
    male pilot, and a few even got into scrapes with marauding ME109s.  (As
    the delivery planes were unarmed, they had to be very good at evasive
    flying).  Many of the women pilots interviewed said they would have
    welcomed a chance to fight.
    
    Colin
    
502.30LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 17:515
.29

This kind of story should be kept under
lock and key.  It simply serves to demystify
the AXIOM that men do it better!
502.31POWDML::LAUERLittleChamber/PrepositionalPunishmentWed Aug 02 1995 17:547
    
    Are we discussing the same woman pilot (from however long ago) that
    crashed because of engine failure, not pilot error?
    
    Or is there another one?
    
    
502.32Same one, different "facts" about the particulars...LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 17:574
Well, someone reported that
she just, well, didn't cut the mustard.  But
then he backed off immediately when Doug O. asked
him to prove his statement.
502.33PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 18:015
    
>>    Are we discussing the same woman pilot (from however long ago) that
>>    crashed because of engine failure, not pilot error?

	that's what i was wondering too.  
502.34SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Wed Aug 02 1995 18:237
    If anyone is truly interested, I can do what I can to extract "facts"
    from several flying magazines about the female pilot cutting/not
    cutting the mustard.
    
    There are no test scores, as the Navy did not release those - only
    interviews with other people in her unit who claimed that she received
    preferential treatment to compensate for her low proficiency scores.
502.35SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Wed Aug 02 1995 18:244
    > other people in her unit who claimed
    
    These "other people" wouldn't all be male flyers, now, would they,
    hmmmm...?
502.36MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalWed Aug 02 1995 18:258
    Keep in mind that I also inferred men who go to Wellesley are most
    likely ugly hard up individuals who have delusions of
    grandeur...thinking they are going to be surrounded by babes when the
    fact is they'll still be ugly when they graduate.
    
    I wasn't just picking on Shannon.
    
    -Jack
502.37LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 18:315
  >  men who go to Wellesley are most
  >  likely ugly hard up individuals who have delusions of
  >  grandeur

Then after they graduate, they land a job at DEC.
502.38make that re: .28MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 18:3363
    
    .24

    so how was that career in the NFL? the one where you played
    next to the 6'5", 300 lb guy who could benchpress a pickup
    truck? what, you mean you didn't have one? now, why was
    that? because I'm a sexist pig, or because you're not 6'5"
    300 lbs? neither am i; despite a great deal of interest,
    it kept me out of the nfl... probably kept you out too.

    look, in general, do what you want, go where you want,
    etc.etc. doesn't matter much to me. but i was talking
    specifically about jack's example regarding the citadel...
    if you want to use me as the general case sexism poster
    child, go for it, but you'd be wrong. my concerns
    lay entirely in those areas where the physical (and
    perhaps psychological) characteristics of men make them
    better suited for certain jobs... jobs which make up
    a small minority of jobs in the workplace... with that
    behind us:
    
    please tell me, if you would be so kind, why men, who are
    the only ones doing the actual fighting (forget the pilot
    boloney, i'm talking about the ones slogging it out
    on the ground) are training with women? isn't that what
    the citadel is for? training? men? for fighting?

    what's the point (besides not wanting to be annoyed to
    death arguing about it) of allowing women to train to
    fight in combat roles, if... women can't fight in combat
    roles? what's the point of paying for a whole bunch of
    soldiers who can't fight in combat roles? so, stan
    wants to be called loretta and have babies... what's
    the point?

    fine, complain until they let women fight in combat
    roles, and then we can argue some more about whether
    women should be at the citadel.

    and talk about being sexist... you mind rethinking the part
    of your note which implies that the men who fit my idea of
    a good soldier are all morons? my idea of a good soldier
    is a killing machine. if that's not your idea of a good
    soldier, perhaps you are suggesting what i sarcastically
    referred to as a "sensytyve" soldier in my previous
    note. if you agree with my definition, than please
    explain to me how i'm being sexist when i believe that
    men make better killing machines (for various physical
    _and_ psychological reasons).
    
    the argument for allowing woman into the citadel is
    that the school receives public funds... yes it does;
    for the purpose of creating marines. combat soldiers.
    people who can and will kill and be killed.
    
    should women be payed the same as men for the same
    job. yes! should women be allowed every opportunity
    to advance in the workplace that men are? yes! should
    men and women be competing over every known job in
    the universe? no. should every known instiution be
    forced into being co-ed? no.
    
    -b
502.39TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Wed Aug 02 1995 18:336
    
    Without wanting to delve too deeply into this discussion:
    
    How has the recruitment of women into combat roles affected the
    highly-regarded Israeli military?
    
502.40Less than meets the eye...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 18:3414
    
      Gee, somehow I see this as much less a Battle-of-the-Sexes thing
     and much more a How-times-and-theories-have-changed thing.  Back
     when I attended a (completely nonmilitary) school, I didn't get a
     degree in Computer Science, because there was no such thing - they
     called us Applied Math.  The place was male, not for any exclusionary
     reason.  Since the men's school had a limited language program, and
     our sister school lacked good lab facilities, both could cross
     register, and I attended classes at both over the years.
    
      No, the split-up of the sexes was for one reason only - a failed
     attempt to suppress sexuality.  But actually, it amounted to nothing.
    
      bb
502.42benchpress this bullet honey.SMURF::WALTERSWed Aug 02 1995 18:4811
    .38
    
    -b,
    
    Y'know you don't have to go too far back in history to find
    plenty of examples of women soldiers who trained, fought &
    died just as well as men.   The rifle is a great equalizer.
    I have no doubts that American women volunteers would fight just
    as hard (maybe even harder) for their country & children
    as men would.
    
502.43MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 18:528
    
    re: .42
    
    yeahbut, they currently aren't allowed to... so what's the
    point of sending them to a school to be trained for something
    they aren't allowed to do? eh?
    
    -b
502.44SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoWed Aug 02 1995 18:5211
    >The place was male, not for any exclusionary reason.
    
    How charmingly quaint, someone who still thinks there weren't any girls
    in his college "Applied Math" course of study simply because they
    chose not to be there.
    
    >How-times-and-theories-have-changed 
    
    indeed.
    
    DougO
502.45MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalWed Aug 02 1995 18:534
    Keep in mind that before Hillary got indoctrinated into Wellesley, she
    was head of the Women's Republican Club.  Then they got her!!!
    
    -Jack
502.46Take me baaaacckkkk...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 18:5817
    
      Oh, and another thing (it's all coming back to me - from the
     50's, early 60's).  College life would hardly be recognizable
     as the same institution as college life today.  My point about
     sexual conduct wasn't some whispered secret - we as students
     read and signed a "Social Honor Code", promising not to engage
     in sexual intercourse (no joke !  They expelled guys, same at
     the girl's school.)  There was the "wastebasket rule" - you could
     not entertain a female guest in your quarters without the door
     stopped open by a large wastebasket, so you could be seen.
    
      Cars were forbidden to freshmen.  There was a dress code.  On
     Sunday, there was a compulsory chapel, even for those of different
     sects or none at all, unless waived by a written excuse.  And
     so forth.  An entirely different world, now gone forever.
    
      bb
502.47SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Wed Aug 02 1995 18:596
    Re: .35
    
    Well, of COURSE they are!
    :)
    
    (No interest expressed, I'm not gonna waste my time.)
502.48Sorry if not clear.GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 19:005
    
      And DougO, that was my point - THERE WERE girls in my course.
     But their degrees came from a different institution.
    
      bb
502.49SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoWed Aug 02 1995 19:033
    ah, sorry to have misinterpreted.
    
    DougO
502.50LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 19:126
>Wellesley is where wealthy Republicans send their daughters, so
>that the latter might learn to speak without moving their jaws

I've always wondered how they do that.  Maybe it's a genetic kind
a thing that has to be coaxed out and cultivated.  Like, if they
talk that way, how do they chew?  Oh, I forgot, they don't eat. 
502.51PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 19:147
	are you for real???



	oh, excuse me.  carry on.

502.52LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 19:161
Di, still working on a sarcasm smiley.  Not much luck so far.
502.53a woman's right to chewsSMURF::WALTERSWed Aug 02 1995 19:196
     > how do they chew
    
    Surely, in a single-sex college one would have to resort to
    mastication?
    
    
502.54PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 19:204
>Di, still working on a sarcasm smiley. 

	oh, i'll _bet_ you are.  <-- insert TBD icon here
502.55NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 02 1995 19:221
Girls, girls!  Stop bickering or you'll be sent to a single-gendered school.
502.56LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 19:221
Paaassss the grey poupon........
502.57MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 19:2510
    my suggestion for a sarcasm smiley:
    
    
      |
      |
    ^^ ^^
    \\ //
    
    
    -b
502.58PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 19:276
>>Girls, girls!  Stop bickering or you'll be sent to a single-gendered school.

	sounds good - won't have to help any of the guys with their
	homework.  hoho, etc.

502.59NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 02 1995 19:271
Looks like one of those rubber things inside a toilet tank.
502.61LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 02 1995 19:291
Looked like a mushroom cloud to me.
502.62PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 02 1995 19:312
 .61 Rorschach woulda liked you.
502.63MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 19:316
    
    ascii art is not my strong point, as you can see. let's just
    say i was trying to represent something which has the same name
    as the object of interest to ornithologists...

    -b
502.64NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 02 1995 19:331
Oh, you mean Figure 1.
502.65MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryWed Aug 02 1995 19:333
    
    exactly.
    
502.66Sinking, sinking...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 19:4618
    
      Nostalgia alert !!!  How can someone born in the sixties get
     the flavor of this extinct universe pre-sexual-revolution,
     pre-rock-music, pre-drug-culture, pre-you-name-it ?  Why, by
     watching old TV shows, of course !  Well, everybody looks at
     Ozzie and Harriet, or Leave It to Beaver, but if I had one show
     to pick, one show that displays the sexual mores and what passed
     for generation gaps back then, I think my pick would be "My Little
     Margie".  Not that the show was so great, but as a satire of manners,
     it captures the era the best.  Now I know Gail Storm played the
     marriagable Margie, but who were the other regulars (calling Chris
     Ralto) ?  Who played dimwit Freddie the boyfriend, "Father" the
     widower banker, and most of all "Grandmother", she of "Why, it
     reminds me of my fifth husband !"
    
      Quick, stop me before I recall again...
    
      bb
502.67TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Wed Aug 02 1995 19:473
    
    bb's having a flashback, mannnnnn...
    
502.68CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikWed Aug 02 1995 19:513
    You mean "My Three Sons" didn't catch the full flavor?
    
    
502.69And more...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 19:556
    
      Aaah, yesss - Fred MacMurray.  Where are the actor of yesteryear,
     back when cars had tailfins, as God intended them to ?  That would
     also be a good pick !
    
      bb
502.70DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundWed Aug 02 1995 20:052
    We allow women into West Point, why not The Citadel?
    
502.71SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Wed Aug 02 1995 20:082
    It is not "our" decision...
    West Point is a public institution, the Citadel is private.
502.72Still, I think you hadda be there to really understandDECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamWed Aug 02 1995 20:1529
    re: "My Little Margie"
    
    This was a pretty good show, and I liked it when I was a very
    little kid, but it's a little before my time (hey, I don't get
    to say that very often).
    
    I'll have to 'fess up, I only remembered the first two of these
    cast names, and I did a "phone home" for a remote consulation into
    the "Harry & Wally's" book.  :-)
    
    Gale Storm as Margie Albright
    Charles Farrell as Vernon Albright (Dad)
    Clarence Kolb as George Honeywell
    Gertrude Hoffman as Mrs. Odetts
    Don Hayden as Freddie Wilson
    Willie Best as Charlie
    
    Something seems to be missing here... didn't she have a "sidekick",
    or am I thinking of "Oh Susanna" where Gale Storm had ZaSu Pitts
    as a buddy?
    
    That show is a pretty good pick for being representative of the times,
    if I'm remembering it correctly, though it may be even more indicative
    of the lost world of the 1940's than the 1950's.  Since "My Little
    Margie" was filmed, it should be available, and I'd sure like to
    see it again (along with "Mr. Peepers", which, alas, is mostly lost,
    having been broadcast live).
    
    Chris
502.73NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 02 1995 20:201
I thought the Citadel is state-supported.
502.74Gosh, I remember lots of episodes...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 02 1995 20:2819
    
    Yes, Mr. Honeywell !!  Margie's stiff-upper-lip dad would suck up
    to the old bank prex bigtime, only to have all his schemes undone
    by the eyebrow-raising escopades of Margie.  Of course, all would
    come right in the end.  My Dad (may he rest in peace) took me to
    see Gail Storm sing live in a nightclub in Las Vegas in 1956.  It
    was my first ever nightclub.  She seemed so out-of-place after the
    Margie character, I remember, but I was smitten, although too young
    of course to gamble or drink.
    
    Forties ?  Can it be ?  I seem to recall an even earlier show I
    watched before that (maybe we got TV before you did ? I recall a
    6-inch B/W.)  It was called "I Remember Mama".  Man, I used to cry
    over that.  I was very young, I remember.  I'm too young to have
    vivid talk-radio memories, I think...[sound of rummaging in attic]
    
    Thanks a lot for the info - can you get the Margie show's years ?
    
      bb
502.75SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoWed Aug 02 1995 20:339
    The Citadel is a land grant institution, some of its property was
    deeded by the state government for the trustees' use to establish a
    military institute.  As many Citadel graduates go on to military
    careers, there are also extensive liaisons with US Department of
    Defense, who provide visiting faculty, scholarships for some cadets,
    and other training money.  By no means can they be considered a
    strictly "private" institution.
    
    DougO
502.76SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Wed Aug 02 1995 20:3614
    .75
    
    I don't see how any of the facts you listed prevent it from becoming a
    private institution.
    
    A land grant is quite different from a lease - the land is given away.
    Gone. bye-bye.
    
    And a liason with the DoD does not make it public, either. None of the
    activites you mentioned involved the Dod giving money to the school
    (what do you mean by "training money?")
     Of course, the DoD would be well within its rights in severing all
    relationships with the school if it didn't go coed, but it can't force
    it to do so.
502.77SHRCTR::SIGELFlock of SigelsWed Aug 02 1995 20:414
    No boys to stare at during class?
    
    
    BORING :-)
502.78I'll continue rambling over thereDECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamWed Aug 02 1995 20:455
    re: .74
    
    See you in the TV topic, bb... :-)
    
    Chris
502.79SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoWed Aug 02 1995 20:4516
    > None of the activites you mentioned involved the Dod giving money to
    > the school
    
    Paying the salaries of visiting officers, paying cadet scholarships?
    Those are indirect grants to the school.
    
    > Of course, the DoD would be well within its rights in severing all
    > relationships with the school if it didn't go coed, but it can't force
    > it to do so.
    
    I don't know the contractual obligations of scholarships or of the
    institutions involved; but complying with Title IX to stay eligible 
    for the scholarship moneys they've already accepted may indeed give 
    the courts the obligation to force the Citadel to go coed.
    
    DougO
502.80Too much time at MacCitadel?DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Aug 03 1995 10:4213
    I still don't see why I'm off the mark; a number of you take
    exception to females being admitted to The Citadel.  A lot was said
    about whether or not females could keep up etc.  I was just trying
    to point out that if woman can make it through West Point they could
    make it through The Citadel.
    
    I'm not sure what the woman's motives were or how altruistic they
    were.  If she was *really* intent on a military career, why not try
    for West Point (although I do understand it's much more difficult
    to gain admission at WP).
    
    DougO, I do think your theory on her weight gain a bit lame though :-)
    
502.81DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Thu Aug 03 1995 11:578
    
    > Those are indirect grants to the school.
                ^^^^^^^^
    This is the key word.  The DoD can cut off funds, but can not FORCE the
    Citadel to go co-ed.  They can require co-ed status to maintain funds,
    but that's about it.
    
    Dan
502.82CALLME::MR_TOPAZThu Aug 03 1995 12:4517
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts  ZaSu Pitts 
       
       
       I love that name, and she certainly was the crotchety old bag in MLM.
502.83Something for us old folksDECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamThu Aug 03 1995 14:0215
    re: ZaSu Pitts
    
    A few weeks ago I saw a "History of Hollywood" kind of show, probably
    on AMC, and they did a bit on ZaSu Pitts' movies.  She was apparently
    quite popular in the thirties, one of the most popular comedy actresses
    around at the time.  She was usually teamed up with some other
    comedienne type (whose name escapes me) in the typical sidekick
    situation that she later did on TV, but here she was much younger,
    and not too bad looking in her younger days.
    
    Most of the female comedy stars on early TV did similar stuff in
    the movies in the 30's and 40's (e.g., Lucille Ball, Eve Arden,
    etc.).  I should try to catch more of their old movies...
    
    Chris
502.84GAVEL::JANDROWFriendsRtheFamilyUChooseForYourselfThu Aug 03 1995 14:2910
    >>A few weeks ago I saw a "History of Hollywood" kind of show, probably
    >>on AMC,
    
    
    chris, you watch all my children?!??!?!
    
    
    :> ;> ;>
    
    
502.85Acronyms Me ConfuseDECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamThu Aug 03 1995 14:3810
    >> chris, you watch all my children?!??!?!
    
    Ha-ha, good one... funny, when I first typed "AMC", I thought
    of "American Motors Corporation".  But then again, that's probably
    because I had one of their cars.
    
    I think that I used to watch "All My Children" during college
    vacations, but that should go into the "Confessions" topic...
    
    Chris
502.86SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Aug 03 1995 16:0615
    > This is the key word.  The DoD can cut off funds, but can not FORCE
    > the Citadel to go co-ed.  They can require co-ed status to maintain
    > funds, but that's about it.
      
    Try to keep up.  The last point made was that the courts, not the DoD,
    would have to be the active agent, because the discrimination against
    female would-be cadets is a violation of Title IX, the Federal Law
    already applied by Congress to all institutions that accept federal
    money.  The Citadel accepts such money on any ROTC scholarship cadet,
    and by accepting the services of any professional military officer
    while Congress pays that officer's salary.  They are in violation of
    Title IX, as I understand it has been interpreted in past court cases.
    Are they too good for the law?  The argument won't wash.
    
    DougO
502.87MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 03 1995 16:074
    Well, it matters not because Shannon is simply too fat to participate
    at the Citadel!
    
    -Jack
502.88SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Aug 03 1995 16:2712
    > DougO, I do think your theory on her weight gain a bit lame though :-)
    
    OK, I think it is too, actually.  It isn't the important issue here to
    me, though.  I hope the court still makes a ruling on the principle of
    whether the Citadel is to be allowed to continue to discriminate.  If
    they aren't, then Shannon will have to meet cadet standards, period.
    If she doesn't, she's out.  I have no problem with that- as I thought
    was clear when I said previously that she should be put on a corrective
    action plan, as would be any cadet the first time they failed to meet
    standards.
    
    DougO
502.89MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 03 1995 16:345
    DougO:
    
    How can you say that with a straight face?  Every school discriminates!
    
    -Jack
502.90MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Aug 03 1995 16:427
    
    ah yes, the old ignore the question you can't answer ploy, eh?
    
    so does this mean there really isn't a point to allowing someone
    who can't participate in combat to train for it?
    
    -b
502.91SMURF::WALTERSThu Aug 03 1995 16:575
    
    Most male soldiers will never fight in hand-to-hand combat either. How
    many people actually pursue the career for which they are trained?  
    The question is whether all individuals should have equal opportunity
    to make choices.
502.92NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 17:013
>    Most male soldiers will never fight in hand-to-hand combat either.

Unless they get in a barroom brawl.  In which case they should be executed.
502.93SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Aug 03 1995 17:3336
        >ah yes, the old ignore the question you can't answer ploy, eh?
        
    No, its the old ignore the question you don't find relevant in order to
    stay focused on what you do find relevant approach; not a ploy at all.
    
    There are 90 troops behind the line for every 10 in combat.  All
    service training requires that people be trained to perform all of
    these roles- nobody is guranteed a combat position.  Nobody is
    guaranteed that they'll ever see combat.  Entire careers are spent and
    specialisation required, in materiel logistics, communications,
    maintenance, artillery, personnel support, transportation, etc, etc,
    etc.  
    
    > so does this mean there really isn't a point to allowing someone
    > who can't participate in combat to train for it?
    
    The Citadel may like to pretend it sole mission is to train officers to
    lead combat troops.  But the rest of us know that the services need far
    more than that of all its' trained personnel, and that gender matters
    not a whit to the utility of these officers to the services.  Training
    for the 10% who will be commanders of combat troops continues when they
    join their units, well after the Citadel has offered them generic
    officer training; when the crucial skills they need to lead in combat
    are to be learned from interacting with their troops, something the
    Citadel can't even offer.  What the Citadel nees to recognise is that
    all of their officers *will* have women in their commands, and as
    senior officers, and they had better get used to it from the first day,
    and not allow a sexist attitude to pollute the officer corps from the
    graduates of a hidebound military academy.
    
    What this means is that the issue of women attending the Citadel is not
    at all about whether there is a point to training women for combat
    roles they'll never be allowed into; clearly its about allowing them
    into the Citadel to be trained as officers.
    
    DougO
502.94CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikThu Aug 03 1995 17:366
    Oh and DougO,
    
    Don't forget some of those officers from the C will have women officers
    over them at some point in their military carreers as well.
    
    meg
502.95SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Aug 03 1995 17:413
    what, you missed "and as senior officers" Meg?
    
    DougO
502.96CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikThu Aug 03 1995 17:481
    Oops, that is what I meant dougO
502.97CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 03 1995 18:4542
    <<< Note 502.80 by DECLNE::REESE "ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround" >>>

>    to point out that if woman can make it through West Point they could
>    make it through The Citadel.
    
    	Women have different physical standards from men at West Point.  
    	And at Annapolis.  And at the Air Force Academy.  And to become
    	police and fire officers in most municipalities.
    
    	This violates the position of many of the participants in
    	this discussion -- that of equal standards.  I can accept 
    	women in such fields, but ONLY if they can meet the standards
    	already in place.  If it has been determined that x-ability
    	is necessary to do the job, then it's not so much a matter of
    	unfairness to lower the standard for special cases as it is
    	a functional matter or a matter of safety.  Otherwise, why is 
    	that standard in place?  Someone has determined that that is
    	the ability necessary to do the job effectively or safely.
    	If the standard is in place solely to keep women (or some
    	other group) out of the job, then that is a different matter 
    	entirely.
    
    	Someone back there asked how hard it is to carry a rifle,
    	suggesting that any woman can do that.  Probably true, but
    	there is more to being a soldier than carrying (and being able
    	to successfully use) a rifle.  Or handle a joystick, for that
    	matter.  Soldiers carry things, climb obstacles while carrying
    	things, carry each other, and do all sorts of physically-
    	demanding tasks.  They don't just stand in one place and
    	shoot.  Look at the Normandy invasion.  Many men drowned,
    	unable to swim to shore with the loads they had to carry.
    	Do you think that lower standards for women would have helped
    	in that situation?  Those who made it to shore (sometimes
    	carrying their wounded comrades in addition to their own 
    	loads) then had to scale cliffs.    This is just one
    	example.  Soldiers are supposed to be interchangeable 
    	parts in an army machine.  If the guy in front of you is
    	cut down, you should be able to pick up his load.  Would
    	a lower-standards woman be able to carry her wounded 
    	platoon-mate out of a firefight?  If she can meet the
    	male standards, we can expect that she would be able to
    	perform that task.
502.98PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 03 1995 18:543
	.97  agreed.  

502.99Can you say "frag"??SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 18:5520
    
     I agree with Joe...
    
     If I'm in a fire-fight, and need someone to hump ammo for me (go
    ahead... you're gonna anyway) then they better be able to do it...
    whether they're a man, woman or... Canadian!!!
    
      If they can't, then my life's in danger and they better give me
    someone who can or I'll shoot them myself!!
    
        If PFC Wally Nerd can't tote the stuff and Pvt. Bertha Butt with
    her 25 inch biceps can, then BB's my life saver... hands down!!
      
     But you better not ask me to lay my life on the line because some
    hot-shot PC pencil pusher says we gotta be equal and all... 
    
      Soldiers in all sorts of wars and battles have been killed by
    "snipers".. even if the bullets were fired into their backs...
    
      
502.100the benefits of single gendered snarfsHBAHBA::HAASbuggedThu Aug 03 1995 18:580
502.101TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 03 1995 18:587
    
    > If I'm in a fire-fight, and need someone to hump ammo for me (go
    >ahead... you're gonna anyway) then they better be able to do it...
    >whether they're a man, woman or... Canadian!!!
    
    :^)
      
502.102NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 18:591
Canadians... the elusive third sex?  Next on In Search Of...
502.103Not kidding...CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 03 1995 19:011
    	THIRD sex?  Contemporary logic is now pushing for FIVE!!!  
502.104CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikThu Aug 03 1995 19:025
    Joe,
    
    Can you give us a reference besides Dobson?
    
    meg
502.105references?HBAHBA::HAASbuggedThu Aug 03 1995 19:025
>    	THIRD sex?  Contemporary logic is now pushing for FIVE!!!  

You been talking to Heiser about Jamie Lee Curtis agin?

TTom
502.106SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 19:0315
    .103
    
    > THIRD sex?  Contemporary logic is now pushing for FIVE!!!
    
    Contemporary logic is already behind the times.  There are actually
    eight:
    
    male homo
    male hetero
    male bi
    male neuter
    female homo
    female hetero
    female bi
    female neuter
502.107NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 19:051
Nine, if you include Canadians.
502.108SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 19:064
    
    <------
    More like 16.... if you include Canadians (sans Richardson)
    
502.109aren't some Canadians bilingual, too?HBAHBA::HAASbuggedThu Aug 03 1995 19:060
502.110MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 03 1995 19:1220
   ZZ     How
   ZZ     many people actually pursue the career for which they are trained?  
   ZZ     The question is whether all individuals should have equal
   ZZ     opportunity to make choices.
    
    The Citadel is a school made up of cadets who are quite serious about 
    military service.
    
    The answer to the question is no, all individuals shouldn't have equal
    opportunity to make choices because not all people are the same. 
    Should Haystacks Calhoun have the right to make a choice about going to
    the Citadel?  No because quite frankly, (other than being dead), the
    man is tremendously obese and his metabolism didn't afford him the
    choice to go to Citadel or West Point.  
    
    Shannon Faulkner has the choice to cut 20 lbs.  Then they will take it
    from there.  Remember, the military is here to kill and destroy.  Not
    interested in civilian protocols.
    
    -Jack
502.111CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenThu Aug 03 1995 19:121
    Not only that but don't some of them speak two languages also?
502.112NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 19:152
I definitely think the Citadel shouldn't accept dead obese professional
wrestlers.  Whoever disagrees with me can step into the ring.
502.113LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 03 1995 19:165
A big cornerstone of the "save our Citadel" crowd's
monologue is the "lowering of standards" mantra.

Who has pushed for "lowering the standards" in this string?
No one.
502.114quite the traditionHBAHBA::HAASbuggedThu Aug 03 1995 19:1913
>I definitely think the Citadel shouldn't accept dead obese professional
>wrestlers.  Whoever disagrees with me can step into the ring.

He'd prolly become the head of that there cadre o' cadets.

Y'all should come on down and take a look at the Citadel. It's in the
finest tradition of the south, namely mid-19th century. Back then, you
could get a_honest day's work for a_honest day's flogging. If'n you were
poor, black or female, no need to apply.

All paid for by our tax dollars and don't you fergit it.

TTom
502.115MPGS::MARKEYThe bottom end of Liquid SanctuaryThu Aug 03 1995 19:2231
    
    joe and andy have done a better job of making the point i was
    trying to make yesterday (thanks!); let me add that i have
    my doubts that a significant number of woman would meet the
    standards that should be in place for a _combat_ soldier;
    purely from a physical perspective. so, i'm still not sure
    about the value of training them for combat. i also have
    my doubts regarding the value of training someone to command
    combat troops who cannot be a combat troop (referring to
    DougO's argument).
    
    to me, social engineering the military is a *huge* mistake.
    although i support gay rights, to me it is foolish to
    impose my will (or even the will of the majority) upon
    the military. the military is too unlike civilian life;
    it should not be somewhat self-governing as a social
    structure.
    
    i don't agree with the notion that a gay soldier is a
    problem; but then again, i don't have to fight with gay
    soldiers. if my well-honed killing machines don't want
    to fight with gay soldiers... OK. none of my business.
    
    if my well-honed killing machines resent being led by
    officers who can't meet the same physical standards
    they do... OK, none of my business.
    
    the military is not a training ground for your careers
    folks; it is an organized war machine.
    
    -b
502.116LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 03 1995 19:221
Ah, the good ol' days...
502.117TROOA::COLLINSCareful! That sponge has corners!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:3013
    
    I can't say I disagree with Joe and Andy WRT standards, BUT...
    
    ("everyone I know has a big but")
    
    ...one *should* be allowed to question whether the standards are
    unnecessarily high in the first place.  For instance, police and
    firefighters have to pass rigorous physical tests prior to admission.
    After 10 years of service, however, how many could still pass those
    same tests?
    
    jc
    
502.119SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 19:3410
    
    My only problem with a homosexual combat soldier is that if he's in the
    trenches next to me and gets his head blown off, the blood and gore is
    gonna be all over me... he may or may not be HIV+ but why put that
    worry on a combat soldier's head along with worrying about if the enemy
    is gonna kill him?
    
    Granted, I may or may not be aware of this soldier's sexual preference,
    but if I were, what would that do to my morale??
    
502.120SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 19:3918
    
    re: .117
    
    Re-test em every  5-10 years!!
    
    I can't tolerate seeing some of the cops and firefighters in the
    trenches who can't do their jobs because of their physical limitations.
    
     I don't watch it but have seen COPS at friends houses and it disgusts
    me to see these fat cops chasing a fleet-footed suspect and after a few
    hundred feet, they're gasping for air and ready to collapse...
    
     Same with the Fire-fighters... can't close their coats cause of the
    Budweiser tumor... If, because of this condition, it costs precious
    seconds where someone's life is at stake, get Bertha Butt in there,
    and fatso out!!!
    
      
502.121NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:4121
    
    
    Andy...that's probably by far one of the most pathetic notes of yours I
    have ever read.  If you watch ANYONE get his head blown off next to you
    it's going to affect morale, I hope!
    
    And with all the testing, physicals, etc. that they do these days, I
    think it's safe to say that someone infected with AIDS would not be
    allowed to enter the armed forces anyways, wether they be homosexual or
    heterosexual.
    
    AIDS IS NOT A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE!!!!!!  How do you know that the guy in
    the hole next to you hasn't been sleeping with every whore in Bancock
    for the past twenty years, and also has AIDS????
    
    Be realistic....I could have it....the person in the office next to you
    could have it.....you may never know.  
    
    
    Terrie
    
502.122NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:438
    
    
    .121 was in reference to .119, not .120
    
    
    
    Terrie
    
502.123SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Thu Aug 03 1995 19:453
    Ummm...I believe that's "Bangcock," Terrie...
    
    (Ya, I know that's not it either, but it fits, don't it?)
502.124NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:465
    
    
    :*)  I typed it that way firs, but then I figured I might get deleted
    for R.O., so I changed it.  :*)
    
502.125NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 19:461
Isn't Bancock some kind of male hygiene spray?
502.126NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:464
    
    
    First.....not firs.  :*)
    
502.127MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 03 1995 19:474
 ZZ   Who has pushed for "lowering the standards" in this string?
 ZZ   No one.
    
    So you believe Shannon Faulker should get a butch?
502.128NETCAD::WOODFORDIfStressWasFood,I'dBeVERYfat!Thu Aug 03 1995 19:474
    
    
    No.  It's the prostitution capital of the world....in Thailand.
    
502.129POLAR::RICHARDSONPrepositional MasochistThu Aug 03 1995 19:491
    Bancock, the deodorant stick?
502.130SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Thu Aug 03 1995 19:501
    No, it's the capital of tie-me-up-land.
502.131SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 19:5024
    
    re: .121
    
    terrie,
    
    Pathetic (in your eyes) or not, it's a very real scenario. Why? Because
    I've had the opportunity to talk with GI's about this very same thing.
    
    >If you watch ANYONE get his head blown off next to you it's going to
    >affect morale, I hope!
    
     Nope... you don't have time for that at that particular moment. It
    doesn't affect morale, it affects head-count (no pun intended) and
    the worry if you'll have somebody else there soon to help you stay
    alive that much longer... 
    
     If you would kindly re-read my reply, I was talking about HIV+ people
    and not AIDS... HIV takes years to develope and may not be readily
    caught during routine tests... So your finding it before the person
    gets any farther is a straw-man at best...
    
     Pathetic? I suggest that unless you've been a soldier, and been
    there-done that, you reserve judgment for a future date...
    
502.132SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Thu Aug 03 1995 19:535
    I'll remember that if I ever get into combat and the head of the guy
    next to me suddenly begins accelerating outwards in different
    directions all at once.
    
    Puke? Tremble? Pee my pants? "NoSIR, ain't got time for that!"
502.133MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 03 1995 19:565
    You got that right.  You will be too busy running and will save your
    bodily functions for a better time!  In boot camp, they'll tell you if
    you puke, you die!
    
    -Jack
502.134POLAR::RICHARDSONPrepositional MasochistThu Aug 03 1995 19:591
    Were you in boot camp Meatie?
502.135SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 19:599
    .119
    
    Andy, I've got news for you.  HIV is not a gay disease.  It's an
    equal-opportunity killer.  Consider also that in most combat zones a
    nontrivial number of the troops around you would be helping the local
    businessowmen to ply their trade - in some areas, the percentage of
    such businesswomen who are HIV+ approaches unity.  Your straight-as-an-
    arrow foxhole mate might be as likely to be HIV+ as the gay guy in the
    next ditch.
502.136SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:1224
    
    You're probably right Dick...
    
    But if you go back and re-read what I wrote, I believe the main point I
    was trying to make was morale? 
    
    What is it based on? Knowing and not knowing certain things... 
    
    Knowing that your CO won a medal for bravery is better than knowing he
    just came from commanding a rear echelon unit...
    
    Knowing the guy next to you MAY be HIV+ (whether straight or not) is
    not better for morale than not knowing..
    
      I know I have to obey orders... Psychologically (morale wise), if I
    know three of the guys in my squad are homosexuals, I'd be worried.
    If Joe Straight is HIV+ and I don't know it because I know that Joe is
    straight, my morale is not affected. If I didn't know those same three
    guys in my squad are homosexual, it hasn't affected my morale...
    
     Clearer??
    
    
    
502.137SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 20:1611
    Exactly my point, Andy.  Knowing that you are in a combat zone where
    more than 75 percent of the whores are HIV+, and where many of your
    straight buddies are getting their horns clipped anyway, is no less
    damaging to morale than knowing that a perhaps-monogamous gay trooper
    is in the next foxhole. My brother-in-law Patrick is gay.  He's been
    with his partner for a great deal longer than the average married
    couple.  They both made sure that each was HIV- before they engaged in
    any activities that might communicate the virus.  Whom would you rather
    have covering your ass, my brother-in-law or Hugh Grant, who recently
    allegedly indulged in an activity that could well result in his
    becoming HIV+?
502.138SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Thu Aug 03 1995 20:163
    translation of .136:
    
    ignorance is bliss.
502.139CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:2123
   <<< Note 502.117 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>

>    ...one *should* be allowed to question whether the standards are
>    unnecessarily high in the first place.  
    
    	I left room for that in my .97.  In addition I was thinking to
    	add (but forgot it in the end) that if lower standards for
    	females are actually sufficient, then those same standards
    	should be OK for males too.
    
>    For instance, police and
>    firefighters have to pass rigorous physical tests prior to admission.
>    After 10 years of service, however, how many could still pass those
>    same tests?
    
    	I thought they were supposed to be retested...  Then again,
    	when you look at the physical condition of many of them, one
    	has to question whether that is a true statement.
    
    	They should be retested.
    
    	Doesn't the military have ongoing physical requirements and
    	tests?
502.140PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 03 1995 20:214
	>>My brother-in-law Patrick is gay.

	more's the pity.  

502.141SMURF::MSCANLONalliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogetherThu Aug 03 1995 20:2214
    re: .136
    
    Ignoring the possible impact of your surroundings is not
    bliss, it is plain stuipd.
    
    If we make a habit of training military personnel by telling
    them, "if you don't know about it you can make it go away"
    I really do fear for this country.
    
    AIDS and HIV is real.  It is everywhere.  Some people who
    have contracted it have probably done so by ignoring the
    facts, ie "ignorance is bliss".
    
    Wake up.  Ignorance can be death.
502.142SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:2519
    
    re: .137
    
    I think you know what I meant Dick.... why belabor the point...
    
    re: .138
    
    >ignorance is bliss.
    
    Absolutely!!!! Have you ever been in the military??
    
    Have you ever been shot at?
    
    Would you want to know where the bullet meant for you was coming
    from... and when??
    
     Do you realize how many front-line combat troops there would be if
    ignorance wasn't bliss??
    
502.144SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Thu Aug 03 1995 20:305
    .142
    
    Don't get so dang defensive!
    
    I didn't comment on your reply at all...just translated.
502.145SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:3017
    
    RE: .141
    
    Mary-Michael...
    
    >If we make a habit of training military personnel by telling
    >them, "if you don't know about it you can make it go away"
    >I really do fear for this country.
    
     Don't fear too long... it's always been that way and always will be..
    
    What do you think the results of D-Day would've been had the troops
    been told.."Well, there's 100,000 of you and we know for sure that
    10,000 of you will die securing the beach head.." ????
    
     I "fear" there would've been many many more that 10K...
    
502.146NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 20:305
Andy, my understanding is that, since at least WWII, the military has devoted
a lot of effort to convincing soldiers to avoid prostitutes.  I'd hope that
they would devote even more effort now that so many third world prostitutes
are HIV+.  It's in the military's interest that soldiers be afraid of HIV.
It's not in the military's interest that soldiers be afraid of combat.
502.143SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 20:3014
    .142
    
    > Would you want to know where the bullet meant for you was coming
    > from... and when??
    
    Yes, I would.  An accident that you can anticipate may well be an
    accident that you can avoid.  Ignorance is not bliss in combat, Andy. 
    Ignorance is ignominious death.  And if you think otherwise, you might
    address your remarks to some of the 20 British pilots who were told off
    to go up against more than a hundred Messerschmitts in order to cover a
    retreat.  If any of them had come back, that is.  They went up not
    because they didn't know they were doomed, but because they were
    honorable men willing to give their lives to save thousands of other
    British lives.  That's what being a hero is all about.
502.147SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 20:329
    .146
    
    > my understanding is that, since at least WWII, the military has devoted
    > a lot of effort to convincing soldiers to avoid prostitutes.
    
    And if you think it works, I have this beautiful oceanfront property in
    Vermont I'd like to sell you.  Talk to soldiers who fought in Korea. 
    Or in Viet Nam.  They'll tell you they pretty much interpreted orders
    to avoid prostitutes as meaning don't get caught with a whore.
502.148SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:3415
    
    re: .143
    
    Dick,
    
     Heroism in the face of danger and certain death is just that.. heroic.
    It is not ignorance and it is not bliss...
    
     Combat has nothing to do with accidents... unless you want to start a
    rat-hole about friendly fire. 
    
     Would you have crawled out of your fox-hole knowing you're gonna die?
    
    Besides... you can't hear the one that gets you anyway.... 
    
502.149NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 03 1995 20:342
I realize it's not terribly effective.  But Andy was equating being afraid
of HIV with being afraid of combat.
502.150Morale wise only...SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:361
    
502.151SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 20:367
    .148
    
    > Would you have crawled out of your fox-hole knowing you're gonna die?
    
    If I believed in what I was fighting for, yes.  Willingly.  I would
    today voluntarily die saving the life, for example, of either of my
    children.
502.152SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:4324
    
    re: .151
    
    Dick,
    
     That's you... and we know that can't be quantified...
    
    I happen to agree with your sentiments entirely. That's me...
    
    Most soldiers crawl out of their fox-holes for less altruistic reasons
    than you or I.
    
     Firstly they are trained and indoctrinated to do so. If you (generic)
    haven't been in the military, you won't understand. The fear of being
    punished and/or seeming a coward in their peers eyes is another. They
    crawl out because they know they MIGHT get killed, not that they would
    be killed. They know it might happen to the other guy, not them.. 
    
     and probably a host of other reasons...
    
     BTW... your example of your children is, I think, not appropose to a
    combat situation...
    
    
502.153SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 20:486
    .152
    
    > not appropose [sic]
    
    Ah, but it is.  It illustrates by analogy a scenario in which I would
    be willing to sacrifice my life knowingly.
502.154SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 20:525
    
    Okay... I'll give you the "knowingly"... 
    
    But it still begs the whole question of the initial scenario of combat
    and morale...
502.155SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Thu Aug 03 1995 21:017
    .154
    
    I think not.  I would rather know that the guy next to me is a good
    hand with an M-16 than that he is heterosexual.  His ability with a
    rifle could keep me alive.  His bedroom proclivities can't.  Morale
    (in combat) for me is an issue of who is the best person to be with
    if my object is to come out with my shield instead of on it.
502.156SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 03 1995 21:149
    
    re. .155
    
    That's fine for you and I Dick..
    
    Convince some 19 year old combat jock who just got out of high school
    and is still under the impression you can catch AIDS from shaking a
    homosexual's hand...
    
502.157SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Aug 03 1995 21:189
  <<< Note 502.102 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Canadians... the elusive third sex? 

	I think it's more along the lines of speciation.

	;-)

Jim
502.158CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 03 1995 21:223
    	Well, lesbians have one of the lowest rates of HIV infection, so
    	to get back to the topic (somewhat) maybe all Citadel enrollees
    	should be lesbians!   :^)
502.159CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikFri Aug 04 1995 12:5717
    On a side rathole regarding blood and bloos bonrne infections, there
    are several other nasties you can pick up from bodily fluids that
    aren't limited to one orientation or another as well.  Hepititis B and
    Hep C (also implicated in a large number of liver cancers, and what
    probably was responsible for Mantle's problems), and hep a can all be
    cuaght by exchange of bodily fluids and are far more distributed in the
    population than HIV has ever been.  Hep B and C are also STD's and a
    large number of prostitutes, IV drug users and college students have
    been exposed to or have caught one of the other.  There is a vaccine
    for Hap B, but nothing existing at this time for hep C.
    
    This makes using good universal blood precautions paramount in all
    first aid and field conditions when possible.  The last first-aid
    course I took strongly emphasized carrying gloves, and "mouth condoms"
    in a first aid kit.  
    
    meg
502.160SPSEG::COVINGTONWhen the going gets weird...Fri Aug 04 1995 13:205
    Dare I ask...
    
    Whazza mouth condom?
    
    I've seen mouth-to-mouth adapters for PR...izzat the same thing?
502.161DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Aug 04 1995 13:516
    Meg,
    
    I think there's reason to believe that hepatitis had nothing to do
    with Mickey Mantle's liver problems.
    
    
502.162SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Fri Aug 04 1995 13:547
    .161
    
    > I think there's reason to believe that hepatitis had nothing to do
    > with Mickey Mantle's liver problems.
    
    Given that Mantle was diagnosed as having hep c, I think you think
    wrong.
502.163We're not talking about a few beers hereDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Aug 04 1995 14:288
    Oh come on Binder, Mantle is an admitted alcoholic; we're talking
    40+ years of hard boozing!!  I'm sure the hep c didn't help matters
    any, but after hearing Mantle and members of his family talk about
    just how much he did drink over that extended period of time, I
    think it's a bit naive to think the hep c is the sole source of his
    liver problems.
    
    
502.164WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 04 1995 14:355
    >I think it's a bit naive to think the hep c is the sole source of his
    >liver problems.
    
     I have yet to come across anyone making such a claim. Why the red
    herring?
502.165GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 04 1995 14:535
    
    
    It may or may not be, Karen.  I know people who drank real hard for 50+
    years and died of heart ailments in their late 80's.  I'm not saying ot
    was or it wasn't, we cannot know.
502.166SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Fri Aug 04 1995 14:5310
    .163
    
    > I
    > think it's a bit naive to think the hep c is the sole source of his
    > liver problems.
    
    Try reading for comprehension.  Where did I say hep c was the SOLE
    source of Mantle's problem?  You said in .161 that you thought that
    hepatitis had NOTHING to do with his problem.  You were wrong.  Hep c
    contributed to the need for a new liver.  Admit your error.
502.167DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Aug 04 1995 15:4911
    Ray,
    
    Check out .159, I saw no mention of alcohol being the probable source
    of Mantle's problems, only hepatitis.  I was responding to Meg's
    note.
    
    I'm not denying hepatitis C can't be a factor in severe liver problems
    and/or cancer, perhaps Mickey Mantle just isn't the best example to
    use for the hepatitis angle, that's all.
    
    
502.168SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Fri Aug 04 1995 16:3415
    
    	re: mouth condom
    
    	Most likely meg is talking about a face-shield. It's used for
    emergency mouth-to-mouth when a pocket face mask or bag-valve mask are
    not available. A thin sheet of plastic with a hole in it basically. If
    the person upchucks, you will eat it. Get a pocket face mask with a one
    way valve...(not 100% upchuck proof, but better).
    
    
    jim (3 weeks from completion of his EMT course)
    
    p.s. - Hepatitis kills more EMT's every year than HIV....
    
    
502.169GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 04 1995 17:346
    
    
    RE: You is a classy dude, James, that's what I like so much about you.
    :')
    
    Mike
502.170SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 04 1995 17:527
    
    re: .168
    
    re: face-shield
    
    Got's one of dem... fortunately, haven't had a chance to use one yet.
    
502.171CSC32::M_EVANSproud counter-culture McGovernikFri Aug 04 1995 18:4216
    face shield was what I was talking about.  
    
    HEP C has been implicated heavily in Cancer of the liver, as HPV has
    been implicated heavily in cervical cancer.  The cchirroses (sp) is
    what did prevent the more conservative LC treatment as there was too
    much scar tissue to remove parts of the liver and let it regenerate.  
    
    meg
    
    re.168
    
    I hope you have gotten vaccinated for hep B.  There is also a new
    vaccine for hep A out now.  Unfortunately there is none that I know of
    for hep C.
    
    
502.172DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Aug 04 1995 19:424
    Wasn't it a hep C infection that has endangered Naomi Judd's health?
    Think she said she was infected while she was still working as an R.N.
    
    
502.173DRDAN::KALIKOWHi-ho! Yow! I'm surfing Arpanet!Fri Aug 04 1995 20:143
502.174SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoMon Aug 07 1995 16:0421
    man, take a day off and the topic goes rather far afield.
    
    > about the value of training them for combat. i also have
    > my doubts regarding the value of training someone to command
    > combat troops who cannot be a combat troop (referring to
    > DougO's argument).
    
    You've misunderstood my argument.  I'm saying that although the Citadel
    grads may like to pretend its sole mission is to train combat troops,
    in reality its mission is to train officers.  What the DoD does with
    them is up to the DoD, and many will never see combat or get another
    day of combat training, or need it.  90% of the officers aren't in
    combat, they're in support.  If the Citadel wants to continue to have a
    market for its "private" grads, it had better ensure that they're fit
    for duty with the DoD- and that means not trained to disregard the
    capabilities of a significant fraction of their troops and commanders
    and peers- those who happen to be female; that is, the Citadel had
    better be sure it doesn't train sexists.  Hard for the good ol' boys to
    understand, but thats the rules.
    
    DougO
502.175LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 14:214
Well, looks like she's in.  Quite honestly, IMO, she
must be a little naive or a little nuts to want to attend
school there.  I hope she knows what she's in for.
It ain't gonna be no joyride.
502.176PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Aug 14 1995 14:253
>>It ain't gonna be no joyride.

	Not even a scintilla of joy should she expect.
502.177LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 14:271
Indeed, not the tiniest of scintillas.
502.178Easy StreetSOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 14:446
    
    Actually, she seems to have done the smart thing...
    
    She'll be treated with kid gloves so's the big, bad federalis won't
    come down on the school some more (IMO of course)
    
502.179LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 14:504
You really think so?  Maybe.  For awhile.
But eventually she'll be pretty much on her
own.  Oh well, she got her own bathroom, that
oughta count for something.
502.180PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Aug 14 1995 14:568
>>                                -< Easy Street >-

	she's already encountered a sign telling her to "go home",
	so i doubt it'll be "easy street".  personally, i see no
	problem with single-gendered institutions.  i think she
	should have respected that aspect of that particular institution
	and stayed out.  that's an unpopular opinion for a woman
	to have, no doubt, but hey, it's monday.
502.181SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 15:089
    
    >she's already encountered a sign telling her to "go home",
    
    Wow!!! Poor thing!!
    
    No crosses being burned? No 'tar-and-feather' effigies?
    
     Bonnie's right... things will quiet down... but she'll still be
    treated with kid gloves, whether she's ostracized or not... 
502.182GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberMon Aug 14 1995 15:098
    
    
    Yup, us men are perfectly content to let you wimmins have yer quilting
    bees without wanting to join in.... :')
    
    
    
    I agree 100% with M'Lady concerning the subject at hand.   
502.183PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Aug 14 1995 15:1811
    
    >she's already encountered a sign telling her to "go home",
    
>>    Wow!!! Poor thing!!


	I'm not saying that's such a horrible thing, but it's clear
	she's not wanted there by some factions.  "Easy street"? - no.
	Treated with kid gloves by some faculty members?  - yes, that
	seems very likely, you're right.

502.184LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 15:233
They certainly won't be able to taunt a guy
using the 'p' word when he can't do a gazillion
push-ups...
502.185WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 14 1995 15:273
    >    Wow!!! Poor thing!!
     
     I am bowled over by your inestimable compassion.
502.186SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Mon Aug 14 1995 15:3114
    Faulkner says she wants to be treated exactly the same as the other
    knobs (slang for buzz-cut hair of new cadets).
    
    Right.
    
    The Citadel has decided that, because the knob haircut is part of the
    "uniformity" thing and because she's already inherently different from
    all the other cadets, she does not get a buzz cut.
    
    Also unlike all other cadets, she has a private room - with security
    cameras monitoring the corridors outside.  I'd guess that the cameras
    are there because the Citadel, despite its tradition of officers and
    gentlemen, does not expect the male cadets to play nicely with their
    new friend.
502.187LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 15:376
>    The Citadel has decided that, because the knob haircut is part of the
>    "uniformity" thing and because she's already inherently different from
>    all the other cadets, she does not get a buzz cut.

They should give her the buzz cut then.  But I'm sure they just can't
bring themselves to do it.
502.188SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Mon Aug 14 1995 15:453
    It occurs that refusal to administer the buzz cut may be part of a plan
    to treat her UNLIKE the other cadets, enough that she decides it's not
    worth it and quits.
502.189SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 15:508
    
    re: .184
    
    Urban legend... (at least in the military)...
    
    The most endearing term used, 90% of the time, was "maggot". The other
    10% was confined to variations of four letter words...
    
502.190LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 15:542
hmmm. maggot.  I like that.  It's gender-free.

502.191SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 15:5511
    
    re: .185
    
    >I am bowled over by your inestimable compassion.
    
    I'm sure she knew what was in store for her before/during/after, to a
    degree...
    
    Compassion? No... respect maybe, for seeing through with her
    convictions... a certain amount of admiration for sticking it to them
    (deservedly)...
502.192SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 15:575
    
    re: .190
    
    The Drill Instructors were always in the "equal opportunity" bracket
    when dispensing "praise"...
502.193LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 15:595
>It occurs that refusal to administer the buzz cut may be part of a plan
>    to treat her UNLIKE the other cadets

Yup, it's time for the citadel authorities to set the stage...
these differences are _really_ gonna be valued.
502.194WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 14 1995 17:117
    >Compassion? No... respect maybe, for seeing through with her
    >convictions... a certain amount of admiration for sticking it to them
    >(deservedly)...
    
     Really? One would not infer that from the notes you've written thus
    far.
    
502.195A maggot's a maggot...SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 17:145
    
    One would infer that I had no compassion (which you rightly did), and
    since I stated what I wanted to subsequently, then there's no need to
    infer anything else...
    
502.196MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalMon Aug 14 1995 17:4414
    Compassion???
    
    I hope they make her cry...I hope they really make it hell for her!
    
    Why??  Because she wants to be a martyr and plow the field for feminist
    groups...and if she is going to be an icon for feminism, I want her to
    be able to stand up and say Hey...I got through the Citadel and opened
    the doors for all women.  
    
    If they make it easy for her, then women at the Citadel will always be
    in the same category as the Affirmative Action nonsense that goes on in
    other companies and segments of society.
    
    -Jack
502.197how who should act?HBAHBA::HAASx,y,z,time,matter,energyMon Aug 14 1995 17:475
>    I hope they make her cry...I hope they really make it hell for her!

Such a kind and charitable way of looking at things...

TTom
502.198MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalMon Aug 14 1995 17:5213
    TTom:
    
    Granted.  Realize that it is boot camp that is supposed to train a
    person to survive....to break things...and to kill.  The military is
    not a place to assume a danger free career, it is not a place to
    perform social engineering, it is a place to learn how to hate...sorry
    to say but these are the facts.
    
    It is this attribute of what we are that helps us to survive.  If
    Shannon wants to be a Citadel cadet, then she reaaaaally has to want
    it!
    
    -Jack
502.199LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 17:551
Attention!!
502.200LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 17:551
Snarf!
502.201SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 17:573
    
    Leech ones don't count....
    
502.202LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 17:591
Ya can't set yourself up?
502.203TROOA::COLLINSCD Rewinders, half price!Mon Aug 14 1995 18:023
    
    Nope.  That's cheating.
    
502.204LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 18:042
No wonder Leech does it all the time.
Oh well, I have so much to learn about snarf culture.
502.205DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Mon Aug 14 1995 18:0510
    
    > I hope they make her cry...I hope they really make it hell for her!
    > 
    > Why??  Because she wants to be a martyr and plow the field for feminist
    > groups...and if she is going to be an icon for feminism, I want her to
    > be able to stand up and say Hey...I got through the Citadel and opened
    > the doors for all women.  
    
    What's the implication if she opts out next year?
    
502.206SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 18:054
    
    It's bad enough to just take one, but setting yourself up is considered
    "gauche" by box standards
    
502.207WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 14 1995 18:1112
    >It is this attribute of what we are that helps us to survive.  If
    >Shannon wants to be a Citadel cadet, then she reaaaaally has to
    >want it!
    
     So, basically, she has to be 10 times the average male cadet to make
    it out? Then butt pimples like yourself will still claim she had it
    easy. Like it or not, she's already shown much more initiative and
    resilience than the average male cadet. She's already shown that she
    "reaaaaally" wants it. And yet we still hear an assortment of barnyard
    sounds from your general direction. nice oinking and braying, but you
    need a little work on your squealing. No doubt her continued existence
    will give you plenty of practice.
502.210LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 18:151
I shall never commit a Leech-snarf again.
502.212SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 18:165
    
    re: .210
    
    Snarf-control is much more challenging...
    
502.211PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Aug 14 1995 18:185
    >>Like it or not, she's already shown much more initiative and
    >>resilience than the average male cadet. 

	I wouldn't contest this, but what are you basing it on?

502.213WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 14 1995 18:206
    >I wouldn't contest this, but what are you basing it on?
    
     I'm basing it on her willingness to endure the slings and arrows of a
    protracted court battle, in yo' face publicity, and what is likely to
    be a very lonely college career just to get the education of her
    choice. Any other cadet applies, gets accepted and shows up.
502.214LANDO::OLIVER_BMon Aug 14 1995 18:207
    >>Like it or not, she's already shown much more initiative and
    >>resilience than the average male cadet.

My guess would be that Mark is referring to Faulkner's 
stick-to-ittiveness in getting into the Citadel in the
first place...the battle's been on for about 2 years,
hasn't it?
502.208WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 14 1995 18:214
    >It's bad enough to just take one, but setting yourself up is considered
    >"gauche" by box standards
    
     Not that that even slows Leech down...
502.215PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Aug 14 1995 18:234
	>>Any other cadet applies, gets accepted and shows up.

	That indicates nothing about initiative.

502.216WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 14 1995 18:264
    >That indicates nothing about initiative.
    
     It doesn't? Well, it does to me. Note that I am not saying that she
    HAS more initiative than your average cadet, just that she's SHOWN it.
502.209LeachSOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 18:301
    
502.217PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Aug 14 1995 18:365
	>>Note that I am not saying that she
        >>HAS more initiative than your average cadet, just that she's SHOWN it.

	Yeah, I figured you'd say that. ;>  Sorry, it just didn't come
	across that simply to me. 
502.218Why not go to West Point or Annapolis ?GAAS::BRAUCHERMon Aug 14 1995 18:365
    
      Howcum rebel states run military academies to teach more treason ?
     Somebody shoulda told Sherman and Grant, "You missed a spot."
    
      bb 
502.219SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 14 1995 18:395
    
    <-----
    
    Can you say Robert E. Lee???
    
502.220MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalMon Aug 14 1995 18:5217
    Mark:
    
    Butt Pimple.....moi!!?  
    
    You have cut me to the quick.  Bottom line Mark, is I don't really care
    if she's the best cadet that ever went through the Citadel anymore than
    I care if President Clinton saves the world.  President Clinton is
    still in my opinion not worthy to be Commander in Chief for the United
    States Military and Shannon Faulkner is the wrong gender! 
    Superficial???...perhaps but there you have it.
    
    I am a solid believer in the integrity of single gendered schools for
    both men and women.  Unlike popular opinion, I reject the notion that
    men and women are alike.  They are not, this is the politically correct
    fallacy going on these days so don't fall for it!
    
    -Jack
502.221Cadette in infirmary, misses tonights oath-taking ceremonyCOVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertTue Aug 15 1995 03:328
OK, whassamatta here?

Everyone afraid to post the news about Shannon ending up in the infirmary
suffering from heat exhaustion on her first day of training at the Citadel?

It is to be noted that five cadets also succumbed.

/john
502.222Survival of the fittest?RUSURE::GOODWINTue Aug 15 1995 11:297
    It was probably the school's plan to push them until Shannon succumbed
    to the heat/exhaustion or whatever to show that she couldn't take it. 
    Poetic justice that some of the guys went down with her.
    
    Never understood why the military is so fond of pushing their own
    people until they drop or die.  Seems to happen every so often.  Is
    there some point to it?
502.223re: Shannon FaulknerMKOTS3::CASHMONa kind of human gom jabbarTue Aug 15 1995 11:3258
    
    Shannon's heat exhaustion, which has so far prevented her from taking
    the oath to become a cadet, is by no means an unusual thing.  Knobs,
    rooks, or plebes (depending which school you're at) are under so much
    unaccustomed stress the first few days that it is easy to forget
    to drink, even under a hot South Carolina sun.  It becomes a familiar
    sight to see knobs passing out when in formation out on the parade
    ground, either from heat exhaustion or from having knees locked 
    when standing at attention.  Besides, I suspect that perhaps Shannon
    might have been decreasing her water intake over the last few days
    just to ensure that she comes in within the Army weight standards
    for her height, just to avoid any embarrassing criticism.
    
    Having gone to two military colleges/academies, and having known men
    who went to all the well-known schools, I have my own expectations about
    the environment Shannon Faulkner will face at the Citadel.  It
    surprises me to hear media personalities voice fears that Shannon will
    be unduly hazed as the first female cadet.  Rather, I expect that she
    will be shunned by both the training cadre of upperclassmen and by her
    own classmates, who will be mortified to be in the first Citadel class
    to include a woman in their ranks.  No one will haze her.  No one will
    associate with her.  Her classmates will not include her in duties
    or in social interaction.  This behavior will be subtly encouraged by
    the upperclassmen and by the old guard that runs the Citadel.
    
    Shannon will spend four years, if she lasts that long, alone in her
    $25,000 private room and bath, or in a similar arrangement in the band
    barracks if her lawyers are successful in their latest bid.  She may
    get a Citadel ring and degree, but she will NEVER know what it was like
    to be a Citadel cadet.
    
    I feel sorry for everything that has happened to Shannon Faulkner, and
    I feel sorry for everything that is going to happen to her.  However,
    she asked for it.  She decided to spit in the face of Southern
    tradition when she could have gone elsewhere for an equivalent
    education.  And as far as her showing "initiative" goes, I suppose
    that is true if you consider "initiative" to include outright lies and
    distortions of her academic record on her application to disguise the
    fact that "Shannon" was a "she" instead of a "he."  The Citadel brought
    this up to the court, but the court was not interested.
    
    Since she has already shown herself to be a liar, I would not be
    surprised to see her brought up on honor board charges at some point
    in the future.  But hey, who knows?  Maybe her experience at the
    Citadel, under the microscope with the whole world looking on, will
    help to demonstrate to her how important honor is, especially to 
    someone seeking a military career.
    
    No matter what happens, Shannon Faulkner is going to have a tough
    row to hoe.  It certainly wouldn't be fair to judge all future female
    cadets based on her experiences.  But the courts have made the
    decision to force Shannon and the Citadel to change and grow 
    together, so one can only hope that the change, in both cases, will
    be for the best.
    
    
    Rob
    
502.224GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberTue Aug 15 1995 11:587
    
    
    She was on of six to be overcome by the heat.  I caught some of the
    news last night, she seems to be a bit on the portly side from the
    photos that I saw last night.
    
    Mike
502.225MAIL2::CRANETue Aug 15 1995 12:388
    If I remember boot camp (Paris Island) the standing at attention in
    this (or that weather) was for self decipline. They tell you up front
    how to stand so your knees don`t lock and wake you up at 2:00 A.M. to
    give you salt pills. Paris Island (IMO) was 90% decipline 10% strength.
    It was at ITR and BST that it got physical (again MO). AT P.I. we got 8
    hours sleep but at Gieger it was when ever they wanted to go for a 20
    mile hike be it 3:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the afternoon you went.
    Ahhh the good old days.
502.226BRITE::FYFETue Aug 15 1995 13:222
    
    It's called hell week for a reason ...
502.227ALPHAZ::HARNEYJohn A HarneyTue Aug 15 1995 14:576
re: .225

    "PaRRis Island"

    NNTTM.
\john
502.228MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalTue Aug 15 1995 15:1010
ZZ    I feel sorry for everything that has happened to Shannon Faulkner, and
ZZ    I feel sorry for everything that is going to happen to her.  However,
ZZ    she asked for it.
    
    My sentiments exactly.  Against popular belief, I do NOT want Shannon
    Faulkner to fail.  However, if she is going to grab the title of
    martyrdom for the sake of social change, I want her to be worthy of
    it.
    
    -Jack
502.229LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 15:431
I'm sure she'll try her best, Jack.
502.230SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Tue Aug 15 1995 16:4421
    .223
    
    > distortions of her academic record on her application to disguise the
    > fact that "Shannon" was a "she" instead of a "he."
    
    Removal of irrelevant information is not distortion.  The student's
    gender has no bearing on his or her academic abilities.
    
    > but the court was not interested.
    
    And correctly so.  The Citadel accepts federal moneys and is thereby
    prohibited under penalty of law from discriminating on the basis of
    gender on its admissions.
    
    Faulkner will get what she will get.  The Citadel has received a black
    eye, in the view of anti-discrimination people for its archaic sexism,
    and in the view of Southern "traditionalists," for accepting a woman,
    even under duress.
    
    No one is helped by what has happened, and is happening.  It's not a
    nice world.
502.231DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Tue Aug 15 1995 17:005
    
    I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Citadel had refused
    to take her, and either refuse all current government money, just
    closed down, or not taken any cadets this year.
    
502.232MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalTue Aug 15 1995 17:0810
    Dick:
    
    There are many schools, all women, who receive federal money.  I for
    one have this idea that these traditions should be maintained and that
    Shannon Faulkner went against protocol on this one.  
    
    Single gendered schools work...they have worked so we don't want
    anybody mucking up the waters!
    
    -Jack
502.233SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROTue Aug 15 1995 17:1816
    <<< Note 502.231 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Citadel had refused
>    to take her, and either refuse all current government money, just
>    closed down, or not taken any cadets this year.
 
	Either would have been an acceptable response to the legal 
	problem. Not taking government money and boosting the tuition
	would have been an honorable way out of the mess.

	As it was they thought they could keep the money AND their
	tradition. The were wrong.

Jim   

502.234SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROTue Aug 15 1995 17:208
      <<< Note 502.232 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    There are many schools, all women, who receive federal money. 

	And the law would apply equally to them should a male apply
	for admission.

Jim
502.235GAVEL::JANDROWGreen-Eyed Lady...Tue Aug 15 1995 17:239
    
    
    >>There are many schools, all women, who receive federal money.
    
    wasn't there an all-female school a few years ago that was forced to 
    allow admission of the male student who applied and got accepted???
    
    
    
502.236MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalTue Aug 15 1995 17:425
    There have been cases where males tried to get into all women schools.
    I think these types should be neutered on sight!  I have no more
    respect for them than I do Shannon Faulkner.
    
    -Jack
502.237SMURF::BINDERNight's candles are burnt out.Tue Aug 15 1995 17:435
    .235
    
    Dunno if it's the one you're thinking of, but Smith College, where my
    mother matriculated, is no longer single-sex.  Nor is Wesleyan
    University, where my father took his degree, any longer single-sex.
502.238CALLME::MR_TOPAZTue Aug 15 1995 17:5314
       > There have been cases where males tried to get into all women
       > schools. I think these types should be neutered on sight!  I have
       > no more respect for them than I do Shannon Faulkner.
       
       As always, Jack Martin displays, for all the world to see, his
       analytical approach to the social contract:  "If it's not
       something that I would do, why would anyone else want to do it, or
       even be allowed to do it?"
       
       Doesn't matter what the issue or question might be, Jack's
       approach is predictable and obsessively self-centered.  Way to go,
       Jack.
       
       --Mr Topaz
502.239Let Me In, WheeyooRUSURE::GOODWINTue Aug 15 1995 18:006
    re. .236  [men going to women's schools]
    
    A friend in high school did an English paper on single-sex colleges
    that had recently turned coed, then was admitted to one.
    
    We all had *lots* of respect for that dude...
502.241Shannon Faulkner - CitadelMIMS::SANDERS_JTue Aug 15 1995 18:2013
    After hearing about Shannon Faulkner's sickness on her first day at
    the Citidel, I thought I would see if there was any mention of her on
    there WEB page.  The answer was no.
    
    However, there were these interesting statistics:
    
    All women (no males) colleges have produced 1/3 of all women board
    members of Fortune 1000 companies, 1/4 of women board members of
    Fortune 500 companies, and 1/2 of the women in Congress.  However, only
    4.5 % of women college graduates went to all women colleges.
    
    One could conclude that single sex education institutions produce
    outstanding achievers.  Of course, many BOXERS are going to disagree.
502.240NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 15 1995 18:222
Binder, have you no shame?  Admitting right here in the 'box that your
mother matriculated?
502.242NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 15 1995 18:285
>    One could conclude that single sex education institutions produce
>    outstanding achievers.

One could also conclude that single sex education institutions _accept_
outstanding achievers.
502.243PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Aug 15 1995 18:304
 
>>  <<< Note 502.240 by NOTIME::SACKS 

   see 17.6939  ;>
502.244SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 15 1995 18:314
    re: .240
    
    Well... at least she didn't expectorate!!
    
502.245SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Tue Aug 15 1995 18:311
    Or masticate.
502.246SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 15 1995 18:333
    
    and obfuscate..
    
502.247CALLME::MR_TOPAZTue Aug 15 1995 18:3411
       re .241:
       
       > All women (no males) colleges have produced 1/3 of all women
       > board members of Fortune 1000 companies, 1/4 of women board
       > members of Fortune 500 companies, and 1/2 of the women in
       > Congress.  
       
       You conveniently, or ignorantly, neglect to list or even mention
       corresponding statistics: namely, that many, many more Fortune-n
       company board members graduated from Harvard and other all-male
       schools than graduated from all-female schools.
502.248LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 18:371
He's honor roll today....
502.249SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 15 1995 18:395
    
    re: .247
    
    How about schools in Ohio????
    
502.250.500 isn't so bad, after allCALLME::MR_TOPAZTue Aug 15 1995 18:413
       
       All they got is a football team in a crap conference, or
       drug-infested free-sex hippie places like Kenyon.
502.251Shannon FaulknerMIMS::SANDERS_JTue Aug 15 1995 18:432
    What do you think of her first day at school?
    
502.252exhausting!!!!SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 15 1995 18:441
    
502.254GAVEL::JANDROWGreen-Eyed Lady...Tue Aug 15 1995 18:464
    
    remind me to {smaq} you, later, andy...:> :>
    
    
502.255LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 18:512
She probably had her monthly...but how come
the guys fainted?
502.256TROOA::COLLINSA 9-track mind...Tue Aug 15 1995 18:523
    
    Swooning in her presence, no doubt.
    
502.257SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 15 1995 18:539
    
    re: .255
    
    Let's get this right Bonnie!!!
    
    Women "faint"
    
    
    Guys "Pass Out"!!
502.258LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 18:554
And women glisten
and men sweat, right?

Or are cadets allowed to sweat (or glisten)?
502.259List them all!MIMS::SANDERS_JTue Aug 15 1995 19:227
    re. 247
    
    Why don't you list those statistics for us.
    
    By the way, why did you omit the 4.5% number from my entry?  It was the
    most important number, but of course it was "so convenient" for you to
    omit.
502.260NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 15 1995 19:413
re .258:

NoNoNo!  Horses sweat, men perspire, and women get dewy.
502.261COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertTue Aug 15 1995 19:453
re .260

Truman, dammit!
502.262LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 19:461
Do we?
502.263CALLME::MR_TOPAZTue Aug 15 1995 19:473
502.264LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 20:141
Glisten here.  You would.  We do.
502.265CSC32::M_EVANSnothing's going to bring him backTue Aug 15 1995 20:172
    I thought it was "ladies glow"
    
502.266LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 20:251
that's when they're preggers...
502.267CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Tue Aug 15 1995 20:268
      <<< Note 502.223 by MKOTS3::CASHMON "a kind of human gom jabbar" >>>
    
>    Knobs,
>    rooks, or plebes (depending which school you're at) 
    
    	You forgot doolies.  (Air Force Academy.)
    
    	And what are US Coast Guard Academy rookies called?
502.268LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 15 1995 20:301
wet behind the ears?
502.269Re Covertski's 502.221DRDAN::KALIKOWW3: Surf-it 2 Surfeit!Wed Aug 16 1995 02:1725
Note 502.221          Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!            221 of 224
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       8 lines  14-AUG-1995 23:32
        -< Cadette in infirmary, misses tonights oath-taking ceremony >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, whassamatta here?

Everyone afraid to post the news about Shannon ending up in the infirmary
suffering from heat exhaustion on her first day of training at the Citadel?

It is to be noted that five cadets also succumbed.

/john
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Everyone afraid", oh yeah sure.  If that ain't a classic case of
    projection, I ain't never seen it.  No /john, here's MY theory.  That
    wasn't a very prominent news item at the time you posted it...  And I
    think that it was most likely to be ferreted out & trumpeted as BIG
    NEWS, first, by one who just LIVES to see his gnawing contempt of
    certain groups (I can think of at least two) "vindicated."  All the
    while projecting his shame at this behavior onto others, in the form of
    saying that they "obviously" share, but are AFRAID to express, the
    feelings that HE has.  Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt.
    
    In fact the ol' fella is looking pretty goldurned bedraggled...

502.270SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Wed Aug 16 1995 13:173
    >        And what are US Coast Guard Academy rookies called?
    
    Fishbait?
502.271PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Aug 16 1995 13:443
  .269 methinks that's one nail that's been hit squarely
       on the head by our esteemed glow-in-the-dark beanie man.
502.272LANDO::OLIVER_BWed Aug 16 1995 13:503
.269

It was a rather astute observation.
502.273Did NOT prepare!MIMS::SANDERS_JWed Aug 16 1995 16:2718
    Perhaps Shannon's plan is to spend all of "hell week" in the infirmary.  
    This way, she can get out of doing any hard work.
    
    For someone who was going to be put in the national spotlight, who was
    going to break fertile ground at the all male Citadel, who was going to
    be an example to other women, she was poorly prepared.  I mean, she
    looks to be in pitiful shape.  It is not just a weight problem, but I
    think she must be lazy.
    
    When I was preparing for my physical for Naval Flight School, I was
    running six miles a day plus exercising my ass off.  I was doing that
    for six months prior to arriving in Pensacola.  I could easily have
    kept up with the Marine DI (Marine DIs have Navy flight guys for the
    first 13 weeks).  I was prepared.
    
    Shannon was NOT prepared, and judging from the looks of her, had put
    out "zero" effort at getting prepared.  Now she wants to sit back in
    the air conditioning while the others bust their ass.
502.274DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Wed Aug 16 1995 16:465
    

                          I N   C O M I N G   ! ! ! ! 


502.275uh-huhHBAHBA::HAASx,y,z,time,matter,energyWed Aug 16 1995 16:5210
re: .273

>    looks to be in pitiful shape.  It is not just a weight problem, but I
>    think she must be lazy.

Now, now. Let's keep facks and opinions separate.

She shore did look pitiful, though.

TTom
502.276BRITE::FYFEWed Aug 16 1995 18:357
>    Shannon was NOT prepared, and judging from the looks of her, had put
>    out "zero" effort at getting prepared.  Now she wants to sit back in
>    the air conditioning while the others bust their ass.

I'm waiting for her sexual harrassment suit to be filed the first time
she gets roughed up by her sargent ...

502.277And will have her hair shaved off ???BRITE::FYFEWed Aug 16 1995 18:351
502.278Unless you mean Mr. ShriverNOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 16 1995 18:541
Sergeant.  NNTTM.
502.279TROOA::COLLINSA 9-track mind...Wed Aug 16 1995 18:563
    
    <---- I saw that, Gareld.
    
502.280NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Aug 16 1995 19:012
If I misspell a spelling correction, and Di doesn't see it, does it make
a sound?
502.281LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 17 1995 13:499
>I'm waiting for her sexual harrassment suit to be filed the first time
>she gets roughed up by her sargent ...

>It is not just a weight problem, but I
>    think she must be lazy.

What pathetic slurs!!!  C'mon, ladies!!!
You can do better than that!!!  Why, I 
haven't even come across the "L" word yet!!!
502.282Of course, we're having the mother of all heat wavesDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Aug 17 1995 17:4512
    Heard on noon news that Shannon has been moved from the infirmary
    to a local hospital.  She has been rehydrated, but is still unable
    function.  Further tests will be done.
    
    Someone else in this string mentioned that she might have been
    skipping on fluids trying to lose some weight; if that's the case,
    she may have done serious damage to her kidneys (kidneys are first
    major organ to go if one is allowed to get REALLY dehydrated).
    
    The male cadets who collapsed have been released from the infirmary.
    
    
502.283MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 17 1995 17:567
    Hope she comes out of this okay.  
    
    Again...the issue isn't whether or not she as a woman can succeed.  It
    has to do with the interference of a tradition that has proven
    successful for years.
    
    -Jack
502.284SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 17:577
    
    
    Gee Jack!!! I'm disappointed!! I thought for sure you'd take the last
    line of .282 and run with it!!
    
     :) :)
    
502.285Don't forget that all the rest did not pass out.CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 17 1995 18:036
    	I don't understand the argument that "5 male cadets passed
    	out too".  This in no way shows that the regimen was too
    	strenuous.  Not all men are cut out for it either.  Those
    	that can't will get cut from the program (or should get cut
    	from the program) and if Faulkner can't keep up, she should
    	get cut too.
502.286GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberThu Aug 17 1995 18:064
    
    
    Cuz, if it wasn't mentioned, it would have been used by someone to
    point out that the noter who entered about Faulkner was a sexist.
502.287POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 18:077
    
    There's a world of difference between "six people passed out and she
    was one of them" and "she passed out".  Not mentioning that she was not
    the only one who passed out makes it look as if she couldn't cut it
    simply because she was a woman.
    
    
502.288ODIXIE::ZOGRANReasonable summer ratesThu Aug 17 1995 18:146
     Wonder if she is with child?  Seems like an awful long time to be in
    the infirmary and hospital.
    
    Not commenting on her personal life, etc., just wondering.
    
    Dan
502.289MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 17 1995 18:154
    Thank you Mike.  That's exactly why I entered it!!!!!
    
    Andy has always been a troublemaker...and he likes the Yankees and the
    Rangers too!
502.290DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 18:1611
    >Not mentioning that she was not the only one who passed out makes it look 
    >as if she couldn't cut it simply because she was a woman.
    
    No, she just can't cut it period (no pun intended). She forces her
    entry into an all male school and shows that she is in the bottom 6 of
    her class. If the rumor is true, and she is the only one left in the
    hospital, then she is at the bottom of her class as far as physical
    endurance is concerned. We won't mention that she is female, but would
    anyone want to wager that she won't wash out?
    
    ...Tom
502.291POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 18:2111
    
    "She forces her entry", hogwash.  She was ACCEPTED by the school and
    then the acceptance was withdrawn after they discovered she {gasp!} 
    DIDN'T HAVE A PENIS.
    
    Oh dear!  No penis?  What a drawback!  We certainly don't want anyone
    around who doesn't have a penis.
    
    
    
    
502.292Where is the conspiracy topic?CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 17 1995 18:225
    	Well one theory is that the rigors of hell week were elevated
    	such that she was sure to fail, and that some or all of the 5
    	males are casualties of unfair requirements enacted purely to
    	oust Faulkner.  If she had been tougher, dozens of male recruits
    	would have fallen because of the scheme.
502.293Right to fail!MIMS::SANDERS_JThu Aug 17 1995 18:2513
    Shannon has the right to succeed and the right to fail.  Success for
    her should not be guaranteed.  If she cannot make the grade, she should
    be cut.
    
    I will still say that for someone who wanted it so bad, she was poorly
    prepared.
    
    I wonder how she will make-up the time missed during hell week?  
    
    By the way, someone who takes diuretics to lose weight is trying to
    "cut corners".  Trying to do it the easy way.  Trying to get by on
    minimal effort.  If the diuretics rumor is true, perhaps Shannon cut
    one to many corners.
502.294DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 18:257
    re: .291
    
    Yes, forced. When you have to go to court to make anyone do something
    they either don't want to do or preset regulations preclude them from
    doing, that is force pure and simple.
    
    ...Tom
502.295SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 18:2716
    
    re: .289
    
    > Andy has always been a troublemaker...
    
    {pained look on his face} Moi??? Beverly you jest!!!!
    
    >Yankees 
    
    Not this year (or maybe never again)... I'm boycotting MLB..
    
    >Rangers
    
     Never was a Ranger fan... (only when the Sovs were in town)
    
    
502.296POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 18:299
    
    
    So the fact that she was accepted means nothing?  The fact that The
    Citadel accepts taxpayer money means nothing?  They can still
    discriminate?
    
    Oh, I see.  Sorry I didn't understand such a simple concept.  You see,
    I don't have a penis.
    
502.297Dissipates Excess HeatMIMS::SANDERS_JThu Aug 17 1995 18:294
    re. 291
    
    Apparently a penis serves most men well in hot weather.  Helps keep you
    cool and dissapates excess heat.  
502.298SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 18:297
    
    re: .291
    
    mz_deb...
    
    let me get this straight... You're talking about a penis??
    
502.299POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 18:304
    
    Brian Markey isn't the only one who can talk about penises!
    
    
502.300SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 18:332
    
    
502.301SHRCTR::DAVISThu Aug 17 1995 18:3310
Jeez, give her a break, will ya! (Shannon, that is, not Mz Deb, who can 
more than take care of herself among this tribe of renegade, thank you)

So she passed out. So she landed herself in the infirmary. Sheesh. Since 
when should a school pass/fail someone based on his/er first month, let 
alone first day?

Give it a rest for a while, then start yer babbling. 

Tom
502.302MPGS::MARKEYfunctionality breeds contemptThu Aug 17 1995 18:356
    
    is that what i've become? the guy who talks about penises?
    
    oh dear. such a distinction al all...
    
    -b
502.303POWDML::CKELLYThe Proverbial Bad PennyThu Aug 17 1995 18:384
        re: .302

    well, generally speaking, only your own, -b.  however, it must be nice
    to be an authoritative expert on *something*
502.304NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 17 1995 18:391
He knows it like the back of his hand.
502.305PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 18:393
  .301  yeah, really.  she passed out from the heat, so she's already
	in "the bottom 6 of her class"?  please.
502.306MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 17 1995 18:398
    ZZ    then the acceptance was withdrawn after they discovered she {gasp!} 
    ZZ    DIDN'T HAVE A PENIS.
    
    How do you know this?
    
    I mean afterall, this is the 90's.
    
    
502.307PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 18:438
	mz deb, lady 'tine, and gerald.  you guys are great. ;>
	
	deb, somehow when you say "penis", it's special.  it gives
	it a certain je ne sais quoi.  you have taken the penis to
	new heights, as it were.


502.308MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 17 1995 18:441
    What about me?
502.309SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 18:465
    
    <-------
    
    You have one too???
    
502.310TRADITION is what she wanted!MIMS::SANDERS_JThu Aug 17 1995 18:4821
    re. 301
    
    I vividly remember Shannon rejecting outright going to another school
    where a program similar to the Citadel's had been set up.  She said it
    would not be the same, it would "not have the tradition."  
    
    Well, "hell week" is part of the tradition at the Citadel and Shannon
    is sitting out this part of the tradition.  Apparently she likes to
    pick and choose what parts of the tradition she likes (easy parts) and
    what parts she does not like (hard parts).
    
    Also, a previous noter raised the issue that the Citadel might have
    made this hell week harder than in past years to insure that Shannon
    would fail.  This implies that there is a level of activity where women
    will fail and men will succeed.  Does the noter know where this level
    is?  Are there any women noters who would agree that there is such a
    level?  If the answer to both of these questions is "no", then we can
    dismiss any ideas that the Citadel made this an unusually hard hell
    week.
    
    
502.311LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 17 1995 18:506
re: .303

>    well, generally speaking, only your own, -b.  however, it must be nice
>    to be an authoritative expert on *something*

Wait just a minute.  He's also a leading authority on bidets.
502.312CALLME::MR_TOPAZThu Aug 17 1995 18:516
       > I vividly remember Shannon rejecting outright going to another
       > school where a program similar to the Citadel's had been set up.  
       
       And Rosa Parks couldda got where she was going just as easily,
       just as quickly, as with far less fuss if she hadn't insisted on
       that particular seat.
502.313DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 18:5111
    RE: .305
    
    Out of context alert!!
    
    >.301  yeah, really.  she passed out from the heat, so she's already
    >in "the bottom 6 of her class"?
    
    Read on. I said as far as physical endurance is concerned. But why use
    facts when you can ride the emotional keyboard?
    
    ...Tom
502.314PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 18:579
    
>>    But why use
>>    facts when you can ride the emotional keyboard?

	<r.o.> which has to do with fornication and thou.

	She passed out, so she's already in "the bottom 6 of her class" as
	far as physical endurance is concerned??  Please.

502.315SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Thu Aug 17 1995 18:588
    .314
    
    >She passed out, so she's already in "the bottom 6 of her class" as far
    >as physical endurance is concerned??  Please.
    
    Um....yes.
    
    Why wouldn't that place her there?
502.316POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 19:0112
    
    >Well, "hell week" is part of the tradition at the Citadel and Shannon
    >is sitting out this part of the tradition.  Apparently she likes to
    >pick and choose what parts of the tradition she likes (easy parts) and
    >what parts she does not like (hard parts).
    
    Getting admitted to the hospital is not exactly picking and choosing
    to sit out that part of the tradition.
    
    
    
    
502.317PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 19:027
    
>>    Um....yes.
    
>>    Why wouldn't that place her there?

	Um....how many people get ranked after their first day of 
	anything? 
502.318DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 19:047
    >And Rosa Parks couldda got where she was going just as easily,
    >just as quickly, as with far less fuss if she hadn't insisted on
    >that particular seat.
    
    Non Sequitur to the max!!
    
    ...Tom
502.319GAVEL::JANDROWGreen-Eyed Lady...Thu Aug 17 1995 19:045
    
    were there not others (with peni) that passed out during hell week? are
    they taking the easy way out, too, or were they really ill from the
    heat?
    
502.320POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 19:054
    
    THEY were ill from the heat.  SHE was taking the easy way out.
    
    
502.321Missing all the fun!MIMS::SANDERS_JThu Aug 17 1995 19:095
    re. 319
    
    The men have a right to fail to.  They have all been released by the
    infirmary and are now back at hell week.  Only Shannon is missing out
    on the tradition.
502.322SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Thu Aug 17 1995 19:129
    .318
    It seemed very sequitous to me...
    
    .317
    >Um....how many people get ranked after their first day of
    >anything?
    
    Cadets. 1st day, you run. Your run is timed. The time yields a rank.
    If you don't cross the finish line, you're at the bottom.
502.323SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 19:194
    
    
    Then you become a road guard...
    
502.324SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Thu Aug 17 1995 19:191
    Or a speed bump...
502.325LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 17 1995 19:218
>Cadets. 1st day, you run. Your run is timed.

They get 3 chances to come under the time limit.

She will have to run 2 miles in a little under 19 minutes.

The guys have to run 2 miles in a lesser time, around 16 minutes,
I believe.
502.326NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Thu Aug 17 1995 19:243
>    were there not others (with peni) that passed out during hell week?

They had small ones, no doubt.
502.327SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Aug 17 1995 19:2513
       <<< Note 502.294 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>

>    Yes, forced. When you have to go to court to make anyone do something
>    they either don't want to do or preset regulations preclude them from
>    doing, that is force pure and simple.
    
Tom,	Do you feel "forced" to not commit murder? All Faulkner did was
	require that the Citadel obey the law. It says more about them
	than it does about her that it took 2 years of court action
	to explain this to them.

Jim

502.328SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Thu Aug 17 1995 19:276
    .325
    
    I'm not saying she failed. I'm just saying she was ranked, and ended up
    in the bottom of her class. Frankly, I'm disappointed. After all that
    tenacity it took to get in, I was hoping she'd kick a little @ss. Well,
    as you pointed out, she still has a chance.
502.329PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 19:2913
  .322  I'm talking about ranked as she was by Mr. Ralston in this note -

>>       <<< Note 502.290 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
>>    No, she just can't cut it period (no pun intended). She forces her
>>    entry into an all male school and shows that she is in the bottom 6 of
>>    her class... [physical-endurance-wise, according to him] 

	He says that she can't cut it period.  This is supported by his
	next statement, as though her first day proves it.  As though
	that is her ranking now and forever.  It may well be, but she
	hasn't had a fair chance to show what she's capable of yet.

502.330LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 17 1995 19:305
>    I'm not saying she failed. I'm just saying she was ranked, and ended up
>    in the bottom of her class. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

Me too.  It's not a very auspicious start.  And guaranteed, it _will_
be remembered by all.
502.331SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 19:325
    
    > And guaranteed, it _will_ be remembered by all.
    
    As will the fact that she doesn't have a penis...
    
502.332POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 19:344
    
    Glad to have been of service, Andy 8^).
    
    
502.333PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 19:356
	>>And guaranteed, it _will_ be remembered by all.

	I would think particularly by Shannon "easy-way-out" Faulkner. ;>
	I'm sure she's just tickled pink right about now.  Prolly didn't
	want to do well at all, nope.  
502.334A first.GAAS::BRAUCHERThu Aug 17 1995 19:354
    
      Well, no.  But she has other things unique in Citadel history.
    
      bb
502.335The Shrinkage ShowLANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 17 1995 19:363
Well, as Elaine on Seinfeld says:

"I don't know how you guys walk around with those things."
502.336SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 19:379
    
    re: .333
    
    >tickled pink 
    
    Actually, heat exhaustion causes the skin to pale considerably..
    
    :)
    
502.337CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 17 1995 19:3730
                     <<< Note 502.310 by MIMS::SANDERS_J >>>
    
>    Also, a previous noter raised the issue that the Citadel might have
>    made this hell week harder than in past years to insure that Shannon
>    would fail.  This implies that there is a level of activity where women
>    will fail and men will succeed.  Does the noter know where this level
>    is?  Are there any women noters who would agree that there is such a
>    level?  If the answer to both of these questions is "no", then we can
>    dismiss any ideas that the Citadel made this an unusually hard hell
>    week.
    
    	I mentioned the theory, though I reject it outright.  To answer
    	some of your questions, though, I do not believe that there is
    	some level where women will fail and men will succeed.  I wouldn't
    	be surprised that there is some woman out there who is more fit
    	and stronger than the majority of men who made it through hell
    	week at the Citadel, and had SHE been there instead of Faulkner,
    	and had the theory held true, then more than half of the class
    	would have collapsed during hell week.
    
    	But we are not talking about that particular woman.  It was 
    	Faulkner who was at the Citadel, and as the results show 
    	(assuming the theory is true) she fell before many of the rest
    	of the class fell, and she fell harder.  And assuming the
    	theory is true, what is to say that those five males would not
    	have fallen anyway?
    
    	To help debunk or add credibility to the theory, are there
    	generally a few such casualties each year?  If not, maybe
    	there is something to the theory.
502.338MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 17 1995 19:404
    If she was 20 lbs. overweight, what was she doing there in the first
    place?
    
    
502.339Fair chance!MIMS::SANDERS_JThu Aug 17 1995 19:445
    re. 329
    
    "she has'nt had a fair chance"
    
    What the hell was unfair about the first day?
502.340SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 19:456
    
    >What the hell was unfair about the first day?
    
    
    
    The weight of all the media around her????
502.341DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 19:4613
    RE: .329
    
    >He says that she can't cut it period.
    
     BS, please show where I said such a thing.
    
    RE: .294
    
    >Do you feel "forced" to not commit murder?
    
    Come on Jim. I think that you know that murder is force in the extreme!
    
    ...Tom
502.342POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 19:474
    
    Oh, fer the good ole days when wimmins knew their place.
    
    
502.343Wrong weight!MIMS::SANDERS_JThu Aug 17 1995 19:474
    re. 340
    
    It was not the weight of the media that caused her a problem, but the
    weight around her frame.
502.344SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Thu Aug 17 1995 19:487
    
    >Oh, fer the good ole days when wimmins knew their place.
    
    
    
                           ATTA GIRL!!!!!!!!!!
    
502.345POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 19:566
    
    .341
    
    See .290.
    
    
502.346PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 19:575
>       <<< Note 502.341 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
    
>>     BS, please show where I said such a thing.

    hello?  didn't you write .290, which i was quoting?
502.347MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalThu Aug 17 1995 20:0919
    ZZZ   Oh, fer the good ole days when wimmins knew their place.
    
    Mz. Debra:
    
    You are making this a gender thing...like Shannon Faulkner has been
    victimized.
    
    To me, yes, it is a matter of breaking traditions that have proven
    highly successful.  Any male who fights to attend Vasser should in my
    opinion be changed from a Rooster to a hen with one shot.  They should
    be stripped naked and tied to a dock for high tide.  But I digress.
    
    When it comes to military matters, a person who does not meet the
    standards....simply can't play.  It's that simple.  If you're five
    pounds overweight, you are horizontally challenged here at Digital.  If
    you are 5 lbs. over in the military, you are fat...you are probably
    undisciplined, and you are not allowed!
    
    -Jack who would be deemed a fat slob, and undisciplined!
502.348LANDO::OLIVER_BThu Aug 17 1995 20:094
I gotta admit tho, I think she dropped the ball a tad
in the physical fitness department.  For her own sake,
and knowing what she was going to face at the chitadel, 
well, a strong body aids a strong mind and all that...
502.349POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesThu Aug 17 1995 20:137
    
    Meaty, *I* didn't make it a gender thing.  The Citadel did by
    withdrawing her acceptance when they discovered she was penisally
    challenged.
    
    She was acceptable to them when they thought she was "properly"
    equipped. 
502.350PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Aug 17 1995 20:1814
>>                     <<< Note 502.339 by MIMS::SANDERS_J >>>
    
>>    What the hell was unfair about the first day?

	Nothing.  I didn't say the first day was unfair.  The fair
	chance I'm alluding to is from 'boxers such as yourself, who
	are unwilling to allow that there may be mitigating factors
	wrt her performance on the first day.  One day doesn't prove
	anything.  She may well fail, but making blanket assessments
	after one day is hardly fair.  Then again, you've made some
	totally ridiculous statements about this whole matter over
	the past few days, so I guess I shouldn't be bothering to argue
	with you.

502.351DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 20:447
    >didn't you write .290, which i was quoting?
    
    Yes but I was speaking in regards to the first day, which I believe is
    what was being discussed. I ment she can't handle it physically. That
    was all.
    
    ...Tom
502.352CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Thu Aug 17 1995 21:286
    	Maybe they should have simply accepted her right from the get-go
    	and drummed her out on lack of physical ability as seems will
    	happen anyway.  Then we could have been spared the circus and
    	this would have all been a faded memory by now.
    
    	Isn't 20-20 hindsight wonderful?
502.353DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 21:5313
    When it is all said and done. I think that all should be given the
    opportunity, whether male or female. It is true that this government
    run institution is one of the last bastians of unrealistic machoism.
    However, they shouldn't ever have to lower their physical or academic
    standards in order to accomodate anyone. It just appears to me that the
    first women to break the male barrier should have made sure that she
    was physically and mentally prepared to compete in this environment, an
    environment in which she was expected, by some, and hoped, by others,
    that she would fail. It would be a shame if she can't make the grade.
    It would be more of a shame if she can't make the grade but gets to
    stay anyway.
    
    ...Tom
502.354SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Aug 17 1995 22:4122
       <<< Note 502.341 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>

>    Come on Jim. I think that you know that murder is force in the extreme!
 
	Indeed. But you have not answered my question. The goverment has some
	very forceful laws, with significant penalties, that prohibit
	murder. THey use this threat of force to discourage murder.

	They also have laws regarding discrimination at publicly funded
	institutions of learning. The penalties are different, but the
	idea of "government force" applies to both situations.

	You say that Shannon Faulkner "forced" her way into the
	Citadel. All she really did was ask that the government's laws
	be obeyed. If we accept your use of the term "force", then we
	are "forced" to do things, or not do things, every day by the
	threat of the government's "force". Hence my question to you.
	Do you feel "forced" to not commit murder (AKA Obey the laws
	regarding murder)? Or did you misuse the term?

Jim 

502.355DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Thu Aug 17 1995 23:1418
    re: .354, Jim
    
    I'm not sure how to answer your question. The power that the people
    give the government to back laws with force, that is laws that are 
    political policy, is IMO what is wrong with the country. I think, as
    I'm sure 99.9999 (just a guess so please don't beat me with it) of the
    populas would agree that murder is an objective crime. This would
    preclude a law that says murder is against the law because it is
    unwanted force against an individual, which would make its illegality
    axiomatic. So I guess my answer to your question would be yes.
    
    I will concede that the case of the military school, supported by
    taxpayer dollars, is a situation where anyone should be allowed to
    compete. However, I don't think that a private institution should be
    forced to go contrary to their charter, unless that charter consisted
    of force, coersion or fraud against individuals or group of individuals.
    
    ...Tom
502.356SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Aug 18 1995 02:0414
       <<< Note 502.355 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>

>    I will concede that the case of the military school, supported by
>    taxpayer dollars, is a situation where anyone should be allowed to
>    compete. However, I don't think that a private institution should be
>    forced to go contrary to their charter, unless that charter consisted
>    of force, coersion or fraud against individuals or group of individuals.
 
Tom,	On this we agree. And since the Citadel is, at least partially,
	taxpayer funded, I take it that you then agree that the government,
	via its court system, was correct in requiring the Citadel to 
	admit women. Correct?

Jim
502.357WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Aug 18 1995 10:0111
    i have to disagree with Jack and Jim on the position that a public
    institution can break with tradition simply based on $$$'s and a
    private one doesn't have too... 
    
    are you guys saying that if a private institution's charter
    discriminates or violates other civil liberties/rights that
    it's alright because no "public" money is involved?
    
    another penis observation...  evidently, a penis has a great deal to
    do with the body's recovery powers since Shannon was the last to leave
    the infirmary :-)
502.358DRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName!Fri Aug 18 1995 10:095
    SillyBoy.  More cutaneous surface area whence excess heat may be shed
    implies faster recovery from excess-heat-caused-problems.  QED.
    
    :-)
    
502.359WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Aug 18 1995 10:171
    -1 ahhhh, thanks!
502.360SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Aug 18 1995 11:1814
                    <<< Note 502.357 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    are you guys saying that if a private institution's charter
>    discriminates or violates other civil liberties/rights that
>    it's alright because no "public" money is involved?
	
	"Alright" as in "correct" or "a good thing", no. "Alright" as
	in "legal", yes.

	If the Citadel had simply said, "OK, we will no longer accept
	government funds" then they can set their own admission rules
	and the courts would have allowed them to keep women out.

Jim
502.361WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Aug 18 1995 11:314
    -1 think so? I would've thought that would be determined discriminatory
       by the court and a violation of her constitional rights...
    
       i could be wrong.
502.362SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 18 1995 11:494
    .358
    
    Of course, the mammaries, what with that interior tubing and all, are
    most efficient radiators.
502.363PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 18 1995 13:012
   .351  speaking of "BS".... sheesh.
502.364SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Aug 18 1995 13:0413
                    <<< Note 502.361 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    -1 think so? I would've thought that would be determined discriminatory
>       by the court and a violation of her constitional rights...
    
>       i could be wrong.


	There is nothing in the law that requires private institutions 
	(or individuals for that matter) not to discriminate. Nor should
	there be, IMO.

Jim
502.365Interstate commerce issue.GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Aug 18 1995 13:3617
    
      Not quite correct.  If you are "an accomodation" operating in
     interstate commerce (and a school might well be so considered),
     then the Constitution gives the USA authority to regulate you, and
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does just that.  This was the key
     question in the St. Pat's parade case - the court, after much
     deliberation, decided a parade WAS NOT an accomodation operating
     in interstate commerce.  But there are plenty of federal statutes
     and case law that says you CANNOT operate a private restaraunt, a
     private hotel, or a private recreational facility which violates
     the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Act.  You CAN operate
     these private accomodations, and you CAN exclude non-members, but
     you CANNOT operate them in a discriminatory manner against the
     groups specifically listed in the Act (only).  I don't agree with
     all of this, but that's the way it is at present.
    
      bb
502.366SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 18 1995 13:373
    .365
    
    Which part of the consitution gives such power to the Congress?
502.367CALLME::MR_TOPAZFri Aug 18 1995 13:401
       accommodation
502.368PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 18 1995 13:453
	an "accommodation"?  i wonder how they define that.

502.369In US Constitution.GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Aug 18 1995 13:4712
    
    Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 3 :
    
     "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign
    nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
    
     This was the key in the Lopez gun-free school zone case.  The USA
    claimed he was operating in Interstate Commerce, the Court ruled the
    law unconstitutional (just this year), saying he wasn't.  If Lopez
    had crossed a state line, it would have gone the other way.
    
      bb
502.370SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 18 1995 13:543
    How the he!! does a restaurant cross state lines?????
    
    Talk about usurping power...
502.371DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Fri Aug 18 1995 14:0317
    Let's say I did something like this. I open a restaurant called the
    "Tom's Only Club" and in order to eat at my restaurant you have to
    apply and become a member. The only absolute requirement is that you
    have to be named Tom or Thomas to become a member and must have
    documentation to prove it. My restaurant soon gets the reputation of
    being the best restaurant in the country. Everyone is clamoring to eat
    there. One day Jim applies because for years his nickname has been Tom.
    The restuarant denies his application based on it's rules. Jim decides
    to take his case to court. QUESTION: Should the courts get involved and
    if so should they force the restaurant to take Jim as member.
    
    
    Oh, by the way Jim P., in regards to .356, the answer is yes, except
    that I don't think that schools should be supported by tax dollars at
    all, especially my tax dollars.
    
    ...Tom
502.372DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 18 1995 14:0533
    
    > She will have to run 2 miles in a little under 19 minutes.
    > The guys have to run 2 miles in a lesser time, around 16 minutes,
    > I believe.

    Why does she get the extra 3 minutes?

    re:.350
    
    > Then again, you've made some totally ridiculous statements about 
    > this whole matter over the past few days, so ....

    errr..... Lady Di, he's not the only one to make ridiculous statements
    about this recently...

    Re:.353

    > It would be more of a shame if she can't make the grade but gets to
    > stay anyway.

    No, it would be more than a shame, it would make a farce of the whole
    situation.  It would be morally wrong...(IMO, etc..)

    re:.358

    > SillyBoy.  More cutaneous surface area whence excess heat may be shed
    > implies faster recovery from excess-heat-caused-problems.  QED.

    aaahhhh, so that's why I'm always cold..... ;->

    Stupid question... Can a guy join the NOW organization?

    Dan
502.373SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 18 1995 14:096
    
    
    re: stupid question...
    
    Ask DougO
    
502.374POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesFri Aug 18 1995 14:134
    
    Yes, males can join NOW.
    
    
502.375SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 18 1995 14:144
    
    
    Then they can be paid to picket...
    
502.376SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 18 1995 14:164
    .371
    
    Verdict:
    Jim gets beaten with a blunt object for such a stupid lawsuit.
502.377It's OK.GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Aug 18 1995 14:2216
    
      Ralston :  you slink by.  The Congress has the power to prohibit
     "Tom's Only Club" from this policy, but it has not done so, so
     you can restrict to people named Tom.  But you cannot do the same
     for race.  As originally written, you COULD do it by gender, but
     you cannot today because Congress amended it.  I am not sure what
     Congress has said, if anything, about sexual preference, but there
     is no doubt they have the power.
    
      However, you might be able to escape them in court in this way :
     restrict your clientele, and your menu, to only people and foods
     from the state in which you are located !  Then, argue that you
     ARE NOT operating in interstate commerce.  I'm not sure whether
     you'd win or lose that one.
    
      bb
502.378SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 18 1995 14:2910
    This is SUCH a huge abuse of power!
    
    The act of importing the food from another state is the interstate
    commerce. THEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE STOPS!
    
    If I want to sell Idaho baked potatoes in my restaurant, I get
    regulated by the feds? 
    
    Christ, give me a break. And a new federal government, while you're at
    it.
502.379MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 18 1995 14:395
    A private institution has the right to discriminate and that right
    should not be impeded.  If you have an all black male club, then you
    have the right to refuse white males or any females, etc.  
    
    -Jack
502.380CALLME::MR_TOPAZFri Aug 18 1995 14:5013
       Messrs Martin and Covington would apparently like to return to the
       glory days of segregation.
       
       This "abuse of power" to which Covington refers is precisely the
       theory by which the federal government prohibited Lester Maddox
       from allowing only white people into his restaurant.  
       
       Martin and Covington would apparently be perfectly content  to
       have repealed the federal law, based on interstate commerce, that
       prohibits restaurants and hotels from refusing people service
       based on their color.
       
       --Mr Topaz
502.381PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 18 1995 14:506
>>    errr..... Lady Di, he's not the only one to make ridiculous statements
>>    about this recently...

	I didn't say he was.  I can think of a couple of other people.

502.382DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Fri Aug 18 1995 14:5610
    >Martin and Covington would apparently be perfectly content  to
    >have repealed the federal law, based on interstate commerce,
    >that prohibits restaurants and hotels from refusing people service
    >based on their color.
    
    You can add my name to this list as well. If some stupid businessman
    is willing to lose sales by using discrimination, let him. I'll be the
    guy to open up down the street and take all that business.
    
    ...Tom
502.383MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 18 1995 15:1524
    Mr. Topaz:
    
    You don't realize it but you are trying to legislate
    morality...something you usually squak about regarding pro lifers and
    the school prayer crowd.  The pendulum swings both ways.  
    
    I hold my nose and accept government regulations regarding these
    matters.  Like Tom, I believe a hotel or restaurant who discriminates
    as was done in the 60's is most likely to self destruct.
    
    However, I was addressing private clubs in my note.  I believe the
    American Legion for example, has the right to discriminate against
    me...and I should respect their reasons.  Same with the girl scouts, 
    ACT UP, an all black night club, the Ku Klux Klan, whomever...it is
    their perogative and it isn't mine to question.
    
    People equate the Citadel to machoism.  I disagree with this.  It is a
    school receiving state funds who prefers to remain traditional and 
    attended by those with members.  Vasser College is a prestigious
    school, attended by women only.  I personally respect this tradition
    because I understand the benefits of it.  People such as yourself or 
    the lovely chunky lady seem to poo poo this respect.  Oh well!
    
    -Jack
502.384Must seem bizarre to foreigners.GAAS::BRAUCHERFri Aug 18 1995 15:1523
    
      It is not possible to read everything written on the history of
     the interstate commerce provision.  Since 1787, it always was
     interpreted to give the US Congress considerable powers, but not
     such things (all justified under this provision) as OSHA, EPA,
     TVA, the Civil Rights Acts, gun laws, you name it.  Historically,
     FDR got elected promising to fix a broken economy, with a heavy
     New Deal majority to boot, but every new law they passed, SCOTUS
     knocked down.  With time, FDR got smart young lawyers (Cohen/Corcoran,
     etc), and some SCOTUS appointments, and the Interstate Commerce
     clause was used successfully to OK the Social Security Act, plus
     many others.  Later, LBJ used the same trick for Civil Rights, and
     Clinton is trying to do it with gun bans, with less success.
    
      Of course, on a purely logical level, it seems weird that the US
     Constitution bars the feds from interfering in your life, until
     you affect interstate commerce, and then suddenly they can order
     you around like a robot.  But that's what the courts say it means,
     and if you read it straight out, maybe they're right.  Whole books
     have been written about this.  I researched it a bit after the
     Lopez, and was amazed at the vast literature on the subject.
    
      bb
502.385SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Fri Aug 18 1995 15:1848
Shannon Faulkner pronounced fit to return to duty,
but misses morning run


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug 18, 1995 - 09:30 EDT) -- Despite
being pronounced fit to return to duty, the first female cadet at
The Citadel missed her classmates' 6 a.m. jog today and still had
not rejoined her cadet company hours later.

Shannon Faulkner was expected to report to her company after
breakfast after spending most of her first week as a cadet, the
grueling "hell week," in the infirmary for apparent heat-related
illness.

She underwent tests at a hospital Thursday and had been deemed
fit. But Citadel spokesman Terry Leedom said the school's doctor
reported this morning that Ms. Faulkner still was not ready to
take up the cadets' regimen.

Leedom would not comment further except to say he thought that
by the end of the day today she would be ready.

Ms. Faulkner, who battled in court for 2 1/2 years to join the
all-male corps, was admitted to the college infirmary on Monday
after marching in 100-degree heat. She was taken to Roper
Hospital on Thursday for undisclosed tests.

Ed Faulkner said his 20-year-old daughter had been vomiting and
was treated for dehydration.

"She couldn't keep anything down until last evening and I am told
she was able to keep some toast down last night," said Citadel
spokeswoman Judith Fluck.

Heat illnesses are not uncommon at the college. College officials
said one cadet was taken on a stretcher from a physical fitness
test Wednesday for treatment of heat stress. Two others were
taken to the hospital Thursday for treatment.

Ms. Faulkner missed a large part of "hell week," the first week of
training for freshmen, and will have to catch up on her study of
the honor manual and cadet regulations.

AP-DS-08-18-95 0917EDT 
502.386SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 18 1995 15:2628
    .380
    (Digging a really deep hole...)
    (Filling sandbags with dirt from said hole...)
    (Stacking sandbags around, taking defensive position...)
    
    >Martin and Covington would apparently be perfectly content  to have
    >repealed the federal law, based on interstate commerce, that prohibits
    >restaurants and hotels from refusing people service based on their
    >color.
    
    Ummm.....yup.
    (DUCK!)
    
    Can't speak for Martin, but that would be fine with me (and preferred!)
    I would also feel comfortable with replacing "their color" in the above
    sentence with "the time of day," "religious beliefs," "musical
    preferences," "current alignment of planets," etc...
    
    Some qualifications: (aren't there always?)
    I would not operate such a business.
    I would not eat at such a business.
    I wouldn't even visit such a business.
    I strongly believe, however, that such a business should be allowed to
    exist.
    
    Name the speaker: (I forget who it is - I should know this.)
    "I disagree with what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your
    right to say it."
502.387Slackered!MIMS::SANDERS_JFri Aug 18 1995 15:301
    So Shannon misses most of hell week.  How convenient!
502.388GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 18 1995 15:316
    
    
    I agree with ::COVINGTON on this.  
    
    
    Mike
502.389SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Aug 18 1995 15:3314
                     <<< Note 502.365 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>      Not quite correct.  If you are "an accomodation" operating in
>     interstate commerce (and a school might well be so considered),
>     then the Constitution gives the USA authority to regulate you, and
>     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does just that.  

	True concerning the limitations on operating a public accomodation.
	But I don't believe schools fall into this category. Schools are
	covered under Title IX (or is is X?) of the US Code. It was under
	this section that Shannon Faulkner filed, not the CRA.

Jim
502.390DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 18 1995 19:205
    
    (digging fox hole right next to Jim and Mike)
    
    That makes three of us!
    
502.391PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 18 1995 19:245
    
>>    (digging fox hole right next to Jim and Mike)

	a cave would be more appropriate.

502.392GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 18 1995 19:3311
    
    Well M'Lady, 
    
    Just because we think they have a right to do such a thing doesn't mean
    we'd do such a thing or frequent a place like this, I would not.  I look 
    at it as part of the price of freedom in this country.  I know that it
    probably makes me unpopular, but to me it is a question of freedom in a
    free country as opposed to a discrimination issue.  It is a prvate
    enterpirise after all.
    
    Mike  
502.393GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 18 1995 20:146
    
    
    Just announced on the radio that there are unconfirmed reports that
    Shannon is droppin out of the Citadel.
    
    
502.394SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 18 1995 20:154
    
    
    Hmmmmmmm.... who to blame... who to blame?
    
502.395CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Aug 18 1995 20:275



 Who's she going to sue is the question.
502.396PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 18 1995 20:293
  oh brother

502.397COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Aug 18 1995 20:3676
Shannon Faulkner pronounced fit to return to duty, but misses morning run
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug 18, 1995 - 15:36 EDT) -- The first female cadet at The
Citadel missed another morning of grueling "hell week" indoctrination today,
and a television station reported that her father planned to take her home.

Just one week after two U.S. Supreme Court justices paved the way for her to
enter the school's all-male cadet corps, Shannon Faulkner spent a fifth day
at the school infirmary. She had fallen ill of apparent heat-related
problems Monday after beginning the school's tough military regimen.

WSPA-TV in Spartanburg quoted an unidentified source as saying at midday
that Ms. Faulkner's father, Ed, had said he was "going down to get Shannon."
The elder Faulkner had said earlier that his 20-year-old daughter had been
vomiting and was treated for dehydration.

There was no answer at Faulkner's parents' home in Powdersville early this
afternoon.

On Thursday, Ms. Faulkner was examined at a hospital and deemed fit to
return to duty today.

But she again missed activities this morning after infirmary staff said she
was not ready. School spokesman Terry Leedom said the plan was still for her
to return to her company sometime today.

"She was still a patient in the infirmary and she is still scheduled
sometime today to return to duty," Leedom said early this afternoon. "We're
trying to get her back to duty, we're trying to get her back to health.
Medical personnel feel she is not ready to return to duty yet."

"We hope to learn something more soon," he said at yet another briefing at
midafternoon. "The rumors are out there, you've heard the rumors and we'll
deal with the rumors as we can. But right now, I can't shoot down any of the
rumors or add any credibility to any of them."

Ms. Faulkner battled in court for 2 1/2 years to join the all-male corps. A
week ago today, the day before new cadets were to arrive at the school, two
Supreme Court justices turned down without comment a bid by college
officials to keep her out.

Heat illnesses are not uncommon at the college. College officials said one
cadet was taken on a stretcher from a physical fitness test Wednesday for
treatment of heat stress. Two others were taken to the hospital Thursday for
treatment.

Ms. Faulkner "couldn't keep anything down until last evening and I am told
she was able to keep some toast down last night," said Citadel spokeswoman
Judith Fluck.

Ms. Faulkner has been under continual stress since early 1993, when she
launched her court fight after The Citadel withdrew its acceptance of her
college application when officials realized she was a woman. References to
her gender had been deleted from her high school transcripts.

She had received death threats and her Powdersville home was vandalized.
Bumper stickers and T-shirts appeared with slogans "Shave Shannon" and "Save
The Males," during the fight.

Even last Saturday, her first day as cadet, she was largely left alone by
the other first-year cadets.

She had been allowed to take classes at The Citadel before this week, but
not take the military training.

The state of South Carolina wants to create a separate women's leadership
program at another college, but plans for that program have not been
approved by the courts. While the two Supreme Court justices allowed Ms.
Faulkner to enter the school this year, the larger question of whether
separate but equal educational facilities for women are constitutional has
not been resolved by the courts.
502.398CALDEC::RAHHey hey hey..Fri Aug 18 1995 20:389
    
    she didn't look too buffed from the photos I saw; 
    
    how long  has she had to prepare herself for PT and 
    a military regimen?
    
    if this was what she wanted logic would have dictated that
    she would have done training in the heat to enable her to 
    last through hell week.
502.399NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri Aug 18 1995 20:402
Is anyone besides me sick of hearing about this?  It's getting to be as bad
as OJ.  Shannon's vomit is getting as much publicity as George Bush's.
502.400gakSOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 18 1995 20:401
    
502.401PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 18 1995 20:4410
>>               <<< Note 502.398 by CALDEC::RAH "Hey hey hey.." >>>
    
>>    if this was what she wanted logic would have dictated that
>>    she would have done training in the heat to enable her to 
>>    last through hell week.

	yeah, her and the other people who passed out.  but 
	apparently heat sickness is not uncommon there, if you
	believe the reports of what officials have said.

502.402She's goneODIXIE::ZOGRANReasonable summer ratesFri Aug 18 1995 20:455
    Latest news says that she is quitting the Citadel. 
    News reports say that her attorney and the Commander have confirmed
    this.
    
    Dan
502.403CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanFri Aug 18 1995 20:585

 

 Wonder if they'll throw a going away party for her?
502.404Blanket Party???SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Fri Aug 18 1995 20:591
    
502.405CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Fri Aug 18 1995 21:264
    re .401 et. al.
    
    	Well, that reduces credibility of the theory that the rigors
    	of hell week were elevated to oust Faulkner...
502.406COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Aug 18 1995 21:3383
Shannon Faulkner quits Citadel before ever really getting started
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug 18, 1995 - 17:30 EDT) -- The first female cadet at The
Citadel quit the state military college today after missing the crucial,
grueling "hell week" indoctrination.

"I will tell you right now, today has been the hardest day of my life,"
Shannon Faulkner said. "The past 2 1/2 years came crashing down on me in an
instant."

Just one week after two U.S. Supreme Court justices paved the way for her to
enter the school's all-male cadet corps, her attorney Suzanne Coe said Ms.
Faulkner was overcome by nerves.

"It's very hard for her," Ms. Coe said. "She's a 20-year-old girl and it's
hard to anticipate what happens next."

Ms. Faulkner said she had "no idea" what she would do next.

"I know my life is going to be miserable for a while," she said. "I'll just
have to deal with it the best I can.

"It's not going to do my attorneys any good if I just get in there and have
a mental breakdown or anything like that," she said.

When Ms. Faulkner's decision filtered out around campus, other cadets
cheered and horns sounded.

The choice ended a week of speculation about Ms. Faulkner's fitness that
began on Monday when she was taken to the infirmary with a heat related
illness.

She spent most of her first week under a doctor's treatment and was taken to
a hospital for tests on Thursday morning.

"I don't think there's any dishonor in leaving," Ms. Faulkner said. "I think
there's dis-justice in my staying and killing myself just for the political
point."

On Thursday, Ms. Faulkner was examined at a hospital and deemed fit to
return to duty today. But she again missed activities this morning after
infirmary staff said she was not ready.

Ms. Faulkner battled in court for 2 1/2 years to join the all-male corps. A
week ago today, the day before new cadets were to arrive at the school, two
Supreme Court justices turned down without comment a bid by college
officials to keep her out.

Heat illnesses are not uncommon at the college. College officials said one
cadet was taken on a stretcher from a physical fitness test Wednesday for
treatment of heat stress. Two others were taken to the hospital Thursday for
treatment.

Ms. Faulkner "couldn't keep anything down until last evening and I am told
she was able to keep some toast down last night," said Citadel spokeswoman
Judith Fluck.

Ms. Faulkner has been under continual stress since early 1993, when she
launched her court fight after The Citadel withdrew its acceptance of her
college application when officials realized she was a woman. References to
her gender had been deleted from her high school transcripts.

She had received death threats and her Powdersville home was vandalized.
Bumper stickers and T-shirts appeared with slogans "Shave Shannon" and "Save
The Males," during the fight.

Even last Saturday, her first day as cadet, she was largely left alone by
the other first-year cadets.

She had been allowed to take classes at The Citadel before this week, but
not take the military training.

The state of South Carolina wants to create a separate women's leadership
program at another college, but plans for that program have not been
approved by the courts. While the two Supreme Court justices allowed Ms.
Faulkner to enter the school this year, the larger question of whether
separate but equal educational facilities for women are constitutional has
not been resolved by the courts.
502.407Make a quick mill during those 15 minutes of fameDECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamFri Aug 18 1995 21:384
    So, when does the {book, made-for-teevee-movie, talk show rounds}
    come out?
    
    Chris
502.408COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Aug 18 1995 23:304
Of course, Shannon is only one of 24 cadets who dropped out of the Citadel
this week.

/john
502.409SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Sat Aug 19 1995 02:069
    .397
    
    What legal process allows two Supreme Court Justices to make a
    decision? I never heard o' that.
    
    It's too bad she made that comment about it being a political point. I
    think her physical shape (overweight) shows it. If she had been really
    serious about being a cadet, I think she would have been in better
    shape entering.
502.410SCAS01::SHOOKmetroplexedSat Aug 19 1995 04:4418
    
    
  >When Ms. Faulkner's decision filtered out around campus, other cadets
  >cheered and horns sounded.

  let's hope they grow up before they get into the real military, where
  working both for and with women is essential to the well-being of the
  national defense.  will they be cheering for the woman helicopter pilot
  flying in their supplies and medicine to be shot down one day?  somehow
  i doubt it.  nope, they'll be hoping that her military training was the 
  very best possible because it would increase her chances of a successful
  mission, which would increase their chances as well.  they'll just
  hope she got it somewhere else besides their mynly (in deference to 
  deep-south pc) alma-mater.  a pathetic display by kids who seem to be
  in the wrong place to learn any better, at least for the next four years.   

  bill
502.411CSLALL::HENDERSONLearning to leanSat Aug 19 1995 16:199

 What does a graduate of the Citadel do upon graduation?  enter the military?
 become cops?  Work at Burger King?  What?




 Jim
502.412Obligated for some number of yearsCOVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSat Aug 19 1995 16:211
Second louie, U.S. Army.
502.413SUBPAC::SADINWe the people?Sat Aug 19 1995 16:454
    
    	ROTC?
    
    
502.414re .412 ::COVERTDRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName!Sat Aug 19 1995 18:214
    .412> Second louie, U.S. Army.
    
    ... as in Louie, Louie??!!!!???  NOW we know where the woids come from!!
    
502.415POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesSat Aug 19 1995 21:359
    
    I agree with bill.  I certainly hope those cadets who cheered and
    celebrated grow up a bit before they're called upon to defend the
    U.S.A.  I certainly don't feel a bit sure that they'd be interested in
    protecting ME.
    
    I'm disappointed that Shannon dropped out, but evidently about 200
    other women have expressed interest (letters/applications?) in
    attending The Citadel.  
502.416This was not a hatefestAIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONSun Aug 20 1995 02:4178
    
    Bill completely missed the point (as did the incomparable Mz_Debra, 
    I regret to say.)  If anyone thinks that the cadets' celebration was
    just a misogynistic hatefest directed at all women, they have failed
    to recognize the most essential element of this 2 1/2 year debacle.
    
    Shannon Faulkner illustrated this feature perfectly with her comment
    that there would be "dis-justice(?) in my staying and killing myself
    just for the political point."
    
    Just for the political point.  There it is, right there.
    ----------------------------
    
    Shannon Faulkner never gave a damn about the Citadel and its history
    and traditions.  For Shannon, this was all done just for the 
    political point, so Shannon could try to become a feminist heroine
    by forcing "equality" on those backward redneck good ol' boys.  It 
    is entirely laudable for Shannon Faulkner to have striven for this
    goal, but it was completely despicable of her to have used the
    Citadel in this manner.  And it is Shannon Faulkner's utter lack of
    respect for the Citadel and for tradition that has resulted in her
    being hated by the cadets, and their celebration at her untimely
    departure.
    
    I don't even know if it's really possible to understand what I'm 
    getting at here without having lived at least a little bit of it.
    Suffice it to say that the Citadel is much more important, and even
    revered and holy, in the minds of the young men who become cadets than
    most of you realize.  If you go to a civilian school, you pretty much
    just want to go to a good school.  Whether it's UMASS-Boston or 
    UMASS-Amherst or UMASS-Lowell is of fairly little consequence.  These
    young men at the Citadel have been hearing, and thinking, about the
    Citadel all their lives.  They take it very seriously.
    
    I am on familiar ground here.  For me, it was West Point.  My father,
    a career NCO, saw the way the Academy grads were treated and treated
    each other, and decided he wanted that for his son.  I had the
    USMA crest and "Duty-Honor-Country" carved into my heart before I was
    even born.  He brought me there twice before I was ten years old, just
    to get used to the place.  I was the kid in the library checking out
    biographies of Patton, Bradley, Macarthur and Eisenhower while the
    other kids were reading books about football or baseball players.
    It was my inescapable and inexorable destiny to go to West Point, so
    I did.  Note:  I am not saying any of this was necessarily a 
    good thing, nor am I complaining.  What's done is done.
    
    Most of the cadets at the Citadel have a similar history.  Their
    brothers went there.  Their fathers and grandfathers went there.
    They are carrying on a Southern legacy of military tradition that
    stretches back long before the War Between the States.  They
    fervently believe in protecting the sanctity of the Citadel's 
    traditions, and any attempt to dismantle those traditions deeply 
    offends them.
    
    Perhaps Shannon Faulkner was the little girl in the library checking
    out the works of Betty Friedan, or Gloria Steinem, or Bella Abzug.
    For her, the Citadel was merely a prominent place where she could
    strike a blow for all women.  The traditions that the other cadets
    cherish so much are to Shannon Faulkner merely the relics of an
    unjust and patriarchic system that must be swept away.  Far be it
    from me to suggest she is wrong in this, but it should help explain
    the rallies and celebrations that took place when Shannon resigned.
    She insulted them before they ever even heard of Shannon Faulkner.
    
    I could go on for thousands more lines, but it all comes down to
    something that it is very simple and substantial.
     
    Shannon Faulkner made a decision in her high-school guidance
    counselor's office that eventually resulted in her becoming a
    Citadel cadet, even if only briefly.  The other cadets were born
    to it.  This is why they resented her presence, and why they cheered
    when she left.
    
    
    Rob
    
    
                                                                      
502.417CALDEC::RAHaverage CAD weenieSun Aug 20 1995 03:094
    
    well, there are wymmin at the Point making the grade 
    aren't there, in terms of taking the heat and not
    flagging down during the hell week festivities?
502.418Sure, but...AIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONSun Aug 20 1995 04:1531
    
    There certainly are, and I've known women there who I thought would
    make excellent officers in non-combat roles (not to bring up that
    rathole.)
    
    The change to include women cadets was forced on West Point by
    the government (as it was at Norwich University, which I also 
    attended for a year) after much resistance.  It has irrevocably
    changed the nature of the institution, and diminished the power
    of tradition there.  There is still considerable tension between
    the male and female cadets at West Point (and at Norwich,) and
    I'm sure these problems will always be present.
    
    Certainly, there are women who can physically "make the grade" (at
    lesser standards than males are expected to attain, naturally,) and
    there are definitely many women who are fantastic officers and
    born leaders.  That does not mean that there should not be places
    in the world where tradition still rules and where men can go to
    learn the art of war from other men.  There is still a need for
    these places.
    
    When the courts make the decision who can go to these schools; when
    we encourage the government to step in and set quotas (and there are
    quotas at West Point, believe me); we are tampering with a wall
    of security that was built, in some part, by men who went to these
    schools.  Don't muck around with what works.  If you choose to do so,
    you do so at your peril.
    
    
    Rob
    
502.419Ah, how important the penisPOWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesSun Aug 20 1995 17:05106
    
    Sorry Rob, but YOU appear to have missed the point in your rush to
    label misogyny and sexism as "tradition".
    
    Not a hatefest?  Most of the cadets didn't even KNOW Shannon Faulkner,
    yet they cheered and celebrated when she left.  Did they cheer and
    celebrate over the other two dozen who dropped out?  Doubtful.
    
    >Just for the political point.  There it is, right there.
    >----------------------------
    
    Yes, the political point of STAYING.  Not the political point of being
    admitted.
    
    >Shannon Faulkner never gave a damn about the Citadel and its history
    
    Pure conjecture on your part.  Who wastes 2.5 years of their life to
    make a politcal point?  How many teenagers do you know that would do
    that?  
    
    >and traditions.  For Shannon, this was all done just for the 
    >political point, so Shannon could try to become a feminist heroine
    >by forcing "equality" on those backward redneck good ol' boys.  It 
    
    And you know this to be a fact because...?
           
    >And it is Shannon Faulkner's utter lack of
    >respect for the Citadel and for tradition that has resulted in her
    >being hated by the cadets, and their celebration at her untimely
    >departure.
    
    Yes, how DARE a woman expect to be treated equally at a
    taxpayer-supported institution?  How dare she expect to be given a fair
    shake?  That would go against tradition!
    
    >Suffice it to say that the Citadel is much more important, and even
    >revered and holy, in the minds of the young men who become cadets than
    >most of you realize.  
    
    And it's not possible that she felt the same way?
    
    >If you go to a civilian school, you pretty much
    >just want to go to a good school.  Whether it's UMASS-Boston or 
    >UMASS-Amherst or UMASS-Lowell is of fairly little consequence.  
    
    Bogus assumption.  It's not just those who go to a military-type school
    that have been brought up with the desire to go to a certain
    university.  And if you were going to reference GOOD schools, why did
    you pick those three 8^)?
    
    >Most of the cadets at the Citadel have a similar history.  Their
    >brothers went there.  Their fathers and grandfathers went there.
    
    Unfortunately, their sisters and mothers and aunts and grandmothers
    weren't allowed to attend.
    
    >They are carrying on a Southern legacy of military tradition that
    >stretches back long before the War Between the States.  They
    >fervently believe in protecting the sanctity of the Citadel's 
    >traditions, and any attempt to dismantle those traditions deeply 
    >offends them.
    
    Oh well, we wouldn't want to damage their little psyches, now would we?
    
    >Perhaps Shannon Faulkner was the little girl in the library checking
    >out the works of Betty Friedan, or Gloria Steinem, or Bella Abzug.
    >For her, the Citadel was merely a prominent place where she could
    >strike a blow for all women.  
    
    Conjecture.  
    
    
    >The traditions that the other cadets
    >cherish so much are to Shannon Faulkner merely the relics of an
    >unjust and patriarchic system that must be swept away.  
    
    Such as sexism?  In what year did The Citadel stop practicing racism
    and allow non-whites to attend?
    
    >Far be it
    >from me to suggest she is wrong in this, but it should help explain
    >the rallies and celebrations that took place when Shannon resigned.
    >She insulted them before they ever even heard of Shannon Faulkner.
    
    By wanting equal access?  By expecting an institution that accepted her
    to allow her to attend?
     
    >Shannon Faulkner made a decision in her high-school guidance
    >counselor's office that eventually resulted in her becoming a
    >Citadel cadet, even if only briefly.  The other cadets were born
    >to it.  
    
    And you know this to be fact because...?
    
    >This is why they resented her presence, and why they cheered
    >when she left.
    
    All right, you've made enough suppositions in your note, let me make
    one of my own.  They resented her because they don't consider women to
    be equal to men.  They expect women to be discriminated against, to be
    treated badly, to be kept down.  They expect it, and they revel in it. 
    It wouldn't matter to any of them if she was physically and mentally
    superior to the best of them - they didn't want her there because
    they've been socialized to think of women as inferiors.
    
    And all in the name of 'tradition'.
502.420SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROSun Aug 20 1995 19:4821
   <<< Note 502.416 by AIMHI::MARTIN "actually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMON" >>>

Rob,	Do you believe that it is a "good" thing that the future officers
	of our Armed Forces learn that they do not have to obey the civilian
	government? Or its laws?

	Shannon Faulkner's motives are her own. But the principles brought
	out by her fight are not.

	BTW, I heard a report this morning (by Cokie Roberts, so I take it
	with a large grain of salt) that most graduates of the Citadel do not
	pursue military carreers.

	I would suppose that graduates receive Reserve Commissions as 2nd
	Lieutenants. You can make a career in the military with a Reserve
	Commision, but you can not expect to go much beyond the rank of
	Major. Higher ranks and virtually all flag ranks are held by those
	with Regular Commissions (those who graduated from one of the service
	acadamies).

Jim
502.421COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSun Aug 20 1995 20:5615
>	I would suppose that graduates receive Reserve Commissions as 2nd
>	Lieutenants.

Not necessarily.  They can also receive regular commissions.

>       You can make a career in the military with a Reserve
>	Commision, but you can not expect to go much beyond the rank of
>	Major. Higher ranks and virtually all flag ranks are held by those
>	with Regular Commissions (those who graduated from one of the service
>	acadamies).

Regular Commissions are not reserved to those who graduate from one of
the service acadEmies.

/john
502.422CALDEC::RAHaverage CAD weenieMon Aug 21 1995 05:0411
    
    Rob, you seem to think that there aren't wymmin who could 
    march with, PT with, and be just as tough and as bbad-assed 
    as any of the male cadets.
    
    Let me assure you that there are females out there fully able
    to ace the heat, the field problems, and the classroom, as well
    as clean clocks at the local.
    
    the fact that Shannon wasn't one of them doesn't mean squat. 
    
502.423I apologize for the length of this replyAIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONMon Aug 21 1995 06:02170
    re. 502.419, Mz_Deb,

    I did make some assumptions in my note.  I don't know Shannon
    Faulkner, nor are my si'kick powers well-honed enough that I can
    peer into her soul and uncover her dreams and desires.  I can only
    judge Shannon by her own actions and words.

    As a very interested observer to this whole mess, I have never
    once heard Shannon Faulkner say that it was her lifelong dream to
    attend the Citadel, nor even that she was interested in a military
    education or a military career.  What I have heard her say, in 
    response to the direct question "Why do you want to go to the
    Citadel?" put to her by a sympathetic member of the news media, is
    the following:  "I think that women should have the right to go  
    wherever they want to go."  Shannon's team of lawyers have been 
    very effective in getting her media coverage, I have read and
    heard countless statements by her in the past two years, and I 
    have never seen her say anything to indicate that she has even a
    passing interest in what the Citadel is all about.

    Even today, as she relaxed with an interviewer at her home,
    Shannon Faulkner said that she was satisfied that she had
    accomplished what she set out to do; that her lawyers had proven
    that the law was on her side.  She is now thinking of becoming
    an education major at a nearby school.

    In a way, this reminds me of the Norma McCorvey/Jane Roe situation
    as it relates to the abortion debate.  We can argue about the
    principle, but Shannon Faulkner was not the best candidate to 
    base a case around.  Her reasons for wishing to attend the Citadel
    are, IMVHO, insufficient given the extent of the problems she has
    caused for the school (or, depending upon your point of view, the
    extent of the problems they have caused for themselves by following
    an exclusionary policy.)

    >Not a hatefest?  Most of the cadets didn't even KNOW Shannon Faulkner,
    >yet they cheered and celebrated when she left.  Did they cheer and
    >celebrate over the other two dozen who dropped out?  Doubtful.
    
    Most of the cadets have been following this, I'm sure, as least as
    closely as I have, and they have no doubt formed their own opinions
    of Shannon Faulkner based on her actions and words.  Their opinion,
    clearly, is that she was lacking in what it takes to become a
    Citadel cadet.  You may think that what she was lacking was 
    merely a penis (merely?!), but there is much more to it than 
    that simple answer.

    Although this will seem cruel, I can assure you that there were 
    those who cheered as the 24 male cadets dropped out, and who 
    will continue to cheer as more drop out over the next few months.
    Hell week is not the end of the hazing, by any means.  Due to
    a particular mindset (that some may refer to as brainwashing,)
    peer pressure and the wrath of the cadre will combine to force 
    out those that Citadel cadets see as unworthy.  Those who can
    not or will not "make the grade" will get little sympathy, even 
    from their own classmates.  Life's tough during your knob year,
    and shared misery forges incredible bonds.  Those who will not
    share the misery don't get any compassion from those that will.
    Again, this is a different world.


    >Pure conjecture on your part.  Who wastes 2.5 years of their life to
    >make a politcal point?  How many teenagers do you know that would do
    >that?  
    
    Actually, I think teenagers would be more likely to do something
    like this, since they have the enthusiasm (and gullibility) that
    encourages such activism.  That point aside, Shannon Faulkner is
    clearly not a typical teenager.  She is an exceptional young
    woman of unusual strength and determination, and she had to be to
    get through the media circus of the past two years.

    This does not mean she would make a good cadet or a good soldier,
    any more than I would have made a good soldier.  There are a 
    particular set of skills and a certain mindset that are needed
    for success in the military, and they are quite different from 
    qualities that may be beneficial in the outside world.  Since
    Shannon bowed out after a week, we'll never know, will we?

    >Such as sexism?  In what year did The Citadel stop practicing racism
    >and allow non-whites to attend?
    
    urghhhh...well, I was hoping not to see that question, since it
    does make my arguments about tradition a lot more difficult.  It
    is a perfectly valid point, though, so I'll try to bite the bullet
    and give a bit of an answer.

    Racism was certainly part of the Citadel's past, and the first
    non-white would not have attended until sometime in the early 
    seventies.  (If you're interested in this, try reading Pat Conroy's
    "The Lords of Discipline," which is a fictional account of the
    introduction of the first black cadet into the Citadel, and which
    gives a pretty accurate reading of the feelings of the cadets at
    the time.  Don't bother with the movie.)  However, in the military
    sense, there is more of a justification for discrimination based on
    sex than based on race.  (Pardon me while I dig this BIG hole for
    myself...)

    No matter what colour a man's skin is, it's just skin.  It's not
    going to have any impact on his abilities as a soldier.  We can 
    all agree, however, that men and women have different physical
    characteristics (thank God!) and different levels of physical 
    ability.  Also, despite the best of intentions, there is a
    different social dynamic between single-sex and multiple-sex
    (ooh err!) environments.  This is not a good or bad thing, but
    it would completely change the character of an all-male school.
    And perhaps I had better stop with that before I really get
    myself in trouble...;-)


    >By wanting equal access?  By expecting an institution that accepted her
    >to allow her to attend?
    
    This is a part of the crux of the matter for me.  The Citadel
    accepted her only under the assumption that Shannon was a male.
    Dick Binder can argue that she did not lie when she removed all
    allusions to her sex from her transcript, references, and
    recommendations, but to me it is dishonest because she knew
    full well that this was an all-male school.  There was a clear
    intent to deceive that is dishonorable in one who is applying
    to a school whose foundation is based on honor, and a formal
    honor code and system.

    Possibly bogus example:  There are several womens' fitness centers
    in the Central Mass/Boston area.  If I dress up in drag (I can't
    believe I just said that,) go to one of these places, and buy
    a membership, the salesperson may not notice that I failed to
    check off the box on the form where it asks for the sex of the
    applicant.  When I hit the locker room and it becomes apparent
    that I am not a woman, are they going to say "Hey, you're a
    man!  Oh well, enjoy your membership!"  Of course not.  There
    was still an intent to deceive, and although the legality of
    it may be in question, the precepts of honor and honorable
    conduct would dictate that I should be out on the street in a
    New York minute.


    >All right, you've made enough suppositions in your note, let me make
    >one of my own.  They resented her because they don't consider women to
    >be equal to men.  They expect women to be discriminated against, to be
    >treated badly, to be kept down.  They expect it, and they revel in it. 
    >It wouldn't matter to any of them if she was physically and mentally
    >superior to the best of them - they didn't want her there because
    >they've been socialized to think of women as inferiors.

    If you believe that about these men, you must believe it about
    all men in our society.  These men are not monsters, they come 
    from all socioeconomic levels and all walks of life.  They share
    a common love, an intensity of fervent belief in the traditions
    of an institution, but not a sinister hatred for all womankind.
    If you've ever met any of them, you'll realize they are all just
    normal guys.

    I would agree with you that these attitudes do afflict all men to
    one degree or another; sexism is a very real problem in the world.
    But one can do the wrong thing for all the right reasons.  I would
    be very hesitant about tampering with an institution that has done
    its job and accomplished its mission with exceptional success for
    close to a century and a half.  I have seen what this tampering has
    done to other environments, and the changes have not all been for
    the best.

    
    >>And all in the name of 'tradition'.

    Yes.  It is a brotherhood, and should remain thus.


Rob

502.424It's a brand new worldAIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONMon Aug 21 1995 06:1428
    
    re 502.420, Jim,
    
    I do think that it is critical that those who will be serving our
    country learn that they must obey civilian authority and the laws
    it creates.  I only wish that that authority and those laws would
    reflect the truth of the situation as I see it.
    
    But hey!  Maybe I'm wrong and they're right.  We shall see how the
    situation resolves itself.  More women will be applying to the
    Citadel, and they should have a much easier legal path to travel.
    Shannon was the first, but she won't be the last.
    
    Shannon Faulkner has driven a wedge into the Citadel's armor, and
    the situation is, for better or worse, different now than it was
    before.
    
    Here's to the future.
    
    
    
    Rob
    
    BTW, Citadel grads who have not accepted a ROTC scholarship have no
    commitment to the military, and may enter the world of business or
    do whatever they wish.  Most grads do enter the military, although
    not all of them make a career out of it.
    
502.425AIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONMon Aug 21 1995 06:3328
    
    re.422, RAH,
    
    If I've given you that impression, it is incorrect.  I am well aware
    that there are women who can meet the standards.  There are plenty
    of women out there who could run me into the ground.  Hell, there are
    even women in the world who can bench press more than me.  Tamara
    Rainwater-Grimwood recently benched 402 at a bodyweight of 180, which
    is slightly more than I have ever done at 240-250.  The difference,
    of course, is that Tamara is the world record-holder and the first
    woman to bench 400 (and is using plenty of exogenous testosterone, to
    be sure,) while I am merely Joe Schmoe from Nashua.
    
    I recall one woman, who ended up being a company commander her senior
    year at West Point, who I would rather have beside me in a bar fight
    or combat ops than almost any man I've ever met.  Talk about tough
    as nails...
    
    There are both men and women who will make good or bad soldiers, or
    even cadets.  But there are already places where one can go for a
    coed military school experience.  The Citadel and VMI are the last
    refuge of the single-sex military college experience.  I would like
    to see them keep their unique character, even if it means losing
    government funds.
    
    
    Rob
               
502.426GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberMon Aug 21 1995 11:5918
    
    
    I agree that the reaction by the cadets were shameful.  They do need to
    grow up.  
    
    
    I hope that Shannon has learned from this experience.  The lesson that
    I see is that one should choose ones battles carefully.  Does anyone
    know how this all started?  How she got the idea to apply to the
    Citadel?  
    
    
    I wish her well in whatever she decides to do with her life.  I feel
    that she bit off more than she could chew without understanding the
    ramifications of her actions.  
    
    
    Mike
502.427TROOA::COLLINSA 9-track mind...Mon Aug 21 1995 12:044
    
    How's the expression go?  "Be careful what you ask for, 
    or you will surely get it."  Something like that.  ;^)
    
502.428SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROMon Aug 21 1995 12:1815
             <<< Note 502.421 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Not necessarily.  They can also receive regular commissions.

	Under what conditions does a Citadel graduate receive a Regular
	Commission upon graduation?

>Regular Commissions are not reserved to those who graduate from one of
>the service acadEmies.

	It is possible to have your status changed during the course of your
	career, but I was under the impression that only the service acadamies
	granted regular commisions upon graduation.

Jim
502.429WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onMon Aug 21 1995 12:3022
     Shannon's out of court performance was shameful. It looks like she was
    just making a statement and completely unprepared to undergo that which
    she had claimed to want so bad. Unfortunately, I don't see her
    performance as advancing the cause of equality since she so clearly
    couldn't cut the mustard; it gives the dinosaurs all the "I told you
    so" ammunition they can use. I just feel that she pulled a Peter
    McNeely; bailing out at the first sign things weren't going to be light
    and breezy. Can she really say she gave it her best shot? I don't think
    so- but if she honestly can then she didn't have much in the first
    place. It's pretty difficult to tell whether she was simply out to get
    her 15 minutes by forcing the Citadel to accept a female cadet, or if
    she's just a quitter. Either way, she makes a lousy first female cadet,
    IMO. I'm sure there are thousands of women who would have done a better
    job.
    
     There is, of course, another side to this. And that is that we will
    not have achieved equality until females are allowed to try and fail
    just like males. Having the freedom to fail is part and parcel of
    equality; insisting that females succeed just because they are females
    when men are allowed to fail and quietly slink away is tantamount to
    holding females to higher standards. It's just disappointing that the
    very first had to fail. :-/
502.430ODIXIE::ZOGRANReasonable summer ratesMon Aug 21 1995 13:266
    Heard on the radio this morning that Shannon also took her High School
    to court to allow her to try out for the football team.  When she was
    finally allowed to try out she lasted one practice.  I cannot verify
    the facts as reported, just thought I'd pass it along.
    
    Dan
502.431SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 21 1995 13:385
    
    Hmmmmm....
    
    Wonder how long it will take NOW to gather up and pay the obligatory
    picketers???
502.432SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Mon Aug 21 1995 14:028
    Is it equalitywhen women are held to lower standards than men?
    
    Is it fair because women are physcially inferior?
    
    Or are they physically equal, and should they be held to the same
    physical standards?
    
    (Light fuse. Get away.)
502.433ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Mon Aug 21 1995 14:065
    There should be one set of physical standards for anything that
    requires a physical test, assuming that the physical test is a valid
    requirement.
    
    Bob
502.434Academies only one of several ways.GAAS::BRAUCHERMon Aug 21 1995 14:3116
    
      Um, if I remember correctly, Colin Powell (retired chairman, Joint
     Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War), did not attend any service
     academy or military school.  He was in ROTC, and attended Georgetown,
     and was sent to business school by the army to get an MBA.  Later he
     was a line commander in Viet Nam, and received a regular army
     commission.  During the Reagan years, he became a general because
     of his much-valued advice to Cap Weiberger, and his considerable
     combat record.  As to commissions, Congress can grant them to
     anybody they like.  In the Civil War, they often went to politicians,
     who were handed whole armies they had no idea how to lead.  The
     theory, spectacularly disproved, was that extreme hatred of the
     Confederacy would make up for minor deficencies in matters like how
     to operate weapons or organize troops.
    
      bb
502.435MROA::YANNEKISMon Aug 21 1995 16:4032
    
>         There should be one set of physical standards for anything that
>    requires a physical test, assuming that the physical test is a valid
>    requirement.


    As simple as that is written it is ambiguous.  Is the desire to ensure
    a level of fitness or a particular skill level.

    For example,  if a firefighter needs to be able to carry 200 lbs
    because that is the size person they should be able to carry alone then
    the standard should, IMO, be the same for men and women.  The standard
    has a tangible value.

    However if the test is to test general physical fitness, which is what
    I expect the case is at the Citadel (spoken by an ex-ROTC guy), I think
    different standards are the fairest.  The goal is to expect the same
    level of fitness from each of the cadets.  There is 100 years of
    evidence that shows A LOT more men can run a 16-min 2 mile run than can
    women.  Using the same absolute standard skews the results
    tremendously.  However, using differing times, both of which
    correspond to x% of their gender performance levels, would IMO be
    fairest.  

    I would guess the 16-min and 19-min requirements represent goals 
    represent the same level of fitness as opposed to the same absolute
    level.

    Take care,
    Greg

                                                                     
502.436ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150kts is TOO slow!Mon Aug 21 1995 17:486
    re: .435
    
    I tend to agree with you.  Since I don't know the reasoning behind the
    standards in this case, I can't make a valid judgement.
    
    Bob
502.437SEAPIG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROMon Aug 21 1995 18:4110
     <<< Note 502.436 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150kts is TOO slow!" >>>

>    I tend to agree with you.  Since I don't know the reasoning behind the
>    standards in this case, I can't make a valid judgement.
 
	Heard a report this morning that the standards that were set for
	Faulkner were those that are in effect at the military service
	acadamies.

Jim
502.438AIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONTue Aug 22 1995 05:0315
    
    re 502.434, bb,
    
    Small nit.  If I am not mistaken, Colin Powell attended City College
    of New York, where he received a commission through the ROTC program.
    He may have received his MBA at Georgetown.
    
    Sigh...one would think I would know his background better by now, 
    since the man has been on the cover of virtually every news 
    magazine in the country recently ("Colin Powell -- will he run?")
    
    
    
    Rob
    
502.439Attorney: New woman ready to fight CitadelMARKO::MCKENZIECSS - because ComputerS SuckTue Aug 22 1995 17:5867
(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug 22, 1995 - 11:18 EDT) -- Another
woman has been found who wants to become a cadet at The
Citadel now that Shannon Faulkner has dropped out, one of the
lawyers in the case said Tuesday.

"It's hard to find somebody who is willing to put themselves in
the middle of the hurricane," attorney Suzanne Coe said. "But
there is a woman who will step in and take off in the same
shoes that Shannon stepped out of."

Coe said she would file federal court papers on Wednesday
seeking to add the woman to the case.

The lawyer would not identify the woman until the papers are
filed, except to say she is from South Carolina and attends
college. Like Faulkner, she would be a junior if she entered the
corps next year but would take the freshman year of military
training.

Faulkner, the first woman cadet in the 152-year history of the
state military college, fought for 2 1/2 years to join the corps,
then withdrew last week after less than a week on campus. The
20-year-old woman said the stress of the court battle and her
isolation as the only woman in the corps were taking too great a
toll on her health.

If the new woman is permitted to enter the case, Coe said she
expects the court ruling that made Faulkner part of the cadet
corps also would apply to the new woman. In that case, she
would become a cadet in the fall of 1996.

But Citadel spokesman Terry Leedom said, "The Faulkner case
applies only to Faulkner and it's not a class-action suit."

Two women have applied to join the corps, but the applications
have not been processed, Leedom said. The school has
received inquiries from about 200 other women, he said.

Lawyers will ask U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck on
Wednesday to make Faulkner's case a class action
representing all women who want to become Citadel cadets,
Coe said.

Even if the college doesn't process the new woman's
application, Coe said the judge could determine whether she
meets Citadel admission requirements.

"There is no doubt that the woman who says she will intervene
meets all those requirements," she said.

Several weeks ago, attorneys for Faulkner told the judge they
had found a second woman who wanted to become a cadet.
Then a few days later, they said the unidentified woman
decided against seeking admission because of family concerns.

"Who really wants to go and become the center of
controversy?" Coe said. But the new women is committed to
joining the corps and will spearhead the case, she said.

"What Shannon did was pave the way and now we need people
to continue carrying the torch," Coe said.



502.440GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberTue Aug 22 1995 18:034
    
    
    So it's the lawyers seeking these people out to make a name for
    themselves?
502.441I'd like to start MIT 3 days before graduation pleaseTIS::HAMBURGERREMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTSTue Aug 22 1995 18:077
OK the barrier is broken. now let them apply like any other student/applicant
and if accepted start as freshpersons like everyone else.
The argument was Shannon was delayed two years so should start as a junior 
makes some sense but others should go thru the whole process.

Amos
502.442NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 22 1995 18:073
Presumably the lawyer (see, I've already forgotten her name) strongly believes
that women should be allowed to be cadets in the Citadel.  She's probably
doing it more out of principle than for the publicity.
502.443PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Aug 22 1995 18:145
>>Presumably the lawyer (see, I've already forgotten her name) 

 i think it was either Medico, Medina, or Medrick.

502.444WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onTue Aug 22 1995 18:154
    Coupled with the fact that the Citadel is saying the the Faulkner case
    only applied to Shannon Faulkner and that it was not a class action
    case (thus requiring each new potential female candidate to fire up her
    own lawsuit to gain entrance...)
502.445NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Aug 22 1995 18:253
> i think it was either Medico, Medina, or Medrick.

Wise guy.
502.446AIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONWed Aug 23 1995 10:4411
    
    And so the whole circus begins again.
    
    At least the new applicant, based on her ROTC performance and the
    fact that she is willing to transfer in after having spent two
    years someplace else, seems to be more serious about the military
    side of things than Shannon Faulkner.
    
    
    Rob
    
502.447I really hate this trend...GAAS::BRAUCHERWed Aug 23 1995 14:1412
    
      For those who don't know, the game in the USA today is the "prepared"
     case.  This is not just used by the left, either.  For example in
     reverse discrimination, although I think the genre was invented on
     the left.  The whole litigious matter is CHOREOGRAPHED ahead of time,
     the people are selected and instructed in what to do to test the law,
     the lawyers are paid by well-heeled lobbies, and spies from the
     opposing camp meanwhile prepare to sabotage the staged litigants in
     court.  There are WAY too many lawyers with time on their hands and
     dollar signs in their eyes in the USA.  It is now a blood sport.
    
      bb
502.448WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onWed Aug 23 1995 14:531
    <== agreed.
502.449SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Wed Aug 23 1995 15:303
    .447
    
    So when is someone going to do it with the second amendment?
502.450SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Aug 24 1995 21:5319
    > Shannon's out of court performance was shameful. It looks like she was
    > just making a statement and completely unprepared to undergo that which
    > she had claimed to want so bad.
    
    I am disappointed that she pulled out.  But I don't feel like
    second-guessing her on matters of her health.  I seem to remember you,
    Mark, complaining mightily about a court action you were involved in
    sometime in the recent past- certainly you didn't bear the strain of it
    for two years.  I can easily see how a 20-yr old woman would finally
    collapse under the strain- not able to hold down any food for three
    days after finally winning the court case and entering the program-
    having her family harassed at home for two years (stuff thrown at their
    house in the middle of the night, old friends breaking off all contact-
    you get the picture.)  As I say, I'm disappointed- but I can understand
    her actions.  It isn't in me to condemn her for inadequate preparation,
    or to thereby judge that she must not have wanted it "enough".  Two+
    years of stress caught up with her; not too difficult to figure out.
    
    DougO
502.451WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Aug 25 1995 10:329
    -1 no sale DougO. she had the stamina and character to take up the
       good fight and win. for that she gets all of my praise and
       admiration.
    
       not showing up prepared was either an act of irresponsibility or
       was simply not on the agenda (planned). i tend to think the latter.
    
       my admiration for her would be bolstered greatly if she indeed came
       out and stated that breaking down the barrier was the agenda.
502.452GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 25 1995 11:166
    
    
    Truth is, she was recruited by the ACLU to make a statement.  They used
    her and she was tired of being used.  The ACLU lyeers changed her
    transcripts removing all references to gender and adding more
    activities than Shannon actually participated.  
502.453CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Aug 25 1995 11:437
    When women were first invited to attend West Point, the candidates were
    motivated to do so and went in as prepared somewhat for the rigors in
    store for them.  This is not the case here.  This leads to questioning
    motives as is the case here.  
    
    Brian
    
502.454WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 11:589
    >I am disappointed that she pulled out.  But I don't feel like
    >second-guessing her on matters of her health.
    
     I don't think she was prepared to actually go through with it; she was
    ready to talk the talk and did a great job in lobbying the court. But
    when it came right down to it, I don't think she was prepared to
    undergo Citadel training. I admire her courage in breaking down the
    barrier, but I think she was woefully unprepared for what being in the
    Citadel meant. That's all.
502.455SHRCTR::DAVISFri Aug 25 1995 12:433
            <<< Note 502.452 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>

You have a source for this truth?
502.456CSC32::M_EVANSnothing's going to bring him backFri Aug 25 1995 12:497
    reading something in the paper by Clarence Page yesterday, Shannon
    Faulkner fared no worse than some of the first black men who went to
    West oint.  Out of the first 12, (all of whom were pretty-well
    isolated, harrassed, beaten and wenr at different times over several
    decades) only 3 managed to graduate.
    
    meg
502.457GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 25 1995 12:535
    
    Tom,
    
    It was in an article I read the other day.  In the Times.
    
502.458WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 13:0718
    >reading something in the paper by Clarence Page yesterday, Shannon
    >Faulkner fared no worse than some of the first black men who went to
    >West oint.  Out of the first 12, (all of whom were pretty-well
    >isolated, harrassed, beaten and wenr at different times over several
    >decades) only 3 managed to graduate.
    
     So how many dropped out on day 1? (I don't consider laying in the
    infirmary to count as time in the academy.)
    
     Anybody see the guy (faculty) who was interviewed regarding the Citadel
    students' treatment of Faulkner? Sounded like the thrust of his message
    was "we're lunkheads, and proud of it. I'm not going to make any
    excuses for the way we behaved, nor should I." I thought the
    celebrations of exultation when it was announced that that big, bad
    girl was leaving reflected most negatively on all the participants; it
    made them look impotent and childish, IMO, like fighting a girl being
    allowed to be in their school was the most positive contribution to
    society they were capable of making.
502.459DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 25 1995 13:3516
    
    > Faulkner fared no worse than some of the first black men who went to
    > West Point.  Out of the first 12, (all of whom were pretty-well
    > isolated, harassed, beaten and wenr at different times over several
    > decades) only 3 managed to graduate.

    To compare what Shannon Faulkner went through with what the first blacks
    in West Point went through belittles the efforts and achievements of
    the blacks IMNHO.  Shannon Falkner was unprepared, and not willing to
    go through the effort required to compete at the Citadel.  In my
    younger days I went from 165-170 lbs to 145 lbs in a matter of two
    weeks.  It was a result of living with the military, and just trying to
    keep up with there regular (easy) schedule.  Shannon could have lost
    the weight and reached the level of health necessary to compete within
    the time allotted to her.  She CHOSE not to.

502.460RUSURE::GOODWINFri Aug 25 1995 13:482
    The citadel is beginning to sound like an older, but not necessarily
    more grown up, version of Spanky and his gang.
502.461WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Aug 25 1995 14:047
    i agree 100% with Dan (now pick yourself up)... to make a comparison
    between SF and blacks at West Point is grossly ridiculous. sheesh,
    where do these idiots come up with this stuff.
    
    blacks were often beaten out of the academy...
    
    
502.462DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Fri Aug 25 1995 14:089
    >It was a result of living with the military, and just trying to
    >keep up with there regular (easy) schedule.
    
    And of course we know that they do more before 9am then most people do
    all day. That seems like a real strong point. Would make me want to
    join.   :-)
    
    
    :)
502.463SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 25 1995 14:333
    Saw an interview with Shannon on teevee (not mine) the other
    night...she said she would recommend the Citadel as a place to send
    either sons or daughters of friends.
502.464Movie Deal Inked!MIMS::SANDERS_JFri Aug 25 1995 14:472
    This morning's Atlanta Constitution reported that Shannon Faulkner has
    inked a movie deal.
502.465GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 25 1995 14:533
    
    
    Imagine that.......
502.466MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 15:091
    Yawn.
502.467DEVLPR::DKILLORANIt ain't easy, bein' sleezy!Fri Aug 25 1995 15:303
    
    Who'd a thunk it????
    
502.468CSC32::J_OPPELTWanna see my scar?Fri Aug 25 1995 16:197
    	It's gonna take some mighty literary license to make a movie
    	about this episode interesting, exciting, marketable.
    
    	Who wants to see a movie about a loser?  Maybe the final
    	victory at the end of the movie will be that the main
    	character gets rich from a movie deal.  Can't wait for
    	the sequel...  8^P
502.469TROOA::COLLINSNothing wrong $100 wouldn't fix.Fri Aug 25 1995 16:264
    
    In the movie version she will endure years of abuse and harrassment
    prior to graduation.
    
502.470CSC32::M_EVANSnothing's going to bring him backFri Aug 25 1995 16:277
    Obviously Clarence Page did not feel it innapproriate to compare
    Faulkner and the original blacks at WP.  Given his ethnic background, I
    think if it were innappropriate to him, he wouldn't have used it.
    
    The Citidel's behavior reminds me of a GOB meeting.
    
    meg
502.471MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 16:413
    Wonderful...another victim movie.
    
    
502.472WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 16:433
    >	Who wants to see a movie about a loser?  
    
     Who cares? She'll have her payday.
502.473LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 17:105
>Who wants to see a movie about a loser?

I'd much rather see a movie about OJ, or David Koresh, or
Jim Jones, or John Wayne Gacy, or Ted Bundy, or Son of Sam,
or Leona Helmsley any day. 
502.474WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 17:111
    Yeah, but you're just funny that way.
502.475GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 25 1995 17:472
    
    Just cuz she dropped out doesn't make her a loser.  TYVM
502.476Faulkner hurt women serious about militaryDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Aug 25 1995 17:5815
    Hmmmm, if the movie is about her "stay" at the Citadel, should be
    one, very short movie :-}
    
    A lot of women are PO'd at Shannon.  Woman wrote in to Atlanta
    editorial section earlier this week.  She is an executive with
    local firm, but also a member of a reserve unit.  She was activated
    for Desert Storm and served there.  She said she worked out for
    months before enlisting, knowing that the P.T. would be fierce
    combined with our summer weather.  She also questioned Shannon's
    desire to really attend the Citadel versus the publicity garnered
    to gain admittance.  This woman said she knew Faulkner wouldn't
    make it when she saw film clips of Faulkner's arrival at The
    Citadel, woefully out of shape.
    
     
502.477MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 18:016
    That is exactly what I was saying.
    
    Faulkner was trying to make a name for herself...that's all!  She was
    prostituting the Citadel in order to fulfill her own agenda.  
    
    - Jack
502.478LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 18:045
And yet in that televised interview, Faulkner said
she had run 2-3 miles each a.m and then another 
3-5 miles in the p.m. every day in preparation.
She also said that she worked out on the Nautilus
machines every other day.   Go figure.
502.479WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 18:073
    Yeah, she did say that she had run with her father on a daily basis. It
    sure didn't look it, relative to the way she looked before all of her
    training...
502.480LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 18:091
Definitely not a runner's physique.
502.481GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberFri Aug 25 1995 18:1113
    
    No doubt, Mark.  Makes one wonder how much food she was consuming if
    she was doing all this exercise.  
    
    
    
    I don't think it was any kind of conspiracy on her part for fame and
    fortune.  Remember, she was only 17 at the time.  I think she got the
    idea and decided to go for it as a curiosity thing then the lawyers got
    ahold of it and turned it into what it had become.  I don't think she
    was expecting it to get that far and be as stressful.
    
    Mike
502.482LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 18:2610
>She was
>    prostituting the Citadel in order to fulfill her own agenda.

Why don't you go fulfill your own agenda, Jack?  And don't hurt
yourself while you're doing it.

I'm usually able to avoid your nonsensical baiting...why don't
you just give it a freakin' rest.  

  
502.483POLAR::RICHARDSONBooze ain't foodFri Aug 25 1995 18:342
    I for one can't wait to see this woman's face on the big silver screen.
    I'm simply giddy with anticipation.
502.484TROOA::COLLINSNothing wrong $100 wouldn't fix.Fri Aug 25 1995 18:393
    
    ...or just plain giddy.   ;^)
    
502.485POLAR::RICHARDSONBooze ain't foodFri Aug 25 1995 18:421
    It's a fair cop.
502.486GAVEL::JANDROWGreen-Eyed Lady...Fri Aug 25 1995 19:029
    >> Faulkner was trying to make a name for herself...that's all!  She
    >>was prostituting the Citadel in order to fulfill her own agenda.
    
    
    do you know this for a FACT??  (lemme know if you need help looking it
    up)  or are you just assuming this to be the real story?
    
    
    
502.487SPSEG::COVINGTONThere is chaos under the heavens...Fri Aug 25 1995 19:055
    .486
    
    Faulkner did use the words "to make a political point" in her press
    release when she left the Citadel. She did not use the words
    "tradition" or "education."
502.488POWDML::HANGGELIPetite Chambre des MauditesFri Aug 25 1995 19:107
    
    We've already gone through this political point thing, and there is
    disagreement on the meaning.  Unless she comes right out and says "I
    only wanted to go to The Citadel to make a political point", my
    interpretation is as valid as yours.
    
    
502.489MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 19:201
    Has anybody noticed that Raq has been standing up to me lately???
502.490LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 19:206
>do you know this for a FACT??

Jack never dabbles in fact.  Fact might muck
up Jack's agenda.  From the get-go Jack's 
mouthed off and assumed the worst about Faulkner's
motivations.  Jack's assumptions are fact to Jack.
502.491TROOA::COLLINSNothing wrong $100 wouldn't fix.Fri Aug 25 1995 19:213
    
    Well, it IS Friday, you know.
    
502.492WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 19:232
    Jack doesn't b'leeve in discriminating against the other days of the
    week.
502.493MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 19:3126
ZZ    Jack never dabbles in fact.  Fact might muck
ZZ    up Jack's agenda.  From the get-go Jack's 
ZZ    mouthed off and assumed the worst about Faulkner's
ZZ    motivations.  Jack's assumptions are fact to Jack.
  
    Yes, the typical tyrade from the looney left.  Of course you never
    really read the basenote carefully...where I stated that single
    gendered schools are a great tradition and I have contempt for both men
    and women who attempt to break these working traditions.  No...you
    failed to read this because you read what you wanted to read.  Then
    when you couldn't come up with a substantial counterpoint, you chose to
    implement the lefty method which is finger pointing and insults. 
    Apparently you need to do this because you can't offer anything
    substantive to the conversation.  Always with the poor lil old me
    attitude.
    
    In fact, about half way through these replies I mentioned that in way,
    I hope Shannon does succeed because I don't want to see her fail since
    she is at the Citadel anyway.  I just hoped that she was there because
    she WANTED to be a military officer in the future.  She wanted it so
    bad she would bust her hump to get it.  
    
    Being a martyr has it's price.  Shannon Faulkner didn't make it because
    Shannon Faulkner didn't want it!  
    
    -Jack
502.494CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Aug 25 1995 19:374
    Going to the Citadel and graduating does not guarantee one a commission
    in the military.  It is not a military school as West Point, Annapolis,
    Air Force or Coast Guard academies.  It is a private institution that
    holds military traditions and receives public funds.  
502.495LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 19:4118
>Yes, the typical tyrade from the looney left.

Another stupid assumption of yours.

>Then
>    when you couldn't come up with a substantial counterpoint, you chose to
>    implement the lefty method which is finger pointing and insults.

Jack, no one political party holds the patent on this tired method.
Finger pointing and insults?  You've got to be kidding.  How about the 
personal insults you've hurled at Faulkner in this string?  Oh. But
that's safe to do, right?  She ain't here.

>Always with the poor lil old me
>    attitude.

Give me one example of this from my writing Jack.  Just one.  
You're such a blowhard.
502.496where's that M-U-F-F note?WAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onFri Aug 25 1995 19:421
    She likes you, Jack, she really does. ;-)
502.497POLAR::RICHARDSONBooze ain't foodFri Aug 25 1995 19:553
    The MUFF note?!?!
    
    Hmmmmm.
502.498MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 19:5623
 ZZ   Another stupid assumption of yours.
    
    Yes, it is an assumption...but it is based on your apparent belief that
    Shannon Faulkner is a victim.  
    
    This has little to do with women's rights.  There are quite a few women
    who believe as I do...that Shannon Faulkner has stepped over the line
    of breaking traditions that have been effective throughout history.  
    I find this to be dishonorable on her part.  There are PLENTY of State
    Funded women schools in this country...and I hold men to the same
    convictions.  Keep your hormones and your non so good looking self out
    of women's colleges.  YOU DON'T BELONG THERE.  Respect the traditions
    that are successful and stay away.  
    
    So...you think I'm picking on Shannon Faulkner.  Well, I wish Shannon
    the best wherever she ends up.  Quite frankly, she wasn't welcomed at
    the Citadel and although I believe she should succeed if she made the
    standard, I don't have to approve of her actions.  That's why I was
    saying I hope they make her life hell because if she reeeeaaaalllly
    wants to be a Susan B. Anthony, then she has to earn it!
    
    -Jack
    
502.499MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 19:571
    I really hope she is successful
502.500MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 19:571
    Vertically Challenged Snarf
502.501LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 20:009
By the way Mark, I've been meaning to axe you...
remember you were going to mail me examples of
women using the line, "Well, I don't care, it's
how I feel" to win arguments with men in various
notesfiles?  Remember that discussion back in
womannotes?

Well, I haven't received any examples from you
yet...what happened?
502.502MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 20:046
    Womannotes...that explains it.
    
    Womannotes is a mecca of socialism and social engineering.  Speak
    correctly lest you offend the masses.  
    
    
502.503NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Fri Aug 25 1995 20:051
Is Christian-Perspective a Mecca of Christianity?
502.504LANDO::OLIVER_BFri Aug 25 1995 20:0611
>but it is based on your apparent belief that
    Shannon Faulkner is a victim.

Do you just like, make things up as you go along?
I never implied or stated that I thought SF was a victim.

>Shannon Faulkner has stepped over the line
    of breaking traditions

Could you elaborate on these traditions?  Do they
include hazings and circle jerks?
502.505Very fewCOVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Aug 25 1995 20:143
>Is Christian-Perspective a Mecca of Christianity?

No, it's a mecca of Perspectives, a few of them Christian.
502.506CSC32::M_EVANSnothing's going to bring him backFri Aug 25 1995 20:164
    You mean just like xiannotes?  when are you all going to quit trying to
    figure out who the true xians are, anyuway?
    
    
502.507PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BFri Aug 25 1995 20:209
>>  when are you all going to quit trying to
>>  figure out who the true xians are, anyuway?

    oh but Meg, that would take all the fun out of it. ;>
    
    
    

502.508MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalFri Aug 25 1995 20:216
    To be honest, some of what I am writing is in response to your remarks 
    about circle jerks and your inferences to my acting in such a manner. 
    
    It was this type of rapport that you established.
    
    -Jack
502.509Shannon F.O.S.MIMS::SANDERS_JFri Aug 25 1995 20:289
    re. 478
    
    There is no way in hell that Shannon was running 2-3 miles in the AM
    and 3-5 miles in the PM.  That is anywhere from 5-8 miles a day.  As a
    runner, I can assure you that it takes time to work up to 8 miles.  By
    the time I was running 6 miles a day (PM) and could run up to 10 miles
    at once, I was lean and mean. 
    
    Either your numbers are wrong or Shannon if F.O.S.
502.510DECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundFri Aug 25 1995 22:1110
    .509  I agree.  Several female co-workers are avid (and faithful)
    runners; I envy their physical fitness.  They never cease to
    amaze me with their stamina to go out and run on their lunch hours;
    even when the heat has been as ghastly as it has been since July
    4th here in Hotlanta.
    
    On the other hand, maybe Shannon jogs like Sliq, right thru the
    drive-in lane at Mickey Dee's :-}
    
    
502.511Movie theme: "Shannon is gone, I heard"DECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamSat Aug 26 1995 02:155
    I vote that the part of Shannon Faulkner should be played
    by Genevieve Bujold (who bolted from the Captain's chair of
    "Star Trek: Voyager" after a few days of filming).
    
    Chris
502.512Shannon perhaps not F.O.S.AIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONSat Aug 26 1995 08:0855
    
    re. 509,
    
    For the sake of argument (what nobler cause could there be?) I will
    disagree with you and say that it is possible, albeit unlikely, that
    Shannon Faulkner was running as much as she has claimed.  Remember,
    she may have been running shorter distances, or less frequently, all 
    along and only increased the distance to the stated mileage during
    the last few weeks, when it became apparent that she was going to
    get into the Citadel.
    
    Even if she jumped into such a severe program without adequate
    preparation, Shannon is still at an age when the body will let you
    get away with things like that, if she wanted it bad enough to 
    endure the pain.
    
    When I began running at the age of 17, I had never done anything
    athletic in my life.  It was June, and I knew I had the physical
    test for West Point coming up in the fall.  So, in my youthful
    exuberance, I said to myself, "Self, if I want to do well at this
    test, I'm going to have to run five miles a day, every day, between
    now and the date of the test."  The concept of overtraining would not
    have occured to me then; I was still convinced that which did not 
    kill me would make me stronger.
    
    The first day, I went out to the local eighth-of-a-mile track, and
    ran/walked five miles.  I ran until I couldn't run anymore, and 
    then I walked until I could run again.  I did this every single day,
    and every day I could run a little further, and had to walk a 
    little bit less.  But I always did at least five miles.
    
    Looking back, I am surprised that I did not do permanent damage to my
    knees or ankles.  I was in absolute agony for the first two weeks.  My
    joints hurt so much that it took me several minutes to climb a simple
    flight of stairs, and I had to go up it sideways, making extensive
    use of the handrails.
    
    Despite the pain, I became better and better at running.  My 
    schedule eventually broke down to:  getting up in the morning, running,
    going to class, running, going to the gym, then running some more, 
    then sleeping.  Five weeks after I started, I ran my first 10K.  By
    the end of the summer, I was logging over ten miles a day.
    
    The point of this long-winded diatribe is that if you want something
    bad enough, you can achieve almost anything.  If it was really
    Shannon Faulkner's most heartfelt desire to attend the Citadel, it
    would be entirely possible that she would have subjected herself to
    running the kind of mileage that she has claimed.  Subsequent events
    would seem to indicate that she did not want it that much, but the
    fact remains that such things are within the realm of possibility.
    
    
    
    Rob
                    
502.513DRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&amp;Glory!Sat Aug 26 1995 21:354
    Rob -- all that exercise was no detriment to your doublejointedness
    neither!  Why even at this late date, you are still able to pat yerself
    on the back without incurring damage to yer sainted jointz.  Congrats!
    
502.514AIMHI::MARTINactually Rob Cashmon, NHPM::CASHMONSun Aug 27 1995 06:399
    
    Hey, if I don't do it -- who will?
    
    :-)
    
    
    
    Rob
    
502.515DRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&amp;Glory!Sun Aug 27 1995 07:052
    Don't look at ME!!!!!:)
    
502.516SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Mon Aug 28 1995 20:5815
    
    re: .478
    
    She also stated for the record that the authorities at the infirmary
    kept her there longer than she wanted to stay and that she was able to
    return to "duty" after just a day or two.
    
      The head of the infirmary (a woman I believe, fwiw) just about called
    her a bald-faced liar and said (paraphrased) "Shame on Faulkner!" for
    making a statement like that. The head of the infirmary stated the
    length of the stay was entirely up to, and in the hands of Faulkner.
    She stayed as long as she did of her own accord.
    
      The head of the infirmary has asked Faulkner for an apology...
    
502.517Gee Whiz, I 'm a runner too!! Golly.LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 29 1995 18:5114
Re: .509
    
>    There is no way in hell that Shannon was running 2-3 miles in the AM
>    and 3-5 miles in the PM.

From my note .478

>And yet in that televised interview, Faulkner said
>she had run 2-3 miles each a.m and then another 
>3-5 miles in the p.m. every day in preparation.....
>Go figure.
 ^^^^^^^^^
Did you happen to read the last two words of my note?
Well, read them again and go do it again.
502.518SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 29 1995 19:065
    
    re: .517
    
    Well... since her veracity is in question, the point seems to be
    moot... no??
502.519;-)LANDO::OLIVER_BTue Aug 29 1995 19:121
But Andy, I want everyone to see Shannon as a victim.
502.520DRDAN::KALIKOWDIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&amp;Glory!Tue Aug 29 1995 19:162
    Cow Moots.
    
502.521SOLVIT::KRAWIECKIBeen complimented by a toady lately?Tue Aug 29 1995 19:194
    
    
    Can they blur those out on film????
    
502.522WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed Aug 30 1995 18:001
    -1, ya but only on really old fim
502.523maybe she'll make it?SUBPAC::SADINfrankly scallop, I don't give a clam!Fri Sep 01 1995 16:3277
Second woman hopes to become Citadel cadet


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. (Aug 31, 1995 - 21:24 EDT) -- The next
woman who wants to march in the all-male corps at The Citadel
is a military academy student and star athlete who has a brother
in the college and a father who is an alumnus.

Nancy Mellette, a 17-year-old senior at a North Carolina
military boarding school, is asking to intervene in the Shannon
Faulkner case, according to federal court papers filed Thursday
by lawyers who also represented Ms. Faulkner in her quest to
become a cadet.

Ms. Mellette wants to join The Citadel in the fall of 1996.

"I think she could do the physical part of it ... but I'm not too sure
how they would treat her," Katherine Mellette, her twin sister,
said outside the family home in suburban Columbia.

Her mother, Connie, said she admired her daughter for "having
the courage to even try to take this step."

Ms. Faulkner fought a 2 1/2-year court battle to become a cadet
at the state-supported military college. She became ill during the
day of rigorous training known as "hell week" and quit five days
later, saying the stress of the court battle and her isolation at the
college threatened her health.

South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon said he would
fight Ms. Mellette's bid.

"Obviously they're very adept at public relations," he said of the
women's lawyers. "They've taken a bath in public relations and
they've gotten a new and improved model."

Ms. Mellette is a second lieutenant in the Oak Ridge Military
Academy corps of cadets, court papers said. She is on the
cross-country, track, basketball and softball teams. Calls to
Oakridge administrators to get comment from her were not
returned.

Lawyer Val Vojdik originally said two women wanted to join the
corps, but she said only one is pursuing the matter for now. She
would not elaborate.

Ms. Vojdik would not say whether Ms. Mellette had approached
the lawyers or they approached her after Ms. Faulkner dropped
out.

Ms. Mellette has not yet applied to The Citadel, the school said.
Her brother, a senior and captain at the college, did not return a
call to his barracks room. It wasn't immediately known what
year her father graduated from the school.

Ms. Mellette must intervene to have a say in the November trial
of a women's leadership program that South Carolina has
proposed as a way to prevent women from breaking the all-male
tradition at The Citadel, Ms. Vojdik said.

Twenty-two students arrived at private Converse College in
Spartanburg on Wednesday to begin the first year of the South
Carolina Institute of Leadership for Women.

In Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has approved a
similar program set up by the Virginia Military Institute, the
nation's only other state-supported, all-male military college.
The women's program began last week at Mary Baldwin College.

The Justice Department, which is challenging all-male
admission policies at The Citadel and VMI, has asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to declare the separate-but-equal program at
Mary Baldwin unconstitutional.

502.524OprahMIMS::SANDERS_JWed Sep 06 1995 15:401
    Shannon will appear on the "Oprah" show this Thursday.
502.525DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalWed Sep 06 1995 15:489
    
    <-------------
    
    
                                B A R F   !   !   ! 
    
    Does anyone really think that she wasn't in this just for the
    publicity?
    
502.526The answer to your question is yes....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Sep 06 1995 15:516
|   Does anyone really think that she wasn't in this just for the
|   publicity?
    
    She wasn't in this just for the publicity.
    
    								-mr. bill
502.527PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 06 1995 15:555
  .525

   <raises hand>

502.528TROOA::COLLINSOccam's Paper Towel DispenserWed Sep 06 1995 15:563
    
    <---- I'm wit doze two.
    
502.529DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalWed Sep 06 1995 16:136
    
    
    
                    Yup, that does not surprise me.
    
    
502.530Another boring 90's cultural "icon"DECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamWed Sep 06 1995 16:2811
    Money and fame may not have been among her original motives,
    but they sure look tempting now, eh?
    
    Why go on Oprah (or sign a movie deal, or write a book, or go
    on the talk circuit, etc.)?  If the answer is "to tell her side
    of the story", then I submit that she's already told it at the
    various press conferences that have been held.  What more is
    there to say?  It's all over.  Except for the moneychanging,
    that is.
    
    Chris
502.531POLAR::RICHARDSONAREAS is a dirty wordWed Sep 06 1995 16:302
    Oprah nauseates me with her philanthropic schtick. Money is the name of
    her game.
502.532PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 06 1995 16:305
	>>What more is
        >>there to say? 

	Maybe there's more to say to people like Dan Killoran.

502.533DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalWed Sep 06 1995 16:555
    
    > Maybe there's more to say to people like Dan Killoran.
    
    Such as, my dear?
    
502.534DASHER::RALSTONIdontlikeitsojuststopit!!Wed Sep 06 1995 16:573
    >Money is the name of her game.
    
    OH NO!!!! She makes money. We should hang her for sure.
502.535PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 06 1995 16:576
    
>>    Such as, my dear?

    Such as, "I didn't do it just for the publicity."
    

502.537PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 06 1995 17:172
  .536 oh that's a very strange sentence - yes indeedy.
502.538Better My Lady?GRANPA::MWANNEMACHERNRA memberWed Sep 06 1995 17:207
    
    
    I think she had gotten in over her head and didn't know how to say no
    to the liars who were handling her case.  
    
    
    
502.539PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 06 1995 17:235
>>                              -< Better My Lady? >-

    it's a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
    

502.540DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalWed Sep 06 1995 17:235
    
    > Such as, "I didn't do it just for the publicity."
    
    To which my reply would be "Horsefeathers !"
    
502.541PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 06 1995 17:246
    
>>    To which my reply would be "Horsefeathers !"

    How the hell do you know what motivated her originally?
    

502.542of course by then the money will have gone to Ms FaulknerWAHOO::LEVESQUEthe heat is onWed Sep 06 1995 17:273
    Didn't you already say you thought she did it to make a political
    statement? Therefore it wasn't _just_ for the publicity. This next one
    actually seems serious about doing it; we'll see.
502.543DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalWed Sep 06 1995 17:467
    
    > How the hell do you know what motivated her originally?
    
    I don't know what motivated her originally.  I just don't believe her. 
    I think that she thought it would be neat to do it, and get all the
    publicity.  
    
502.544DEVLPR::DKILLORANDanimalWed Sep 06 1995 17:476
    
    > Didn't you already say you thought she did it to make a political
    > statement? Therefore it wasn't _just_ for the publicity.
    
    IMO this is a distinction without a difference.
    
502.545WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Sep 07 1995 10:152
    .524 ya, but will she make it to the first commercial break?
    
502.546SX4GTO::OLSONDoug Olson, ISVETS Palo AltoThu Sep 07 1995 15:203
    Melette.  You heard it here first ;-).
    
    DougO
502.547Well, it would make a fairly good sitcomDECLNE::REESEToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGroundThu Sep 07 1995 17:305
    Well, Oprah is known to be very generous.  Perhaps she'll give
    Shannon a copy of her new diet book, loan Shannon her personal
    trainer, join her in long runs.  Then Shannon will be back in good
    physical condition and try it all over next year :-)
    
502.548TROOA::BUTKOVICHblink and I'm goneFri Sep 08 1995 05:1213
    I taped Oprah today to see what Shannon had to say.  My impressions
    were that she got in over her head.  I think she honestly started
    this whole case because she wanted to go to the school, but once
    her lawyers got involved it became their cause, and Shannon was just
    a puppet. I do believe that the next girl to go this route will have a
    much easier time because she will know exactly what kind of reaction to
    expect and also, because I don't think the media coverage will be as
    great - for this, Shannon deserves some credit.  There was a cadet and
    a Col Leedom from the Citadel being interviewed and IMHO they did not
    represent themselves well.  In fact, my impression of the Col. is that
    he is an ass. My 2 cents.
    
    Chris
502.549POLAR::RICHARDSONBaddy 48 shoesFri Sep 08 1995 15:003
    I'm sure Oprah was dripping with empathy too.
    
    8^p
502.550Shannon to try again!MIMS::SANDERS_JFri Sep 15 1995 15:051
    Yesterday, Shannon Faulkner said she had plans to reenter the Citadel.
502.551CONSLT::MCBRIDEReformatted to fit your screenFri Sep 15 1995 15:112
    Well, not really.  If other women are accepted, she MAY reapply per her
    sworn testimony in federal court.  
502.552"We've got to close on an upbeat note"DECWIN::RALTOStay in bed, float upstreamFri Sep 15 1995 15:446
    >> Yesterday, Shannon Faulkner said she had plans to reenter the Citadel.
    
    The scriptwriters probably convinced her to work in a good
    sequel tag to the end of the screenplay.
    
    Chris
502.553COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSat Aug 10 1996 12:2466
502.554CSLALL::HENDERSONEvery knee shall bowSat Aug 10 1996 14:354


 Unbelievable..
502.555COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSun Aug 11 1996 23:4029
502.55642333::LESLIEAndy Leslie | DTN 847 6586Mon Aug 12 1996 07:155
    Only in America can truly humourous litigation of this stupidity
    be deemed necessary. WHich lawyers will be making billyuns from THIS
    case?
    
    
502.557RUSURE::GOODWINSacred Cows Make the Best HamburgerMon Aug 12 1996 12:352
    Wouldn't be so one-sided if they also kicked out any guy who gets
    someone pregnant while he is in school.
502.558BULEAN::BANKSMon Aug 12 1996 12:362
How would they prove that?  Maternity always seems much easier to prove
than paternity.
502.559NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Mon Aug 12 1996 13:372
Howzabout if they kick out anyone who becomes pregnant regardless of his/her
sex?
502.560MPGS::WOOLNERYour dinner is in the supermarketMon Aug 12 1996 14:2912
    What do they mean, "latches"?
    
    .553> the school would put latches on women's barracks doors...
          [vs.]... a uniform policy of latches on all doors--and 
          specifying the limited times during the day when they
          may be used.
    
    Do the doors swing free now, or what?!  If they mean "locks", why
    would there be "limited times during the day when they may be used"?
    Makes me wonder what side of the door accepts the key....
    
    Leslie
502.561RUSURE::GOODWINSacred Cows Make the Best HamburgerMon Aug 12 1996 16:014
    >kick out anyone who becomes pregnant regardless of his/her sex?
    
    Good.  But to be fair they'd also have to kick out anyone who GOT
    someone pregnant regardless of their sex, wouldn't they?
502.562CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsMon Sep 23 1996 16:582
502.563LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsMon Sep 23 1996 17:041
502.564But once dressed, the blinds go back up. Same barracks.COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Sep 23 1996 17:327
502.565WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedMon Sep 23 1996 17:331
502.566BUSY::SLABAs you wishMon Sep 23 1996 17:355
502.567LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsMon Sep 23 1996 17:361
502.568BULEAN::BANKSThink locally, act locallyMon Sep 23 1996 17:373
502.569MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Mon Sep 23 1996 19:481
502.570COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertTue Sep 24 1996 04:1063
502.571WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 10:507
502.572FABSIX::J_SADINFreedom isn't free.Tue Sep 24 1996 10:5515
502.573THis world is topsy turvy anymore...DELPHI::JESSOPAnkylosaurs had afterburnersTue Sep 24 1996 12:538
502.574ACISS2::LEECHTerminal PhilosophyTue Sep 24 1996 12:5419
502.575PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 12:5611
502.576FABSIX::J_SADINFreedom isn't free.Tue Sep 24 1996 13:0913
502.577SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Tue Sep 24 1996 14:1229
502.578MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 14:3610
502.579SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Tue Sep 24 1996 15:3414
502.580NewThinkDECWIN::RALTOJail to the ChiefTue Sep 24 1996 16:2612
502.581SMURF::MSCANLONa ferret on the barco-loungerTue Sep 24 1996 16:4118
502.582WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Tue Sep 24 1996 16:426
502.583MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 16:515
502.584BUSY::SLABConsume feces and expire.Tue Sep 24 1996 16:525
502.585PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 16:5914
502.586MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 17:067
502.587PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 17:219
502.588MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 17:246
502.589WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 17:2618
502.590LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsTue Sep 24 1996 17:336
502.591POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideTue Sep 24 1996 17:335
502.592PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 17:3915
502.593WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 18:104
502.594WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 18:114
502.595MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 18:1813
502.596POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideTue Sep 24 1996 18:194
502.597POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideTue Sep 24 1996 18:209
502.598SMURF::WALTERSTue Sep 24 1996 18:221
502.599CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsTue Sep 24 1996 18:253
502.600LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsTue Sep 24 1996 18:277
502.601PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 18:2913
502.602WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 18:308
502.603POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideTue Sep 24 1996 18:314
502.604WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 18:333
502.605LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsTue Sep 24 1996 18:3414
502.606SMARTT::JENNISONIt's all about soulTue Sep 24 1996 18:375
502.607BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROTue Sep 24 1996 18:3812
502.608COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertTue Sep 24 1996 18:4313
502.609MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 18:447
502.610exitCSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageTue Sep 24 1996 18:5510
502.611PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 18:5611
502.612LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsTue Sep 24 1996 19:0310
502.613MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Tue Sep 24 1996 19:3210
502.614SMURF::WALTERSTue Sep 24 1996 19:352
502.615PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 19:373
502.616WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedTue Sep 24 1996 19:393
502.617accomodations =GAAS::BRAUCHERChampagne SupernovaTue Sep 24 1996 19:404
502.618PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Sep 24 1996 19:5010
502.619HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comTue Sep 24 1996 23:3913
502.620Harassment is in the eyes of the harassed.HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comTue Sep 24 1996 23:5221
502.621JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeTue Sep 24 1996 23:593
502.622HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 00:119
502.623JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeWed Sep 25 1996 00:185
502.624POLAR::RICHARDSONMaturbatory AfiacondoWed Sep 25 1996 00:221
502.625JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeWed Sep 25 1996 00:291
502.626POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideWed Sep 25 1996 02:213
502.627she's a regular whooshing machineWAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedWed Sep 25 1996 10:591
502.628private colleges existGAAS::BRAUCHERChampagne SupernovaWed Sep 25 1996 13:3810
502.629LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 13:5020
502.630HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 16:588
502.631JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeWed Sep 25 1996 17:062
502.632LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 17:192
502.633SMURF::WALTERSWed Sep 25 1996 17:211
502.634CSLALL::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayWed Sep 25 1996 17:233
502.635POLAR::RICHARDSONMaturbatory AfiacondoWed Sep 25 1996 17:241
502.636HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 17:2528
502.638NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Wed Sep 25 1996 17:261
502.639LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 17:299
502.640HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 17:2910
502.641HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 17:3212
502.642JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeWed Sep 25 1996 17:417
502.643LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 17:426
502.644HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 17:4815
502.645How is B. "dishonest" ?GAAS::BRAUCHERChampagne SupernovaWed Sep 25 1996 17:5317
502.646GMASEC::KELLYIt's Deja-Vu, All Over AgainWed Sep 25 1996 17:551
502.647LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 18:2613
502.648now she'll tell me I'm all wet, she meant something elseWAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedWed Sep 25 1996 18:276
502.649LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 18:399
502.650bah...GAAS::BRAUCHERChampagne SupernovaWed Sep 25 1996 18:4128
502.651PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 25 1996 18:5213
502.652SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Sep 25 1996 19:0123
502.653PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 25 1996 19:0619
502.654SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Sep 25 1996 19:086
502.655LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsWed Sep 25 1996 19:107
502.656PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 25 1996 19:107
502.657SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Wed Sep 25 1996 19:1314
502.658POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideWed Sep 25 1996 19:156
502.659PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 25 1996 19:206
502.660SMURF::WALTERSWed Sep 25 1996 19:2914
502.661MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Wed Sep 25 1996 19:323
502.662SMURF::WALTERSWed Sep 25 1996 19:381
502.663WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedWed Sep 25 1996 19:4511
502.664PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Sep 25 1996 19:533
502.665HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comWed Sep 25 1996 22:3837
502.666WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedThu Sep 26 1996 12:0813
502.667PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 12:299
502.668commonGAAS::BRAUCHERChampagne SupernovaThu Sep 26 1996 13:197
502.669PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 13:528
502.670POMPY::LESLIEAndy Leslie, DTN 847 6586Thu Sep 26 1996 14:012
502.671pay-tree-ark-eeWAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedThu Sep 26 1996 14:215
502.672POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideThu Sep 26 1996 14:223
502.673LANDO::OLIVER_Ba box of starsThu Sep 26 1996 14:252
502.674PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 14:293
502.675WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedThu Sep 26 1996 14:4219
502.676ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Sep 26 1996 14:568
502.677PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 14:588
502.678WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedThu Sep 26 1996 15:015
502.679POWDML::HANGGELIsweet &amp; juicy on the insideThu Sep 26 1996 15:0312
502.680PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 15:068
502.681ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Sep 26 1996 15:085
502.682I didn't realize you were prepared to make that concessionWAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedThu Sep 26 1996 15:093
502.683MKOTS3::JMARTINBe A Victor..Not a Victim!Thu Sep 26 1996 15:105
502.68420w50WAHOO::LEVESQUEenergy spent on passion is never wastedThu Sep 26 1996 15:111
502.685PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 15:147
502.686SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Thu Sep 26 1996 16:423
502.687what is it ?GAAS::BRAUCHERChampagne SupernovaThu Sep 26 1996 16:5213
502.688BUSY::SLABLolly^3 get your adverbs here.Thu Sep 26 1996 17:005
502.689CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsThu Sep 26 1996 17:012
502.690SMURF::BINDERErrabit quicquid errare potest.Thu Sep 26 1996 17:025
502.691BUSY::SLABLolly^3 get your adverbs here.Thu Sep 26 1996 17:047
502.692PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 18:388
502.693HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comThu Sep 26 1996 20:5612
502.694PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 21:037
502.695HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comThu Sep 26 1996 21:2334
502.696HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comThu Sep 26 1996 21:276
502.697PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 21:375
502.698HIGHD::FLATMANflatman@highd.enet.dec.comThu Sep 26 1996 21:538
502.699PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Sep 26 1996 21:557
502.700BUSY::SLABMy mind is on the blink ...Thu Sep 26 1996 22:114
502.701POLAR::RICHARDSONGood-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-dingThu Sep 26 1996 23:351
502.723WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Mar 25 1997 09:3723
    Jack, to heck with expelling the females. too much red tape, paperwork
    and all that. i say we line 'em up against a wall and let the male
    cadets use them for marksMENship drills. i know you're with me on this...
    
    to assume that co-ed military educations will weaken our "sovereignty",
    as you put it, is unsupported. one of the major objectives of military
    schools is to drill in obedience and discipline to an unquestionable
    level. now, if the head dope of the Citidel is telling the truth about
    preparing the school for a co-ed existence as well as enforcing the
    rules of non-harassment and excessive hazing then these problems would
    not have occured. 
    
    i take this position because these very events are indications of a
    weakness in the very priniciple that this institution is supposed to
    be aspiring to, and that's discipline. discipline to orders and
    discipline to the rules. clearly, the Citidel is failing. it's 
    foundational principles are weak, problematic.
    
    to predict collapse of an institution on the fact that women are now
    allowed to attend is ludicrous. to predict the downfall of our military
    superiority based on this is industrial strength Neanderthal.  
    
    
502.724But you knew that :-%SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZAre you from away?Tue Mar 25 1997 10:199
502.725BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Tue Mar 25 1997 10:4613
| <<< Note 232.3272 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

| <shakes head, but isn't surprised ...>

	How do you figure? So many times when something about women is in the 
news that ends up going against men, OJM brings up Pat Schroeder or some other
woman who shows strength. What does she or the others have to do with everything
women do? And why is it if women do something to make their lives be more like 
they want them to be, this is wrong? I mean, having him say if they weren't 
there to begin with then it wouldn't have happened is unbelievable at best. 


Glen
502.726BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapTue Mar 25 1997 11:1810
Re: Citadel:

They'd certainly be free to go on blythely creating mouth breathing,
insensitive grunting jerks, women not invited, if they'd only stop asking
for gummit handouts.  It's been the issue all along.

Re: 60 minutes:

Someone wanna 'splain what they said?  Particularly wrt the FAA?  I missed
it.
502.727LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayTue Mar 25 1997 11:345
    the faa is a bloated, ineffective, bureaucratic
    quagmire of incompetence.  and they like to spend
    tax dollars on stupid things.  i think a dog race
    track in hawaii was one bright idea - it was 
    eventually canned.
502.728BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapTue Mar 25 1997 11:375
Ah.

It was exposed as being a government agency, then.

Thanks for the summary.
502.729ACISS2::LEECHTerminal PhilosophyTue Mar 25 1997 11:413
    Be nice.  They are the government, they are here to help us.  They know
    what is best.  Just keep sending in those tax $$ and you too may find a
    greyhound track in your city.
502.730ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsTue Mar 25 1997 12:2921
 Z    i take this position because these very events are indications of a
 Z    weakness in the very priniciple that this institution is supposed to
 Z    be aspiring to, and that's discipline. discipline to orders and
 Z    discipline to the rules. clearly, the Citidel is failing. it's 
 Z    foundational principles are weak, problematic.
    
    Re: Nags without a clue.  
    
    Glen, Frauloine Schroeder was a key member of the Armed Services
    Committee in Congress.  Therefore, I have good reason to use her as my
    target here.
    
    Chip, there is nothing I can really refute...except to say that it
    seems these problems were nonexistent before the Citadel was coerced
    into making a traditionally great school coed.  I can now pretty much
    guarantee that further gummint meddling will turn the Citadel into a
    military eunuch.  Oh and I'm sure Glen and his ilk will sit on the
    sidelines with delight...because now we will all perpetuate toward
    mutual understanding and coexistence in the mitilary.
    
    -Jack
502.731ALPHAZ::HARNEYJohn A HarneyTue Mar 25 1997 12:4620
re: .3281 (OJackM)

>    Chip, there is nothing I can really refute...except to say that it
>    seems these problems were nonexistent before the Citadel was coerced
>    into making a traditionally great school coed.

    "The drunk driver's problems were nonexistent before phone poles
    were put up."

Jack, you're too much.  For so much bleating about "personal responsibility,"
you sure are looking everywhere but the reasonable place to find it.  

Free Hint 1: A place with people who set others hair on FIRE has problems
             beyond the gender of the attendees.

Free Hint 2: If allowing women and men the same access somehow makes this
             place fall apart, I will not accept your analysis of
                            "traditionally great."

\john
502.732BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapTue Mar 25 1997 12:505
Free Hint 3: If they don't want gummit meddling, they should quit asking
for gummit handouts.

Until then, they're just a bunch of welfare whiners as far as I'm
concerned.
502.733ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsTue Mar 25 1997 12:5826
    \john:
    
    I'm not going to lie here.  Obviously I find the actions of these
    cadets reprehensible.  Ever since Shannon Faulkner, while not a major
    passion of mine in life, it has stuck under my craw that the Citadel
    would stoop so low as to sell their soul for federal money.  And it
    pisses me off to no end that these women are so short sighted as to
    interfere with a great many years of a traditional educational
    excellence a single gendered school has to offer.  They could have gone
    to West Point after all, or some other high quality school in the
    country.  
    
    We here in Massachusetts are blessed with the likes of Smith, Holyoke,
    Wellesley, Simmons, and other high quality female schools.  In my book,
    men should recognize them as such and honor the purposes to which they
    are in existence.  Men who insist upon going to Wellesley are either
    hard up or social retards with a latant form of the oedipus complex.  I
    don't parse the mentality of these sea urchins.
    
    So while these poor women are being harrassed and hazed, no doubt in an
    earlier version of Soapbox I told all that this was going to happen. 
    So now we expect everybody to look upon the Citadel with horror and
    surprise as these recruits are going through the ringer.  WAKE UP
    MAN!!!
    
    -Jack
502.734BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapTue Mar 25 1997 12:593
    latent.
    
    nnttm
502.735ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsTue Mar 25 1997 12:591
    thank you
502.736PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 13:088
>        <<< Note 502.733 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

	So harassment is okay as long as you've predicted it?  I
	did not know that.



502.737LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayTue Mar 25 1997 13:093
    i'm not at all surprised by their behavior.  
    any young woman who signs up there and doesn't
    expect that sort of behavior is a fool.
502.738why do reb states have secesh schools ?GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersTue Mar 25 1997 13:114
  Sherman was right.  Burn it down.

  bb
502.739BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROTue Mar 25 1997 13:2012
        <<< Note 502.730 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Chip, there is nothing I can really refute...except to say that it
>    seems these problems were nonexistent before the Citadel was coerced
>    into making a traditionally great school coed.

	Let's see, there was no sexual harrassment of female cadets
	when there were no female cadets. Right?

	You are correct there is nothing you can really refute.

Jim
502.740BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:216
re: PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B"

>	So harassment is okay as long as you've predicted it?  I
>	did not know that.

   Jack never implied any such thing ...
502.741ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsTue Mar 25 1997 13:228
    Jim:
    
    All I'm saying is that life is unfair....life stinks...life can bring
    about horrific experiences.  But don't sit there like you're on the
    high moral ground.  Any idiot should have known this was going to
    happen.  ANY IDIOT!!
    
    BTW "you" is the third person...not you personally.
502.742PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 13:2711
><<< Note 502.740 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>   Jack never implied any such thing ...

	So says you.  I think he did.  His last paragraph of .733 might help.
	His attitude is Hey, stop complaining - I told you this would
	happen.



502.743BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROTue Mar 25 1997 13:3613
        <<< Note 502.741 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    All I'm saying is that life is unfair....life stinks...life can bring
>    about horrific experiences.  But don't sit there like you're on the
>    high moral ground.  Any idiot should have known this was going to
>    happen.  ANY IDIOT!!
 
	So what you are saying that because the Citadel can not control
	the behavior of its male cadets, and because the idiots at the
	Citadel must have know this, they should not be expected to
	comply with the law. Right?

Jim
502.744BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:3724
>Free Hint 1: A place with people who set others hair on FIRE has problems
>             beyond the gender of the attendees.
>Free Hint 2: If allowing women and men the same access somehow makes this
>             place fall apart, I will not accept your analysis of
>                            "traditionally great."


   There is a period of transition during which time the school will change
   from what is was to what it is going to be. During this period, cadet 
   behavior will also go through a period of transition as they begin to
   reconcile with the inevitable. 

   The focus for this transition are the female cadets and they are the natural
   target of the emotional outlet for those cadets who see their institution
   dying. It is human nature to rebel against those that would force a 
   decision on you. That doesn't justify the behavior, but it does explain 
   the forces behind it.

   So free hint number 1 has no depth. Free hint number 2 does not recognize
   that the change ends a long tradition, and begins a new one. Those that
   would preserve the old do not necessarily hold an inferior position and
   should not be cast in that light.

   Doug.
502.745PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 13:406
	"I set you on fire?  Oops - sorry, it's a transition
	period.  You know how it is."



502.746BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:475
>	"I set you on fire?  Oops - sorry, it's a transition
>	period.  You know how it is."

 What part of 'That doesn't justify the behavior, but it does explain 
   the forces behind it.' did you not understand?
502.747Serious lack of comprehension in this string ....BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:487
>	So what you are saying that because the Citadel can not control
>	the behavior of its male cadets, and because the idiots at the
>	Citadel must have know this, they should not be expected to
>	comply with the law. Right?


   Jack never implied this either .....
502.748PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 13:507
>Free Hint 1: A place with people who set others hair on FIRE has problems
>             beyond the gender of the attendees.

	What part of the above did you not understand?


502.749PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 13:516
><<< Note 502.747 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
>             -< Serious lack of comprehension in this string .... >-

	That's okay - we love you anyway. ;>


502.750LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayTue Mar 25 1997 13:529
    there a bunch of yahoos anyways.  when mike wallace
    was questioning one of the school administrators about
    the brother of the cadet who was set on fire and the
    fact that he had alerted the proper authorities about
    his sister's treatment and nothing had been done his
    response was "I bet he didn't tell you he was caught
    with several other cadets eating popcorn in his room."
    
    yahoos.
502.751CSLALL::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayTue Mar 25 1997 13:547


 That wasn't Mike Wallace..that was Ed Bradley.


 hth
502.752BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:5418
Last paragraph from .733
 >   So while these poor women are being harrassed and hazed, no doubt in an
 >   earlier version of Soapbox I told all that this was going to happen. 
 >   So now we expect everybody to look upon the Citadel with horror and
 >   surprise as these recruits are going through the ringer.  WAKE UP
 >   MAN!!!

RE: Person B

 >	So says you.  I think he did.  His last paragraph of .733 might help.
 >	His attitude is Hey, stop complaining - I told you this would
 >	happen.

    Nonsense. All that paragraph states is that the behavior at the Citadel
    should not have been unexpected. If it was indeed unexpected, the
    implication is one of naivity.

    Doug.
502.753LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayTue Mar 25 1997 13:551
    they're
502.754LANDO::OLIVER_Bgonna have to eventually anywayTue Mar 25 1997 13:563
    .751
    
    oh thanks, jim.  i get them mixed up.
502.755BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:588
>>Free Hint 1: A place with people who set others hair on FIRE has problems
>>             beyond the gender of the attendees.
>
>	What part of the above did you not understand?

  I understood it completely. 

  BTW: was it her hair or her shirt that was set a flame?
502.756BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 13:585
>>             -< Serious lack of comprehension in this string .... >->
>
>	That's okay - we love you anyway. ;>

 Which just goes to prove my point :-)
502.757PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 13:5811
><<< Note 502.752 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>    Nonsense. All that paragraph states is that the behavior at the Citadel
>    should not have been unexpected. If it was indeed unexpected, the
>    implication is one of naivity.

	Nonsense.  His implication throughout this has been that they
	asked for it by having had the audacity to go there, the reaction
	was to be expected, and so no-one should be complaining at this
	point.

502.758well, he's right, in a wayGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersTue Mar 25 1997 14:027
  but, Lady Di, they DID ask for it, going there.  So do the guys.

  It just turned out to be rougher than they thought.  But they knew
 very well this would be brutal.

  bb
502.759BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 14:069
>	Nonsense.  His implication throughout this has been that they
>	asked for it by having had the audacity to go there, the reaction
>	was to be expected, and so no-one should be complaining at this
>	point.


   One out of three. Well, I guess that's progress ...

   
502.760CSLALL::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayTue Mar 25 1997 14:095
>  BTW: was it her hair or her shirt that was set a flame?


shirt
502.761PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BTue Mar 25 1997 14:107
>        <<< Note 502.758 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

	Nobody asks to be lighted on fire.  Whether it was a man or a woman
	that was lighted on fire, there's a problem there.  I don't see any
	problem with someone who was lighted on fire complaining about it.


502.762involuntaryGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersTue Mar 25 1997 14:145
  whether there's something wrong or not hardly matters, since a
 burning person will complain, i'd expect

  bb
502.763BUSY::SLABBe gone - you have no powers hereTue Mar 25 1997 14:4210
    
    	RE: .746
    
    	I'm not sure that any explanation would rationalize an action such
    	as that.
    
    	"Hmmm, new female cadet.  Should we initiate her by snapping her
    	bra strap, or setting her on fire?  The force tells me what we
    	should set her on fire."

502.764BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 14:5715
  
> 	I'm not sure that any explanation would rationalize an action such
>    	as that.
 
  Quite correct. But some folks in this string would believe that Jack
  is trying to condone such behavior. I don't see any such implications
  in his writings. (Quite the opposite in fact)

  Further, I went to some length to point out where the mind reading is taking
  place, but some folks continue to 'believe'.

  Interesting behavior indeed ....


  Doug. 
502.765BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 14:595
>	Nobody asks to be lighted on fire.  Whether it was a man or a woman
>	that was lighted on fire, there's a problem there.  I don't see any
>	problem with someone who was lighted on fire complaining about it.

   Do you believe that Jack believes differently?
502.766WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Mar 25 1997 16:1710
    adjustment to the new Citidel Uranus... these cadets come and go every
    year. they are supposed to behave and react the way they are instructed
    to.
    
    if this behavior was so easily predicted i would have expected the 
    administrators to have an easy time instructing the current class
    on the expectations and consequences. consequences so severe that
    they would provide both model of the cadet's behavior and a deterrent.
    
    Ed was all over that PR idiot. the guy was a joke. 
502.767BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 16:3916
>    if this behavior was so easily predicted i would have expected the 
>    administrators to have an easy time instructing the current class
>    on the expectations and consequences.


   I seem to recall just that. The admin made public statements as to what
   the code of behavior was to be. However, it was a military style discipline
   environment with lots of young men in the senior ranks that likely didn't
   care for the addition of female plebes.

   So, for the act of a few individuals, the school shall suffer (even more)
   until the changes are complete, which will take about two more years to
   move out the junior and senior classes.

   Doug.
502.768WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjTue Mar 25 1997 16:4723
    I didn't see the particular spot in point.
    
    However, from the interviews with the men in authority at the Citadel,
    it seems clear the men resent the intrusion by the female cadets and
    have not accepted the reality that they are now required by law, honor
    and duty to treat the female cadets equivalently to the male cadets.
    It's quite likely that the fact that there are now female cadets will
    mean that some "cherished" misbehaviors will have to be abandoned as
    they finally see the cold light of day after decades of having been
    hushed up as mere hazing rituals. Such is life. The fact of the matter
    is that they should have been abandoned long ago. There is no need for or
    utility in cruel behavior. In point of fact, discipline is a far more
    valuable commodity for trained killers. The failure of the ostensible
    Citadel leaders to instill a sense of discipline among the cadets is in
    essence evidence that they are failing in their most fundamental
    calling. But as they say, the acorn does not fall far from the tree.
    
     A real soldier accepts reality without whining and adapts as it
    changes. These guys are living in the past, and demonstrating their
    shortcomings by failing to recognize that the situation now is not what
    it was 25 years ago when they were in their heyday. It's time that they
    show their ability to adapt or that they be replaced by those willing
    to live in the present and the future, not merely in the past.
502.769WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Mar 25 1997 16:4911
    expecting things not to change over the next two because of f an
    incumbant class would not be satisfactory to me if i were responsible
    for the school and its cadets. 
    
    i don't believe it to be unrealistic to demand change immediately.
    all we're talking about here is standardizing the treatment of cadets
    and eliminating criminal behavior. 
    
    statements alone will not get the job done. some interim measures
    should have been put in place to include some type of monitoring
    policy. this one isn't brain surgery.
502.770BUSY::SLABBeware of geeks baring griftsTue Mar 25 1997 16:534
    
    	Heck, if these guys are nice to the females, they might even get
    	something nice in return [wink, wink].
    
502.771WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Mar 25 1997 16:551
    yeah, a bunch of demerits for fraternization :-).
502.772I didn't watch 60 minutes ....BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Tue Mar 25 1997 16:599
 >   expecting things not to change over the next two because of f an
 >   incumbant class would not be satisfactory to me if i were responsible
 >   for the school and its cadets. 
 
 You might be able to effect instant change in a perfect world. But this
 isn't a perfect world. Seems to me the admins are part of the impediment
 to change.

 
502.773WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Mar 25 1997 16:591
    -1 agreed (my point exactly).
502.774unsure of the conceptGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersTue Mar 25 1997 17:046
  "satisfactory to you" ?  I cannot imagine a Citadel that would be
 "satisfactory to you".  Heck, I cannot imagine one "satisfactory"
 to me, either.  A "kinder, gentler" Citadel ?  why bother ?

  bb
502.775WMOIS::GIROUARD_CTue Mar 25 1997 17:091
    -1 satisfactory response, since you don't know me.
502.776ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsTue Mar 25 1997 18:4314
    Doctah:
    
    While what your saying has merit, it absolutely galls me that the US
    Marines which is bar none the greatest fighting force in the world is
    now subject to being pantywaisted by the current administration.
    
    The responsibility is twofold.  They are responsible in that the great
    whore government is enticing them with funding...and they are taking
    it.  At the same time, since the marines are the best fighting force in
    the world...you know the old saying...if it works...don't screw with
    it???  Remember that one?  The beaurocrats had to stick their noses
    into things!!
    
    -Jack
502.777BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Wed Mar 26 1997 03:2112
| <<< Note 502.730 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Glen, Frauloine Schroeder was a key member of the Armed Services Committee 
| in Congress.  Therefore, I have good reason to use her as my target here.

Was she the only one on the committee? Or did you not mention any of the others
because they are all men? Tell me, what were the men's positions? Each one of
them will do. 



Glen
502.778BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Wed Mar 26 1997 03:2913
<<< Note 502.764 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

  
>  Quite correct. But some folks in this string would believe that Jack
>  is trying to condone such behavior. I don't see any such implications
>  in his writings. (Quite the opposite in fact)

no wonder you have been going off like you have.... you're talking about
something totally different than anyone else. Jack has already stated the
actions were wrong. And I didn't see anyone dispute that.

What people did bring up was Jack saying if the women weren't there, then it
wouldn't have happened. IE... it is the woman's fault it happened. 
502.779WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed Mar 26 1997 10:079
    if the old addage "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" was a valuable 
    mantra we'd all still be living in caves and hunting with flint
    tipped spears.
    
    it essentially conflicts with progress.
    
    while payment for improvement is sometimes hard to swallow, those
    willing to stay the course are more likely to be rewarded by
    improvement. tree huggers contribute little. 
502.780WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Mar 26 1997 10:3045
    >While what your saying has merit, it absolutely galls me that the US
    >Marines which is bar none the greatest fighting force in the world is
    >now subject to being pantywaisted by the current administration.
    
     Oh, stop your bellyaching, Archie. If you don't think that any women
    can hack it, I've got a few women to introduce to you. There's no
    reason to alter the standards. Keep them standards the same and let in
    whoever qualifies. "Pantywaisted" is such an amusing term. It pushes
    your favorite emotional buttons, but it doesn't actually mean a whole
    lot.
    
    >The responsibility is twofold.  They are responsible in that the great
    >whore government is enticing them with funding...and they are taking
    >it.  At the same time, since the marines are the best fighting force in
    >the world...you know the old saying...if it works...don't screw with
    >it???  Remember that one?  The beaurocrats had to stick their noses
    >into things!!
    
     My goodness, Jack, do you ever actually think before you write? Let's
    approach this as if you'd attempted to string a series of coherent
    thoughts together.
    
     Ok, let's start with the "twofold" responsibility. Well, you talk
    about the "whore government" <trying diligently not to snicker>
    offering funds, and you leave it at that. Where's the other part of the
    "twofold" responsibility? And SFW if the marines are the best fighting
    force in the world. The Citadel is not the only source of leadership
    training for the marines, after all. There's no reason to assume that
    the level or quality of training at the Citadel should be compromised
    by virtue of the fact that women are now being given the same training.
    If anything, it should improve the training, because given a limited
    potential enrollment, opening up the prospective applicant pool to a
    larger group will tend to increase the average qualifications of each
    applicant, leading to increased competition for the best grades and the
    ability of the instructors to cover more material.
    
     The simple fact is, Jack, that you are indulging yourself emotionally
    over this one. You want to live in the past; not the real past, but a
    glorified, sanitized, idealized view of the past. Get over it. Adapt.
    Improvise. Overcome. You are allowing a little thing like gender
    integration to stymie you. Surely you're a better man than that.
    
     Aren't you?
    
     The Doctah
502.781BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Mar 26 1997 12:0430
>no wonder you have been going off like you have.... you're talking about
>something totally different than anyone else. Jack has already stated the
>actions were wrong. And I didn't see anyone dispute that.

 Pay attention Glen. Folks have stated that Jack took a particular stand
 in his writings, and supported their position by addressing specific
 paragraphs.  Repost of the 'offending' paragraphs show no such stand was
 taken, and then accusations of implication are levied. Mind reading.

> What people did bring up was Jack saying if the women weren't there, then it
> wouldn't have happened. IE... it is the woman's fault it happened. 

  Here is a perfect example of 'soapbox logic', but Jack isn't the one
  guilty of it.

  What we know is Jack disagrees with the Citadel being forced to accept 
  women, that he puts great value in the traditions of the single gendered
  school, and that something of value is being unnecessarily lost.
  There have also been statements that everyone should have expected rough
  treatment of the plebes during the transition. He may have even question the
  reasons why these women wanted in to the Citadel. He has yet to blame the
  women for the mens behavior, but correctly recognizes that they are 
  indeed the catalyst for it.

  Never has he supported the mens behavior in any way.

  Now, would you care to argue with the substance of what Jack has written?
  Or do you prefer a more accusitory approach to discussion?
 
  Doug. 
502.782BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Mar 26 1997 12:088

 And just so there is no confusion:

   While I don't necessarily agree with Jack, I don't support the
   redefining of his entries ...

   
502.783PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Mar 26 1997 12:087
><<< Note 502.782 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

	Apparently you do support the redefining of other people's
	though.  



502.784BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Wed Mar 26 1997 12:224

	I agree, milady. After reading Doug's version of what I wrote, I'm
baffled. Not that this is a hard thing to do. :-)
502.785BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Mar 26 1997 12:2810
>What people did bring up was Jack saying if the women weren't there, then it
>wouldn't have happened. IE... it is the woman's fault it happened. 

OK Then, perhaps I'm in error. Let's find out.

What is it that Jack claims is the womans fault?

My assumption was that 'it' in 'it happened' was the flaming of the plebe.
Am I wrong?
502.786ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 13:5959
Z    What we know is Jack disagrees with the Citadel being forced to accept 
Z    women, that he puts great value in the traditions of the single gendered
Z    school, and that something of value is being unnecessarily lost.
Z    There have also been statements that everyone should have expected
Z    rough treatment of the plebes during the transition. He may have even
Z    question the
Z    reasons why these women wanted in to the Citadel. He has yet to blame
Z    the women for the mens behavior, but correctly recognizes that they are 
Z    indeed the catalyst for it.
    
    MY God...at last a voice of sanity in all this.  I would suggest that
    Glen and others read over an entry I made a few days ago regarding my
    feeling toward men who may try to force themselves into Smith, Holyoke,
    Wellesley or Simmons.  I seem to recall the word Eunuch being used...as
    in they would not have a complaint should a Hillary Clinton type incite
    a mob to pull out the old butter knife.  
    
    Yes this discussion uses The Citadel as the catalyst for an even deeper
    theme...that being the infiltrating of our exemplary institutions by
    members of the opposite sex who aren't really wanted but through
    government intervention (blabbering and whining), choose to usurp to
    great traditional value of education that single gendered schools have
    to offer. 
    
    These women are legally within their rights to attend the Citadel. 
    There...you've heard it from the Archie Bunker of Soapbox!!  I'll try
    to spell it out so even Glen in his jello minded inclusionary thought
    process can parse. 
    
    Since as early as the Magna Carta, perhaps before, the colonies set up
    within their culture single gendered learning institutions.  Now
    amongst many reasons, students and parents of students have seen great
    value in attending these institutions.  It is a little known fact that
    single gendered schools tend to be private...and in doing so offer
    their clients a high quality education.  This is why the Hillaries of
    the world go to Wellesley and Vassar.  No doubt about it...they offer
    better.  Now...having said that....
    
    These female cadets have prostituted the Citadel.  Now Doctah may think
    I'm overstating my case...maybe I am.  Maybe our country just doesn't
    seem to give two craps about our 200 year heritage...I obviously do
    because I observe the world and I see what has worked and what clearly
    doesn't work.  Maybe the Citadel is run by a bunch of country bumpkin
    war mongers...this doesn't concern me.  What does concern me is that a
    major military institution building the United States military once had
    hardly any press and very few problems now does have problems.  This of
    course pisses me off to no end.  The legal thing for these women to do
    would have been to rally and become qualified for the school.  The
    honorable thing for them to do would be to attend West Point or some
    other school of excellence offering similar curriculum.  Why?? 
    Simple...The Citadel IS AN ALL MALE SCHOOL...READ MY LIPS....NO WOMEN
    ALLOWED....HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND??
    
    The WOMEN AREN'T WANTED THERE...it is a phenomenon to me as to why
    people insist on being in the face of others where they are not wanted. 
    Don't be fooled by the upper brass of the Citadel.  They don't want the
    women there either.  They're camera posing...nothing more.
    
    -Jack
502.787WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Mar 26 1997 14:2039
    >These female cadets have prostituted the Citadel.
    
     Emotional nonsense.
    
    >What does concern me is that a major military institution building the
    >United States military once had hardly any press and very few problems
    >now does have problems.  
    
     You fail to account for the possibility that it has no more problems
    now than before, but the media scrutiny has finally brought the
    problems to the fore where before the increased scrutiny some pretty
    indefensible behavior was swept under the rug.
    
    >Simple...The Citadel IS AN ALL MALE SCHOOL.
    
     Not any more it isn't. But that's not the point, Jack. West Point used
    to be "AN ALL MALE SCHOOL." You are neatly if unconvincingly parroting
    the exact same arguments supporters of an all-male West Point made when
    they underwent their integration. It didn't hold water then and it
    doesn't now.
    
    >The WOMEN AREN'T WANTED THERE...
    
     And before the first blacks started to attend, they weren't wanted
    there either. That is no justification to retain a policy which
    discriminates. Read MY lips- it's against the law.
    
    >it is a phenomenon to me as to why people insist on being in the face
    >of others where they are not wanted. 
    
     Get over it. This has been happening since the beginning of time. If
    we all followed your logic then there would still be slaves and
    pharoahs and ruling classes.
    
    >Don't be fooled by the upper brass of the Citadel.  They don't want the
    >women there either.  
    
     Well, gee, thanks for the heads up. Nobody would have ever guessed.
    
502.788ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 14:5817
     Z   And before the first blacks started to attend, they weren't wanted
     Z   there either. That is no justification to retain a policy which
     Z   discriminates. Read MY lips- it's against the law.
    
    Yes...I agree it is against the law...which is why I stated that
    bipassing the Citadel would be the honorable thing to do.  
    
    Howard University is an all black school.  I recognize it as such and
    as a white male, my inclination would be to honor the unwritten charter
    of the school in order to maintain its, for lack of a better word,
    blackness.  While my use of the word prostituting may be deemed as
    emotional pap, the fact remains that what was once an exemplary all
    male school is now a non all male school...which may remain exemplary
    or may not.  It's simply the obvious disregard these young ladies have
    for the integrity of single gendered education.
    
    -Jack
502.789SX4GTO::OLSONDBTC Palo AltoWed Mar 26 1997 15:0118
    
    > ..................................  What does concern me is that a
    > major military institution building the United States military once 
    > had hardly any press and very few problems now does have problems.
    
    You're young, Jack, so your lapses are understandable.  You simply
    don't know any better.   The Citadel has been in trouble *many* times
    before, with attendant press coverage and social commentary.  
    
    Such ignorance is correctable- permit me to indulge myself in boxslang
    from a better era:  Read a book.  The book is called "The Lords of
    Discipline", by Pat Conroy.  It fits in the "social commentary" part
    of what I'm talking about.
    
    See why many of us don't mind slapping such institutions upside the
    head, figuratively, once in awhile.  They seem to need it.
    
    DougO
502.790ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 15:2114
 Z   You're young, Jack, so your lapses are understandable.  You simply
 Z   don't know any better.   The Citadel has been in trouble *many*
 Z   times before, with attendant press coverage and social commentary.  
    
    Of course...but obviously adding the female gender to the fold adds a
    completely new dimension to the whole thing.  
    
    It would be regretful for a cadet who aspires toward a military career
    to be expelled or have any kind of record because they looked at a
    female cadet funny....and it does happen.  This is one of the dangers
    of warming up to the diversity crowd.  They can and typically do more
    damage to large corporations than they are worth.
    
    -Jack
502.791PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Mar 26 1997 15:248
>        <<< Note 502.790 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

	I know where you can borrow a bobcat if you want to dig
	that hole faster, Jack.



502.792ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 15:289
    Sure...you just watch.  I called it right in the last version of
    Soapbox and no doubt I will stand correct on this.  Take a good look at
    once pretigious seminaries like Harvard and Princeton and see just how
    dead they have become...simply because they acquiesced their standards
    and lost sight of their objectives.  
    
    The Citadel is destined for impotency...because the whiners will no
    doubt find some sort of other cause to harp over.  Just watch the decay
    over the next five years.  You heard it here first!!
502.793BUSY::SLABCrazy Cooter comin' atcha!!Wed Mar 26 1997 15:356
    
    	If male cadets can't treat female cadets like fellow humans then
    	they're lacking some very basic disciplinary traits.  If they try
    	to harass a female soldier in Zimbabwe they'll get their heads
    	blown off before they can say ____.
    
502.794ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 15:406
    Slab:
    
    Bravo...perfectly reasonable...animal behavior should not be tolerated.
    
    You realize of course we, or at least I am referring to female cadets
    attending where they are not really wanted???
502.795BUSY::SLABCrazy Cooter comin' atcha!!Wed Mar 26 1997 15:5010
    
    	It shouldn't matter whether they're wanted or not.
    
    	This isn't a "gays want to march in a parade" argument, it's an
    	issue of military service/preparation.
    
    	They gays can march in another parade, or hold their own [ooh,
    	err], but it's not as easy for female cadets to create their
    	own academy.
    
502.796SX4GTO::OLSONDBTC Palo AltoWed Mar 26 1997 16:0011
    >>> had hardly any press and very few problems now does have problems.
    >>
    >>                             The Citadel has been in trouble *many*
    >> times before, with attendant press coverage and social commentary.
    >
    > Of course...
    
    Well, glad that's settled.  OJM rolls over much better than Maiewski
    ever did.
    
    DougO
502.797WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed Mar 26 1997 16:106
    well, slavery was a 200 year tradition so i guess we blew that one 
    too. the argument is simply not logical.
    
    
    
    
502.798WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Mar 26 1997 16:2910
    >It's simply the obvious disregard these young ladies have for the
    >integrity of single gendered education.
    
     nice attempt to reframe the debate to suit your aims. The fact of the
    matter is that the Citadel has no right to be discriminatory once it
    accepts public funds. They want to be all male, they just don't want it
    bad enough to stop taking our tax money. If you are so worked up about
    them remaining all male, why don't you hold a bake sale or car wash for
    them or put your money where your mouth is so they can decline the
    federal funds, hmmm?
502.799keep those confederate bills handy...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed Mar 26 1997 17:1516
  um, "we" in Ma/NH do not pay for VMI or the Citadel.  Virginians
 and South Carolinians, respectively, do, through state government.
 The courts said state schools must be co-ed.  But in any case, "we"
 do not pay for them any more than for private colleges (through the
 various tuition aid/loan programs).

  And neither Va or SC has an army, or a navy, or an air force.  Other
 states, even other ex-secesh states, have no state military academies.
 The USA has a military, and military academies, and it sponsors ROTC
 at various schools when in need of additional officers, or runs an OCS.

  The Citadel is utterly anachronistic, no matter who goes there.  It
 basically serves no purpose unless you believe the South Will Rise Again.

  bb
502.800serves one purpose, of a sortSX4GTO::OLSONDBTC Palo AltoWed Mar 26 1997 17:2611
    actually, Browk, institutionally speaking, it can actually be good 
    for the composition of the officer corps to have someone even more
    backwardly stiffnecked around as an example for the ring-knockers
    of to what extremes it it unwise to go.  VMI and The Citadel
    undoubtedly provide scores of such examples within every class.
    Keeps those Academy stuffed shirts ... well, perhaps less pompous,
    would be one way to put it.
    
    speaking as one commissioned through ROTC,
    
    DougO
502.801ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 17:4522
 Z   nice attempt to reframe the debate to suit your aims. The fact of the
 Z   matter is that the Citadel has no right to be discriminatory once it
 Z   accepts public funds. 
    
    I concede that point...just as I've always done so.
    
 Z   They want to be all male, they just don't want it
 Z   bad enough to stop taking our tax money. 
    
    I concede this point also...just as I have from the beginning.
    
 Z   If you are so worked up
 Z   about them remaining all male, why don't you hold a bake sale or car wash
 Z   for them or put your money where your mouth is so they can decline the
 Z   federal funds, hmmm?
    
    I'm only worked up that there is yet another group of people who have
    foisted themselves where they are clearly uninvited and not wanted. 
    Again I recognize their right to access...I am talking about honoring
    the traditions and integrity of single gendered education...which
    obviously a male at Wellesley or a female at the Citadel have no regard
    for.  Talk about crapping all over somebodies front lawn. 
502.802BUSY::SLABDancin' on CoalsWed Mar 26 1997 18:033
    
    	Now I'm picturing Peter Brady dressed up as a Sunshine Girl.
    
502.803WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Mar 26 1997 18:094
    >I'm only worked up that there is yet another group of people who have
    >foisted themselves where they are clearly uninvited and not wanted. 
    
     Oh, you mean like Rosa Parks.
502.804BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Mar 26 1997 18:093
 Geesh Jack, You take all the fun out of it when you don't let others
 tell you what you mean   :-)
502.805Sarcasm alertBULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Mar 26 1997 18:408
    Yeah, it really stinks when people foist themselves where they are
    clearly uninvited.
    
    Blacks shouldn't live in the south.  Blacks shouldn't be in the
    military.  Women shouldn't be in the boardroom.  Gays shouldn't be
    allowed to live in our society.
    
    It's a very easy position to take when you're invited and wanted.
502.806BUSY::SLABDo ya wanna bump and grind with me?Wed Mar 26 1997 18:414
    
    	Thank goodness for the "sarcasm alert" alert, or I would've thought
    	you were serious.
    
502.807WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Mar 26 1997 18:443
    >It's a very easy position to take when you're invited and wanted.
    
     Or if you are OJM.
502.808BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Mar 26 1997 18:515
    .806:
    
    Well, I thought it was obvious, but then again, I regularly get mail
    from people who don't realize I'm being sarcastic.  Just trying to cut
    down on e-mail traffic.
502.809Out with the old, etc., maybeTLE::RALTOWed Mar 26 1997 18:5811
    It's tough to be where you're not wanted.  For example, take this
    music store in my area.  They'd been there a couple of years, no
    problem.  Then someone moved in next door to the music store and
    opened a manicure-and-tan parlor.  She didn't like the "noise" from
    the music store, complained to the mini-mall owner, and the music
    store's been forced out of business now as a result.
    
    There may or may not be an analogy here somewhere, but someone else
    can work it out, it's been a long day and I'm too tired.
    
    Chris
502.810ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 19:007
  ZZ       Oh, you mean like Rosa Parks.
    
    Apples to Oranges here.  The merit of single gendered schools is widely
    accepted throughout academia and the general public.  Respecting such
    institutions is uncomparable to the oppressive practices of the 1960's.
    
    -Jack
502.811POWDML::HANGGELIBecause I Can.Wed Mar 26 1997 19:024
    
    Yeah, well, segregation was pretty widely accepted up until then, now
    wasn't it, Meaty boy?
    
502.812BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Mar 26 1997 19:125
 
  Are we suppose to take seriously a comparison between societal denial
  to a particular people and the establishment of single gendered schools?

  
502.813ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 19:1411
 Z   Yeah, well, segregation was pretty widely accepted up until then,
 Z   now wasn't it, Meaty boy?
    
    Yes it was...a cultural paradigm for sure.  Again there is a difference
    between a practice which is inherently evil and a practice which holds
    educational merit and is seen as valuable throughout academia.  
    
    The Black Congressional Causcus members would not be eager to have a
    white member...would this be expedient for their cause?  
    
    -Jack
502.814EVMS::MORONEYWed Mar 26 1997 19:245
re .809:

Kind of like the yuppies that move out into the country to get away from it
all, then complain that the farmer next door runs his tractor at 5:00 AM, his
hogs stink to high heaven, etc. 
502.815DECWET::LOWEBruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910Wed Mar 26 1997 20:083
And the schools & subdivisions which build next door to the local airfield,
then try to get it closed down.
502.816BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Mar 26 1997 21:1117
<<< Note 502.812 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

 
>  Are we suppose to take seriously a comparison between societal denial
>  to a particular people and the establishment of single gendered schools?

	You mean a single gendered school tha denies a particular people?

	That appears to be a valid comparision, so the answer appears to
	by "yes".

Jim
	


  

502.817ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Mar 26 1997 21:304
 ZZ   You mean a single gendered school tha denies a particular people?
    
    Yes, a single gendered school that denies admission to the other
    gender.  No, there is no comparison.  
502.818BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Mar 26 1997 22:4016
        <<< Note 502.817 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

    
>    Yes, a single gendered school that denies admission to the other
>    gender.  No, there is no comparison.  

	IMO, you are wrong. The comparison is quite valid. Just as 
	tradition (and law) said that Blacks could not ride in the 
	front of the bus, the Citadel tradition and rules said that
	FEmales could not join the Corp of Cadets.

	Exactly the same problem. The word is called PREDJUDICE.

Jim


502.819BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Mar 27 1997 00:016
| <<< Note 502.794 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| You realize of course we, or at least I am referring to female cadets
| attending where they are not really wanted???

	How do you stay married?
502.820one more time...WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Mar 27 1997 09:2620
    Jim is correct. i support that the comparison is valid. unless of
    course, you do not define women as people. this may be the case. i
    seem to remember other discussions centering around this exact topic
    with you, Jack.
    
    these points has been made a number of times, but i think it fits here
    nicely (again). 
    
    * being uninvited by a closed group does not make it a) morally right
      b) socially right c) ethically right d) legal.
    * there is no evidence to date that supports the fact that women in the
      military have compromised its integrity, effectiveness or undermined
      tradition in a way that has caused problems.
    * records support the fact that women can, and do perform as registered
      in the military through achievement recognition and award records.
    * the Citadel takes money. it has to take "all" people who can qualify
      academically, etc.
    * the Citadel is a school for humans. women are humans.
    
    
502.821WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Mar 27 1997 10:0819
>  Are we suppose to take seriously a comparison between societal denial
>  to a particular people and the establishment of single gendered schools?
    
    Well, you can either participate in the discussion or not as is your
    wont. But if you indeed choose to enter the fray, ignoring another's
    points is tantamount to admitting defeat on those points, so if you
    really don't feel that the comparison is valid it is incumbent on you
    to prove otherwise. Of course, that's not quite as easy as pretending
    it was never said. Then again, winning takes more effort than losing.
    
    So go ahead, by all means, show that the comparison is not apt. I can
    hardly wait.
    
    The root of the problem here is that you don't like the comparison
    because of the implications it has for your side of the argument. But
    rather than follow the logic and arrive at whatever result it dictates,
    you prefer to ignore counterarguments that do not reinforce your
    preconceptions and search for supporting arguments. It's easier and
    more comfortable than challenging your own assumptions.
502.822WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Mar 27 1997 10:1311
    >Apples to Oranges here.  The merit of single gendered schools is widely
    >accepted throughout academia and the general public.  
    
     And happens to be utterly irrelevant. Let me clue you in. I support
    single gender schools. My high school was a single gender school. I got
    an excellent education. That single gender schools offer educational 
    advantages is not lost on me one bit. The difference between you and me
    is that I can see my way clear to supporting nondiscriminatory public
    policy even when discriminatory policy has benefits, and you can't.
    
     And BTW, it's not "apples to oranges." It's cortlands to macouns.
502.823PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Mar 27 1997 10:1710
>    <<< Note 502.818 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Exactly the same problem. The word is called PREDJUDICE.

	Prejudice.  Actually, I think the more applicable word is
	"discrimination", since that fits both situations.  Single-gendered
	institutions are, by definition, discriminatory, but that's not a
	bad thing to be, necessarily.  I guess that's the debate.


502.824But, this is entirely tangentialBULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 11:1210
    Prejudice is the feeling.  Discrimination is the action.  Prejudice can
    lead to discrimination, but doesn't always.
    
    I think it is important to own one's prejudices and admit to their own
    acts of discrimination.
    
    I am prejudiced against certain people (like child molesters).  I would
    furthermore take discriminatory action against them (like trying to
    prevent them from being school teachers).  While I openly admit this,
    I'm not particularly ashamed of it.
502.825PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Mar 27 1997 11:2511
>               <<< Note 502.824 by BULEAN::BANKS "Saturn Sap" >>>

>    Prejudice is the feeling.  Discrimination is the action.  Prejudice can
>    lead to discrimination, but doesn't always.

      And likewise, discrimination can be born of prejudice, but isn't
      always.

      I would say prejudice is more of a mindset than a feeling.     


502.826BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 11:251
    I would say your wording is better than mine.  tyvm
502.827educational theories abound...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Mar 27 1997 11:4522
  I went to a single-gender college that has since buckled under to
 the trend and gone co-ed.

  The arguments are complicated.  I do not think it is the same as
 single-race schools.  But then, it isn't like single-religion schools
 either.

  The prohibition is, as I understand it, against state schools being
 restrictive in this way.  That seems reasonable to me even if it were
 to be proven that it makes the education inferior.  Because, in a state
 situation, there is a great interest in "fairness" and "equality".  That
 is, we support these institutions through public funding, expecting
 their benefits to be universal, even for those in the society who don't
 even attend.

  In fact, I think it is a violation of the letter of the XIVth Amendment
 for state universities to exclude the stupid.  Let Harvard do that.  State
 schools should be voluntary, and open to any state resident who graduates
 from high school.

  bb
502.828ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 12:0914
    Like I've said over and over...the school should be compelled on legal
    grounds to open it's doors to all genders.  
    
    Teenage boys should not be compelled to go out for the girls field
    hockey team, participation in the girl scouts, or application for
    admission to Simmons, Wellesley, Smith, and other outstanding single
    gendered schools.  
    
    Young men who choose the dishonorable way and attend these schools
    deserve justice and protection of the law.  However, they do not
    deserve the sympathies of the public at large for putting themselves in
    a potentially volatile position.
    
    Does this clear things up?!
502.829BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Mar 27 1997 12:3726
>  Are we suppose to take seriously a comparison between societal denial
>  to a particular people and the establishment of single gendered schools?
    
>    The root of the problem here is that you don't like the comparison
>    because of the implications it has for your side of the argument. 
    
    You would have made a point, if your premise that I have taken a
    particular side to the argument were valid, but it is not. I have 
    deliberately sat on the sidelines as a sort of umpire. I have to 
    why Jack appears to be the only person who can recognize this.
    
    The question is a valid one. It seems a bit of a stretch to compare the
    denial of an entire people by an entire society using the laws of
    that society as the tool to that purpose, to the denial of a gender 
    by one school where society provides more than ample opportunity to 
    get the same education elsewhere. They are not the same, and it is 
    not prejudicial or descriminatory to believe so.
    
    The restriction that public funding can not be used for single
    gendered purposes is self imposed, I beleive, by a warp sense of
    legal application. As long as funding is available for both genders, 
    there is no reason why single gender uses should not be supported.
    
    Now, back to our show ...
    
    Doug.
502.830BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Mar 27 1997 12:4717
<<< Note 502.829 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>    The restriction that public funding can not be used for single
>    gendered purposes is self imposed, I beleive, by a warp sense of
>    legal application. As long as funding is available for both genders, 
>    there is no reason why single gender uses should not be supported.
 
	You didn't like the comarison to Rosa Parks and discrimination
	against Blacks. But then you offer the policy of "seperate, but
	equal" as an alternative to the current situation. A policy that
	was used for keeping segregated schools in place for roughly
	50 years after the issue was first brought before the Court.

	In other words, you've reenforced the comparison, while trying
	to tell us that it is invalid.

Jim
502.831ASIC::RANDOLPHTom R. N1OOQThu Mar 27 1997 12:4711
>    The question is a valid one. It seems a bit of a stretch to compare the
>    denial of an entire people by an entire society using the laws of
>    that society as the tool to that purpose, to the denial of a gender 
>    by one school where society provides more than ample opportunity to 
>    get the same education elsewhere. They are not the same, and it is 
>    not prejudicial or descriminatory to believe so.

Yup. All these little rules seem pretty arbitrary to me.

No discrimination if it's public funded I can understand. I don't see how the
government gets off telling any private instituion what it can or can't do.
502.832BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Mar 27 1997 12:5822
>	You didn't like the comarison to Rosa Parks and discrimination
>	against Blacks. 
    
    I never commented on Rosa Parks. 
    
    >   But then you offer the policy of "seperate, but
    >	equal" as an alternative to the current situation. A policy that
    >	was used for keeping segregated schools in place for roughly
    >	50 years after the issue was first brought before the Court.

    I've done no such thing, but if it makes you feel better to believe
    so, put no more effort at understanding what is written and continue
    to leap before looking.
    
    >	In other words, you've reenforced the comparison, while trying
    >	to tell us that it is invalid.
    
    Hey Jack, now they're doing it to me!  Where's my backup!
    
    Doug.
    
    
502.833WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Mar 27 1997 13:1943
    >The question is a valid one. It seems a bit of a stretch to compare the
    >denial of an entire people by an entire society using the laws of
    >that society as the tool to that purpose, to the denial of a gender 
    >by one school 
    
     Demonstrate that this is a stretch. Yes, we know you "feel" it is a
    stretch, but you've yet to offer any evidence whatsoever (much less
    compelling evidence) to show this is the case. This is a classic case
    of handwaving. You get no points for this. Where's the beef?
    
    >where society provides more than ample opportunity to 
    >get the same education elsewhere. 
    
     And this is where you are exactly wrong. The court determined this was
    not the case which is one of the fundamental reasons they forced the
    Citadel to open its doors to women. A whole slew of people made the
    exact same argument you just made, and the court found them to be
    wrong. Even setting aside the question of whether "separate but equal"
    is possible, the fact of the matter is that there is no alternative
    program which is even somewhat comparable in the same jurisdiction. 
    
    >They are not the same, and it is  not prejudicial or descriminatory to
    >believe so.
    
    Well, if they are "not the same" then it should be trivial to
    demonstrate some fundamental differences that preclude useful
    comparison. When are you going to do that? And FYI, nobody said they
    were "the same". All that we said was that similar principles were
    involved and that made comparisons apt. Feel free to provide
    contradictory evidence.
    
    >As long as funding is available for both genders, there is no reason
    >why single gender uses should not be supported.
    
     I agree. But that's not the beginning and end of the issue. The
    Citadel has no female equivalent currently. So in order to make things
    equal, a lot of infrastructure would have to be created: campus,
    buildings, computers, professors, administrators, etc. We are talking
    tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars here. There is no
    source for such an amount. In the absence of such a Citadel equivalent,
    the court ruled that the Citadel must either stop taking public money
    or open its doors to all. This is really not rocket science, here.
    
502.834ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 13:3022
    Doctah:
    
     Z   Even setting aside the question of whether "separate but equal"
     Z   is possible, the fact of the matter is that there is no alternative
     Z   program which is even somewhat comparable in the same jurisdiction. 
    
    The problem we face Doctah is that single gendered education is
    obviously negated...which is my bone of contention here.  On side A, we
    have the plaintiffs carrying on about how their access is limited to a
    quality institution, (which by the way contradicts the notion that the
    Citadel is a place of southern bumpkins attempting to resurrect the Old
    South).  What side A doesn't realize is in their selfishness, they are 
    eroding the very characteristics that make a single gendered school
    what it is...an exemplary and quality form of education.  So yes, the
    term prostituting is appropo...handwaving though it may appear to be.
    
    Kind of like the prisoner saying hey, if I have to die in an attempt to
    escape the camp, then I'm going to tell the enemy where the tunnel is. 
    Why should my fellow prisoners be able to escape if I don't have the
    ability??  Totally shameless and selfish attitude displayed here.
    
    -Jack
502.835PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Mar 27 1997 13:339
>        <<< Note 502.834 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>
    
>    The problem we face Doctah is that single gendered education is
>    obviously negated...

	Obvious to you, maybe.  How do you figure it's "negated"?
	Did you not read the Doctah's note?


502.836WMOIS::GIROUARD_CThu Mar 27 1997 13:375
    .829 Doug, the comparison was never "denial by an entire society".
    
    there were places in the U.S.A. that did not relegate african americans
    to the back of the bus, even in the 50's. this twist might help support
    your argument if that were true. "support" would be stretch as well.
502.837ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 13:388
  Z    Obvious to you, maybe.  How do you figure it's "negated"?
  Z          Did you not read the Doctah's note?
    
    Di, it is the beginning of the slippery slope.  As more women integrate
    into the school, you will find the qualities the Citadel has over a
    West Point will fall into obscurity.  
    
    
502.838BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 13:401
    Just out of burning curiosity,  what are those qualities, anyway?
502.839PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Mar 27 1997 13:407
>        <<< Note 502.837 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

	On behalf of all the women of America, I thank you, Jack.



502.840it's a messGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Mar 27 1997 13:475
  What an embarassment the XIVth Amendment is.  The most verbose, the most
 emotional, the vaguest, the least logical, the worst justified.

  bb
502.841WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Mar 27 1997 13:4930
    >The problem we face Doctah is that single gendered education is
    >obviously negated...
    
     That's the price of continuing to accept public funds in the face of a
    lack of an equivalent institution for women. If someone in SC decided
    that the benefits of single gender educations so outweigh the costs of
    building an equivalent institution that they were willing to finance
    the creation of an equivalent institution, then your boys would be able
    to continue to have their cake and eat it, too. Nobody has stepped up
    to the plate. Those are the choices. Stop taking public money or create
    an equivalent institution or open the doors to all that qualify. You
    just want to retain a beneficial (to certain interests at the expense
    of other interests) and illegal status quo. And you bellyache when
    people assert their rights on top of it!
    
    >What side A doesn't realize is in their selfishness, they are  eroding
    >the very characteristics that make a single gendered school what it
    >is...an exemplary and quality form of education.  
    
     I see you're joining Doug's flagless semaphore class.
    
     How SELFISH of those women to demand fair treatment! Riiiight. The
    selfish side is the side that wants to get free money without
    fulfilling their contractual obligations. But keep up your emotional
    handwringing. It's entertaining if nothing else.
    
    >Totally shameless and selfish attitude displayed here.
    
     Well, at least you admit it. That's the first step to solving your
    problem.
502.842ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 13:5112
    Di, I am surprised and exasperated by your obviously defensive sarcasm. 
    Did I not spend numerous pixels explaining the audacity of men joining
    all women schools?!  
    
    Anybody engaging in this discussion...please take your sensitivity hat
    off and put yourself into objectivity mode!  
    
    As far as your question Dawn...I don't know all the benefits.  I do
    know that for whatever reasons, single gendered schools are looked upon
    favorably in academia throughout the country.
    
    -Jack
502.843BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 13:531
Man, this is like trying to play "grab the soap" in an oil bath.
502.844ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 13:552
    The human side of me says that the notion of fighting over a bar of
    soap while in an oil bath with Diane totally alludes me!! :-)
502.845HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleThu Mar 27 1997 13:5615
        <<< Note 502.790 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

 [   Of course...but obviously adding the female gender to the fold adds a
 [  completely new dimension to the whole thing.  
 [   
 [   It would be regretful for a cadet who aspires toward a military career
 [   to be expelled or have any kind of record because they looked at a
*! [   female cadet funny....and it does happen.  This is one of the dangers
 [   of warming up to the diversity crowd.  They can and typically do more
 [   damage to large corporations than they are worth.
    
  excuse me?!?! what, men are supposed to leer and ogle women? can't they 
communicate with the person and not the sex? anyone the gets booted for looking
"funny" at a female cadet deserves it, cause the military is there to teach a 
soldier much higher balues and principles, than "looking" at women.
502.846WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Thu Mar 27 1997 14:024
    There must be at least one student at Wellesley who's using a Pell
    grant for tuition.
    
    Why hasn't Wellesley been forced to accept men?
502.847BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 14:034
I thought they had.

Can't see any more justification for all women colleges than all men
colleges, but that's just me.
502.848PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Mar 27 1997 14:0311
>        <<< Note 502.844 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

> totally alludes me!! :-)

	good!

	Jack, maybe it's the just the way you word things.  Women
	enter the Citadel - quality goes down.  You know?  It's hard
	not to look at that as a slam.


502.849BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 14:089
What would be especially helpful to understand is:

1) What the special qualities are
2) How the introduction of women destroys these qualities

Not knowing these two items makes a lot of the claims that introduction of
women ruins the place sound an awful lot like blowing smoke out one's
backside.  Or, it's hard to argue the point, pro or con, when it's never
explicitly stated what the point is.
502.850WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjThu Mar 27 1997 14:2211
    >Did I not spend numerous pixels explaining the audacity of men joining
    >all women schools?!  
    
     That's not an equivalent situation, however. There is no field of
    study for which a single gender education is available for females with
    no meaningfully equivalent education available for males. This is key
    to your objection- there is simply no real reason for a man to go to an
    all women's college to get any particular education because there is no
    lack of alternatives for men. Were this true for women, the court would
    not have ruled the way it did. Your failure to account for this is
    lamentable, if not unexpected.
502.851ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 14:228
    Well Di, would it make you feel any better if we use Wellesley instead
    of the Citadel???  Okay....men who feel the need to go to Wellesley are
    prolly mommies boys with strong insecurities.  Over and above that,
    they feel the need to erode the potential education women can only get
    at an all women institution.  Therefore, men who disregard the
    integrity of Wellesley's offerings are scum and put a blight on men.
    
    Better? 
502.852WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Thu Mar 27 1997 14:254
    I think the criteria of 'equivalent education' doesn't stand up to
    scrutiny. 
    
    
502.853WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Thu Mar 27 1997 14:289
    Wellesley, BTW is only one of many all-women colleges in the US which
    have been exempted from the imperatives placed on schools such as the
    Citadel (just in case, Jack, you were under the impression that
    Wellesley is co-ed).
    
    How that has happened is pointed to the Doc -- this very specious
    argument that turns on the notion of 'equivalent education.'
    
    
502.854BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Mar 27 1997 14:302
    No, I was under the impression that Wellesley is co-ed.  Thanks for the
    correction.
502.855BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Mar 27 1997 15:2117
	I, for one, would like to hear the specifics of just what makes
	the Citadel a better institution (presumably as it relates to
	a military carreer) than West Point.

	Do all Citadel graduates receive commissions in one of the services?
	Are they obligated to serve in the US military for any set period of
	time? For those graduates that do recieve commissions, are those
	commisions "regular" or "reserve" (note that it is very difficult
	for an officer with a reserve commision to achieve "flag" rank)?
	What percentage of Citadel graduates HAVE acheived flag rank?
	Same question for West Point graduates?

	Let's have some quantifiable data to back up the statement
	that West Point is qualititatively inferior to the Citadel.

Jim
502.856blue-gray game, revisited...GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Mar 27 1997 16:304
  Well, we could refight, say, Antietam, and find out...

  bb
502.857hthGAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersThu Mar 27 1997 16:554
  If both genders are present, they might very well have sex.

  bb
502.858BUSY::SLABExit light ... enter nightThu Mar 27 1997 17:004
    
    	If only one gender is present, they might very well be desperate
    	enough to have sex anyways.
    
502.859PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BThu Mar 27 1997 17:057
>        <<< Note 502.857 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

>  If both genders are present, they might very well have sex.

	Or they might very poorly have sex.


502.860BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Mar 27 1997 17:0511
         <<< Note 502.858 by BUSY::SLAB "Exit light ... enter night" >>>

    
>    	If only one gender is present, they might very well be desperate
>    	enough to have sex anyways.
 
	We bow to an expert's opinion.   
	
	;-)

Jim
502.861ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 17:121
    Or if both genders are present in an oil bath....
502.862BUSY::SLABFUBARThu Mar 27 1997 17:143
    
    	... they could really sizzle?
    
502.863BUSY::SLABFUBARThu Mar 27 1997 17:145
    
    	RE: .860
    
    	Stop that!!  8^)
    
502.864BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Mar 27 1997 20:5720
| <<< Note 502.828 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Teenage boys should not be compelled to go out for the girls field
| hockey team, participation in the girl scouts, or application for
| admission to Simmons, Wellesley, Smith, and other outstanding single
| gendered schools.

	So they can only do the things you think they should do, and not the
things they want to do. Limited freedom, which is set by OJM.

| deserve the sympathies of the public at large for putting themselves in
| a potentially volatile position.

	You are a twit, at best. Man. The reasons for it becoming volitile are
stupid, period. Hey Jack, you shouldn't note, speak to women, etc. You are
stepping into a volitile situation everytime (or should I say creating one?)



Glen
502.865BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Mar 27 1997 20:599
| <<< Note 502.837 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| Di, it is the beginning of the slippery slope.  As more women integrate
| into the school, you will find the qualities the Citadel has over a
| West Point will fall into obscurity.

	Wow..... the more you speak....

502.866BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Mar 27 1997 21:025
| <<< Note 502.843 by BULEAN::BANKS "Saturn Sap" >>>

| Man, this is like trying to play "grab the soap" in an oil bath.

	I've done tha... oh... you said soap.
502.867BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Mar 27 1997 21:0810

	Jack, how come you have noted in this topic since Dawn put her note in,
but you never answered her .849? By answering those 2 questions, you could
really go a long way to either showing us you aren't slamming women, or show us
that you are. My money is on the latter.



Glen
502.868ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 21:0815
    Glen, why don't you just read until you can add something of
    substance...you tin plated sarcophagus!!
    
Z    So they can only do the things you think they should do, and not the
Z    things they want to do. Limited freedom, which is set by OJM.
    
    Glen you stupid arse.  Boys going out for the girls field hockey team
    would be generally unacceptable from the perspective of the coaches and
    probably the school board.  Just because you like wearing a field
    hockey dress Glen...don't think the whole wide world is for you!!!
    
    In case you are unaware, you will find 99.999 % of our public schools
    do not have sports teams that are integrated.  Wake up man!!!
    
    -Jack
502.869ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Mar 27 1997 21:1217
    Z   1) What the special qualities are
    
 Glen, I've answered many times but I won't be like you and avoid.  I will
    be glad to!
    
    I don't know...this is unimportant.  The fact is that academia in
    general accolades the concept of single gendered schools and has done
    so for 100's of years.
    
 Z   2) How the introduction of women destroys these qualities
    
    The same as if a man goes to Wellesley College...do you read Glen or
    are you just blowing smoke as usual.  Stop looking for a boogeyman so
    desperately Glen.  You know good and well this discussion is gender
    neutral.  The Citadel is what spurred the discussion.
    
    -Jack
502.870BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Mar 27 1997 21:2515
| <<< Note 502.869 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>


| I don't know...this is unimportant.  

	Wait... you keep saying the qualities will be destroyed, yet you don't
know what those qualities are, and you think this point is unimportant? Man....
the more you speak, the more foolish you sound.

| The same as if a man goes to Wellesley College...

	LIST THE DAMN REASONS! Don't say the same as something.... say THE
REASON(S)!


502.871ALPHAZ::HARNEYJohn A HarneyThu Mar 27 1997 21:349
re: .870 (Glen)

He can't Glen, because there ARE no rational reasons.  He's reduced to this
insane "village idiot" dance he does all too often.

The most pathetic part is how seriously he considers himself a "big thinker."

What a waste of bits.
\john
502.872and give him a knifeWAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjFri Mar 28 1997 09:543
>The most pathetic part is how seriously he considers himself a "big thinker."
    
    Somebody wet the paper bag, please.
502.873WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjFri Mar 28 1997 10:0424
    >>   1) What the special qualities are
    
    >I don't know...this is unimportant.  
    
     Alas, the wooden leg upon which your case rested has been whittled
    away to nothing. You can't even articulate the benefits you claim to be
    so concerned about retaining. How on earth can anyone take you
    seriously when your arguments are so deficient on the basic points? You
    are so clearly arguing from emotion and not from knowledge it
    practically hurts to watch. Seriously. And Doug's "he didn't mean that"
    support won't buy you a thing, because your house of cards has neatly
    fallen upon itself, lacking any semblance of a foundation.
    
    >The fact is that academia in general accolades the concept of single
    >gendered schools and has done so for 100's of years.
    
    I presume this is the same "academia" whose influence over the youth of
    america you bemoan at virtually every opportunity for turning out
    "communists" and "sheep". What a piece of work- you argue out of both
    sides of your mouth. Academia is the work of the devil, except when you
    can pound a position of theirs into a supporting argument- why then
    they are totally credible. It would be funny if you weren't so
    earnest. You're a regular Don Quixote. But you've got those windmills
    on the run now. <parry> <thrust>
502.874HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleFri Mar 28 1997 11:4231
        <<< Note 502.868 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

->	...Boys going out for the girls field hockey team
->    would be generally unacceptable from the perspective of the coaches and
->    probably the school board.  Just because you like wearing a field
->    hockey dress Glen...don't think the whole wide world is for you!!!
    
who says they have to wear a dress?

->    In case you are unaware, you will find 99.999 % of our public schools
->    do not have sports teams that are integrated.  Wake up man!!!
  
bzzzt: somewhat wrong. most schools i've encountered don't even have team sports
as they can't afford equipment, etc.  those that do, start team sport about 7th 
grade and yes, most are segregated.  it's mostly because of locker room 
facilities and (my chauvenism shows through) biomechanics involved that just 
make some sports nearly impossible for a women to beat a man (girl to beat a 
boy).

HOWEVER: most communities have sports teams that are totally coed and totally 
welcomed as _most_ of us have come to realize that it's not about winning but 
teammanship, sportsmanship, comraderie.  BTW: we've have some girls on the 
little league teams that put many a "manly_boy_and_his_father" to shame, however
as the girl matures, i've yet to see a woman that can throw or hit 
farther/harder than most men, which is probably why most sports don't mingle as
only the best power gets chosen cause they bring the biggest buck.\

BUT, this says nothing why the Citadel will crumble and fall because women will 
start attending it.
  

502.875ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 12:064
    Okay...you've discovered my secret.  I guess I just have an ego problem
    and don't really like women being in control.
    
    Tell me...what makes you all so wise?
502.876BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Mar 28 1997 12:0617
        <<< Note 502.869 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    I don't know...this is unimportant.  The fact is that academia in
>    general accolades the concept of single gendered schools and has done
>    so for 100's of years.
 
	Then you should no trouble at all in articulating these "special
	qualities", or at least be able to give hundreds of references
	to these "qualities" made by the majority of academics.

	Right?

	I still wnat to know on what basis you make the claim that
	the Citadel is a better institution for turning out officers
	in the US Army than is West Point.

Jim
502.877SALEM::DODAPacing the cageFri Mar 28 1997 12:086
        <<< Note 502.875 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

   >I guess I just have an ego problem and don't really like women 
   >being in control.
    
    Jack, you really don't know what you're missing....
502.878CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsFri Mar 28 1997 12:104
    
    >>  Tell me...what makes you all so wise?
    	
    They are Arthur, king of the Britons.  
502.879ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 12:2516
      Z      I still wnat to know on what basis you make the claim that
      Z      the Citadel is a better institution for turning out officers
      Z      in the US Army than is West Point.
    
    Look, here's the deal...this is Soapbox, not Meet The Press.  I don't
    have the hours to spend in Altavista to try and find some collateral on
    the specific benefits of single gendered schools.  I admit up front
    that I am parroting what I hear from academia from both the
    conservative and liberal establishment.  You want to feel like you beat
    me mercilessly on this...hey, go ahead and drink a toast to it at
    Sierras...I really don't give a crap.  
    
    Oh and Harney...well, I guess you told me off!!  Remind me not to let
    you have five cups of coffee in the morning!!
    
    
502.880BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Mar 28 1997 12:3322
        <<< Note 502.879 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Look, here's the deal...this is Soapbox, not Meet The Press.  I don't
>    have the hours to spend in Altavista to try and find some collateral on
>    the specific benefits of single gendered schools.  I admit up front
>    that I am parroting what I hear from academia from both the
>    conservative and liberal establishment.  You want to feel like you beat
>    me mercilessly on this...hey, go ahead and drink a toast to it at
>    Sierras...I really don't give a crap.  
 
	Well, given the commute I won't be able to attend the gathering
	at Sierra's. But I do formally request that the attendees raise
	a toast to your obvious mental masturbation.

	This may just be Soapbox, but "making it up as you go along"
	has never been an accepted part of the culture here. Making
	unsupported, and very likely unsupportable, statements referencing
	some nebulous "academia", without specific reference is, and has
	been, frowned upon for at least as long as I have been in this
	file.

Jim
502.881WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjFri Mar 28 1997 12:413
    >You want to feel like you beat me mercilessly on this...
    
     That's not what this is about.
502.882BUSY::SLABGot into a war with reality ...Fri Mar 28 1997 13:065
    
    	Yeah, Jack, beating you mercilessly is the easy part.
    
    	Getting you to understand why you lost is the challenge.
    
502.883WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Mar 28 1997 13:181
    obviously, losing is a state of mind.
502.884ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 14:3016
    I see the traditions of certain schools as one gendered as a benefit to 
    those who wish to participate in them. There is no social stigmas going on
    between the cadets, there is none of the typical leftist nonsense you
    see at places such as Harvard, UPenn, and Yale.  The Citadel has a
    reputation for excellence. 

    All men and all women schools are freed from the distractions of the
    opposite sex.  On average, there are fewer discipline problems, the
    students maintain a decorum of respect for the faculty, and the
    teachers can in essence pour their lives into the students with fewer
    problems.  Furthermore, scholastically these schools produce better
    students...both men and women alike.
    
        
    -Jack

502.885ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 14:315
 ZZ   Getting you to understand why you lost is the challenge.
    
    Lost on what grounds....that I'm wrong on the merits of single gendered 
    schools or that I lost because I didn't have the time to spend
    countless hours on the WEB verifying my statements?
502.886BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Mar 28 1997 14:4425
        <<< Note 502.884 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>Furthermore, scholastically these schools produce better
>    students...both men and women alike.
 
	We're still waiting for some evidence that the Citadel turns
	out better officers than West Point.

	Any evidence at all.

	Anything.

Jim

	Oh, BTW.

	The reason that single gendered schools may appear to be scholastically
	supperior is because they are all part of a giant scholastic
	conspiracy to grade on the curve in order to make them appear
	superior to co-ed schools.

	But unfortuantely I don't have time to provide the proof.



502.887BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Mar 28 1997 14:459
        <<< Note 502.885 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Lost on what grounds....that I'm wrong on the merits of single gendered 
>    schools or that I lost because I didn't have the time to spend
>    countless hours on the WEB verifying my statements?

	Yes.

Jim
502.888ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 15:0124
    Z        We're still waiting for some evidence that the Citadel turns
    Z        out better officers than West Point.
    
    No, nothing at all.  To qualify however...
    
    >Furthermore, scholastically these schools produce better
    >students...both men and women alike.
    
    Since single gendered schools are more inclined to be private, they are
    typically populated by well adjusted kids whose parents take a personal
    interest in education and who believe in standards.  Admittedly, there
    are no doubt external factors involved before making a broad statement
    as I did above.  
    
    The Citadel's crime here is on one hand, they don't want women in their
    school...I am still convinced of that.  People are inherently adverse
    to change.  However, the Citadel apparently lacked the backbone and
    conviction to say nay nay to the State of South Carolina...hence they
    want their cake and eat it too.  
    
    I make it a point in my life not to rain on other people's parade.  Tis
    a shame others don't feel the same.
    
    -Jack
502.889BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Fri Mar 28 1997 15:0741
!    >where society provides more than ample opportunity to 
!    >get the same education elsewhere. 
!    
!     And this is where you are exactly wrong. The court determined this was
!    not the case which is one of the fundamental reasons they forced the
!    Citadel to open its doors to women. A whole slew of people made the
!    exact same argument you just made, and the court found them to be
!    wrong. Even setting aside the question of whether "separate but equal"
!    is possible, the fact of the matter is that there is no alternative
!    program which is even somewhat comparable in the same jurisdiction. 
 
   So does the argument become that if there were two Citadels, each single
   gender, one male and one female, that the courts would have decided 
   differently? 

    >As long as funding is available for both genders, there is no reason
    >why single gender uses should not be supported.
    
!     I agree. But that's not the beginning and end of the issue. The
!    Citadel has no female equivalent currently. So in order to make things
!    equal, a lot of infrastructure would have to be created: campus,
!    buildings, computers, professors, administrators, etc. We are talking
!    tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars here. There is no
!    source for such an amount. In the absence of such a Citadel equivalent,
!    the court ruled that the Citadel must either stop taking public money
!    or open its doors to all. This is really not rocket science, here.

   And all this time I thought the argument was that public funding of single
   gendered schools was somehow unconstitutional. Now it appears that
   public funding of such an institution is fine as long as no one complains.

   Interesting ...

On a separate note:

   Knowing nothing about the Citadel, I find it interesting that they offer a
   education that can not be found anywhere else in the USA. 

   Doug.
   
    
502.890WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Mar 28 1997 15:356
    i never thought that the subject was of constitionality connected
    to the funding of schools but rather the behavior of publically
    funded schools in their compliance with the constitution.
    
    i didn't read that into the entry.
         
502.891WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Mar 28 1997 15:381
    ...as long as no one complains - correct
502.892WECARE::GRIFFINJohn Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159Fri Mar 28 1997 15:4714
    The Supreme Court has ruled, strongly, that any school that takes or
    uses Federal money (including federally insured student loans) must
    comply, if challenged, as the Citadel has done, to the relevant law.
    
    Challenges to all-women college, such as the one launched against Mills
    College, have escaped this legal ax, 'coz of the "equivalent education"
    argument mentioned earlier in this string.
    
    In other words, there is a lot of politics running through these
    rulings.
    
    
    
    
502.893BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Fri Mar 28 1997 15:5018
  > i never thought that the subject was of constitionality connected
  >  to the funding of schools but rather the behavior of publically
  >  funded schools in their compliance with the constitution.
  
   There have been arguments posted here that the Citadel must accept
   women because of public funding and lack of equivilent education
   available elsewhere, yet I feel it must be deeper than this since 
   Judges have ordered private single gendered clubs to open their 
   enrollement to both sexes in the past. If the argument is really as 
   simple as some have indicated, perhaps it shouldn't be.

   And I was unaware that single gendered organizations where 
   considered unconstitutional.    
   
   BTW: Is the Citadel a state run organization or a private organization 
  which accepts public funding, kinda like PBS? (I've been assuming the latter)

   Doug.
502.894BUSY::SLABch-ch-ch-ch-ha-ha-ha-haFri Mar 28 1997 15:527
    
    	RE: .892
    
    	Is there any sort of distance clause in the "equivalent education"
    	facet?  IE, how far away does an "equivalent" institution have to
    	be in order for it to be irrelevant?
    
502.895BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Mar 28 1997 16:1611
                    <<< Note 502.891 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    ...as long as no one complains - correct

	The courts do not peruse the lawbooks looking for statutes they
	want to review. A case must be brought to them (someone must
	complain) before they will review a law.

Jim


502.896HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleFri Mar 28 1997 16:1915
        <<< Note 502.888 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Since single gendered schools are more inclined to be private, they are
>    typically populated by well adjusted kids whose parents take a personal
>    interest in education and who believe in standards.  Admittedly, there
>    are no doubt external factors involved before making a broad statement
>    as I did above.  
 
yeah, right, and how did you come to this conclusion? all those that i know that
are in private school (esp single gendered) come from anal retentive homes with 
parent(s) too busy to see to their needs and pretty much let them have their own
way; well adjusted, indeed.  most of those with the money to afford just know 
how to suck up and kiss *ss and actually learn nothing about life in general 
except how to be spoiled brats.

502.897BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROFri Mar 28 1997 16:2610
<<< Note 502.893 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>yet I feel it must be deeper than this since 
>   Judges have ordered private single gendered clubs to open their 
>   enrollement to both sexes in the past.

	Please cite a case where this happened. I don't believe that this
	is true as stated.

Jim
502.898WMOIS::GIROUARD_CFri Mar 28 1997 16:511
    Jim, that is the thought i meant to convey (albeit too briefly).
502.899WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjFri Mar 28 1997 17:134
>   Judges have ordered private single gendered clubs to open their 
>   enrollement to both sexes in the past.
    
     Not just any old club, but clubs at which business is transacted.
502.900ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 17:1726
 Z   most of those with the money to afford just know 
 Z   how to suck up and kiss *ss and actually learn nothing about life in
 Z   general except how to be spoiled brats.
    
    And of course Chele is making a hasty generalization here.  There is a
    large contingent of private schools operated under the auspices of the
    local church...to which my children attend or will be attending.  I as
    a parent believe in this form of education simply because of my
    personal convictions on the matter of education.  I can assure you that
    the majority of children attending this school, which is by the way a
    small random sample of thousands of equivalent schools with similar
    charters, are from middle class America where money can be tight.  
    
    Your comments may very well be appropo to a random percentage.  I'm
    sure if you go to a Groton Academy or a Mount Hermon school you will
    find this type.  
    
    The Citadel is desired because it is an exemplary institution...
    obviously since it is in the headlines.  They have no right to squak
    since they have dipped their hand in the till.  On the same note, again
    it is too bad there are citizens out there who hold such a callous
    attitude toward the traditions of the school that they feel compelled
    to buck the system.  Raining on somebody elses parade because their too
    self centered to explore other avenues.
    
    -Jack
502.901HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleFri Mar 28 1997 18:3810
        <<< Note 502.900 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

    
>    And of course Chele is making a hasty generalization here.  There is a


who the 'ell is chele?!?!?  funny little man: all people with same and/or 
similar last names MUST have same 1st names. this time- totally wrong and we
must definitely live in different worlds: private being middle income 
affordable? only for the religiously indoctrinated. MHO
502.902BUSY::SLABA seemingly endless timeFri Mar 28 1997 19:269
    
    	Maybe you would eliminate some confusion [or all of it in this
    	case, specifically] if you'd take a few seconds to introduce your-
    	self.
    
    	I know you weren't Chele, but I have no idea who you are.  Jack is
    	equally in the dark, but this time it's through no fault of his
    	own.
    
502.903ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 19:314
    Yes...please do.  Until then, your name is Chele and will remain Chele
    until I'm good and ready to change it!!
    
    -Jack
502.904BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Fri Mar 28 1997 20:275
| <<< Note 502.875 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Tell me...what makes you all so wise?

	We can read.
502.905ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 20:303
    Ho ho...that's rich I'll say!!!!
    
    
502.906ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 20:321
    By the way, that's a Daffy Duck line.
502.907BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Fri Mar 28 1997 20:3318
| <<< Note 502.884 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| The Citadel has a reputation for excellence.

	You've already stated you're just parroting. So you don't know if the
above is true or not. AAAAAnd..... you can't say that there aren't things
between the cadets as you already said you don't know what really is going on
in there.

| On average, there are fewer discipline problems, the students maintain a 
| decorum of respect for the faculty, and the teachers can in essence pour their
| lives into the students with fewer problems.  

	HOW DO YOU KNOW???? You already stated you don't know. So how do you
prove the above?


Glen
502.908ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 20:592
    I'm TALKING about private schools in general you uncircumcised
    Ammonite!!!!
502.909ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Mar 28 1997 21:022
    By the way, can I come over for Easter this weekend (insert voice of
    Sir Lancelot of Camelot from the Holy Grail here!)
502.910BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROSat Mar 29 1997 00:1118
        <<< Note 502.900 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>On the same note, again
>    it is too bad there are citizens out there who hold such a callous
>    attitude toward the traditions of the school that they feel compelled
>    to buck the system.  Raining on somebody elses parade because their too
>    self centered to explore other avenues.
 

	Gee Jack, it's a damn shame that the Citadel was required to obey
	the law. What kind of Army officers do they turn out if they have
	no respect for the Constitution.

	I'm getting this mental image of a bunch of Citadel grads sitting
	around talking about how the movie "Seven Days in May" had a lousy
	ending.

Jim
502.911BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROSat Mar 29 1997 00:1311
             <<< Note 502.901 by HOTLNE::BURT "rude people rule" >>>


>who the 'ell is chele?!?!? 

	If Jack says your name is Chele, then it MUST be Chele. Unfortunately
	he doesn't have the time to waste on the Web to provide the proof.

	;-)

Jim
502.912BUSY::SLABA thousand pints of liteSat Mar 29 1997 00:173
    
    	[ZING!]
    
502.913BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Sat Mar 29 1997 15:0211
    
    >    Not just any old club, but clubs at which business is transacted.
    
    So what! Was it funded with public money? Was it a business club?
    
    So, is the public funding argument a ruse? Seems to me the courts
    will draw the line anywhere someone complains ....
    
    Doug.
    
     
502.914BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Sun Mar 30 1997 23:199
| <<< Note 502.908 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| I'm TALKING about private schools in general you uncircumcised Ammonite!!!!

	Oh... how wonderful. Then why do you bring the Citadel into the
conversation of the note I responded to? Be real Jack... you aren't fooling
anyone.

	Now show us the facts for private schools.
502.915HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleMon Mar 31 1997 12:425
i'm not even on elf; just call me...hm *ss**le wouldn't go over, too well...

okay- ogre.

ogre.
502.916ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 15:4510
    Jim:
    
    Why do you keep defaulting to the legal grounds...to which I have
    already agreed with you on countless times?
    
    Chele,
    
    Thanks for sharing your true name.
    
    -Jack
502.917BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROMon Mar 31 1997 16:1411
        <<< Note 502.916 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Why do you keep defaulting to the legal grounds...to which I have
>    already agreed with you on countless times?
 
	Because you keep telling us what a superior school the Citadel
	is, better even than West Point. I, on the other hand, would
	not trust a school that has such a deep rooted problem with
	obeying the Constitution to turn out Army officers.

Jim
502.918ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 16:2215
 Z   Because you keep telling us what a superior school the Citadel
 Z   is, better even than West Point.
    
    Jim, you're pulling a Glen here.  I NEVER said that the Citadel was
    better than West Point.  I stated that if women wanted an equivalent
    education, they should consider West Point or some other school that
    offers comparable education to women.  
    
    I believe that whatever it is that makes a school unique via its single
    gendered traditions should remain intact.  While it is constitutionally
    sound that women should go to the Citadel, it's single gendered
    tradition should be viewed as a sacred cow by the population at large. 
    Kind of like flag burning!
    
    -Jack
502.919maybe just add 3 more movements?SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZAre you from away?Mon Mar 31 1997 16:229
502.920ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 16:224
    kb:
    
    Teensie and I went to high school together and took gym at the same
    time! :-)
502.921EVMS::MORONEYMon Mar 31 1997 16:291
I don't want to know why Jack would remember such a fact after all those years.
502.922BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROMon Mar 31 1997 16:2930
        <<< Note 502.918 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    Jim, you're pulling a Glen here.  I NEVER said that the Citadel was
>    better than West Point.  I stated that if women wanted an equivalent
>    education, they should consider West Point or some other school that
>    offers comparable education to women.  
 
	Why do you lie?

	From your .837:

"As more women integrate
    into the school, you will find the qualities the Citadel has over a
    West Point will fall into obscurity."

	This says nothing about "equivalent education" at West Point. It
	DOES say that the Citadel has "qualities" "over a West Point".
   
>    I believe that whatever it is that makes a school unique via its single
>    gendered traditions should remain intact.  While it is constitutionally
>    sound that women should go to the Citadel, it's single gendered
>    tradition should be viewed as a sacred cow by the population at large. 
>    Kind of like flag burning!
 
	So you believe that the unconstitutional should be treated like
	the constitutional?

	What the devil drugs are you taking?

Jim
502.923I dunno what it is, but it's important to keep itWAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjMon Mar 31 1997 16:327
    >I believe that whatever it is that makes a school unique via its single
    >gendered traditions should remain intact.
    
     Even though you cannot articulate what qualities these may be. You
    could be vociferously arguing to retain an atmosphere conducive to
    homosexual expression as well anything else; you just don't know what
    it is you are arguing to forcefully if ineffectively to preserve.
502.924PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Mar 31 1997 16:367
>               <<< Note 502.923 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

    superfluous preposition alert OR missing "o" alert



502.925to => soWAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjMon Mar 31 1997 16:391
    er the t should have been an s.
502.926CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageMon Mar 31 1997 16:4016
    re 502.792
    
    >Sure...you just watch.  I called it right in the last version of
    >Soapbox and no doubt I will stand correct on this.  Take a good look at
    >once pretigious seminaries like Harvard and Princeton and see just how
    >dead they have become...simply because they acquiesced their standards
    >and lost sight of their objectives.
    
    jack,
    
    Do you ever bother to think anything through before you figuratively
    aim your foot at your mouth?  Oh, I forgot, women apparently don't have
    any place to put their brains like men do,  (can't understand why you
    would want them in such a vulnerable location) so we must be inferior.  
    
    meg
502.927PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BMon Mar 31 1997 16:407
>               <<< Note 502.925 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>


	ah. ;>


502.928CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageMon Mar 31 1997 17:2118
    >I'm TALKING about private schools in general you uncircumcised
    >Ammonite!!!!
    
    Niether the Citadel nor VMI are private colleges.  They are state
    supported schools, and as such should be open to whoever makes the
    grade on their standards.  
    
    Jack,
    
    Do you honestly believe the first black, hispanic, asian, native
    american..... men should not have applied to or gone to West Point, the
    AFA, Annapolis, VMI or your beloved Citadel?  They most definitely were
    NOT wanted in those schools, and the pictures I saw of the Citadel
    still look pretty much composed of lily-white men.
    
    I don't believe you.
    
    meg
502.929ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 17:337
    Meg:
    
    You must have been on vacation, or seemed to have avoided many of my
    entries here.  I continually bring up the point that All female schools
    are entitled to the same cultural consideration as the Citadel, yet the
    likes of you, Glen, and other apparently professional victims continue
    to make this a sexism issue.  Why is that!?
502.930ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 17:365
    And just to reiterate for Meg here...
    
    There is a big difference between maintaining a standard which is seen
    as valuable to society (single gendered schools), and oppressive
    standards displayed in the late 60's due to prejudice.
502.931WMOIS::GIROUARD_CMon Mar 31 1997 17:402
    unfortunately, it also promotes and condones that behavior when
    ignored.
502.932ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 17:541
    You have any examples of this?
502.933WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjMon Mar 31 1997 17:564
    >You have any examples of this?
    
     He doesn't have time to search the WEB for examples; he's got work to
    do.
502.934ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 18:032
    Well...that's pretty shabby I think!  Making presuppositions without
    any supporting evidence!
502.935BUSY::SLABAntisocialMon Mar 31 1997 18:063
    
    	[It's so hard to tell whether or not Jack is kidding.  I like that.]
    
502.936CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageMon Mar 31 1997 18:0816
    Jack,
    
    I bet some pre-intergration, lily-white male schools had some "superior
    qualities" compared to integrated schools to.  Besides what I read in
    your quotes is not that the women shouldn't be applying because it is
    their legal right, but bnecause it is bucking tradition.  What was the
    first black male doing at West Point, much less the first woman (1974?,
    I know it was 1976 for the AFA), if it wasn't bucking tradition and
    working to get a superior (your and their words) education.  
    
    Just substitute another race for women and reread your words.  
    
    O BTW your descriptions of men who are outside your norms are also
    equally offensive.  
    
    meg
502.937WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjMon Mar 31 1997 18:114
    >Well...that's pretty shabby I think!  Making presuppositions without
    >any supporting evidence!
    
     And you'd be considered a local expert on the subject. :-)
502.938CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsMon Mar 31 1997 18:131
    TTWA: Do suppositions get stored in a suppository? 
502.939BUSY::SLABAntisocialMon Mar 31 1997 18:164
    
    	Yes, and a presupposition is the cotton padding that holds them
    	securely in the bottle.
    
502.940WMOIS::GIROUARD_CMon Mar 31 1997 18:1711
    that statement is so much not a presupposition it isn't funny.
                              ^^^
    
    the Doc's right, first i would have to get a topic then maybe a 
    culture and a time in history. it would be so much work to prove
    a simple precept that has been proven throughout recorded time.
    
    but then again, you've been taking such a bludgeoning on this one
    it certainly is amusing.
    
    i do admire your tenacity however, Jack.
502.941ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 19:0617
    Taken from the recent edition of Cosmopolitan....
    
    "Coeducation became a national standard more than a century ago largely
    because it was more economical to run "mised" schools than seperate
    ones.  It became an article of faith that coeducation provided the best
    environment for both sexes.  In recent years however, educators have
    begun to question this assumption.  Many worry that boys stifle girls,
    and girls learn to accept it.  A pathbreaking 1992 report by the
    American Association of University women noted that teachers tend to
    call far morew on boys than girls, allow boys to be disruptive amd
    continue to predominantly use male pronouns and male examples in
    class.  Perhaps as a result, girls' self-esteem drops sharply in the
    high school years, girls turn away from math and science and their
    academic capabilities as measured on SAT tests suffer compared with
    boys.
    
     
502.942ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 19:1614
    "Governor Pete Wilson of California has proposed spending $5 million to
    start 20 single sex schools in his state.  Congress is considering
    legislation that would overturn the language of Title IX to allow other
    single-sex educational programs.  And countless coed public schools
    across America are experimenting with the idea of teaching girls math
    and science in single sex classes."
    
    Now by some of your thinking, we should be up in arms over the extent
    of favoritism.  Furthermore, Glen Silva is acting shamelessly here as
    he is one of the biggest proponents of valuing other diversities and
    programs that would benefit those of inequitable status.
    
    -Jack
    
502.943BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROMon Mar 31 1997 20:467

	Hey Jack,

	Are you planing on answering .922 any time soon?

Jim
502.944ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 20:4910
    Z    "As more women integrate
    Z    into the school, you will find the qualities the Citadel has over a
    Z    West Point will fall into obscurity."
    
    It is a well known fact that the Citadel has some of the finest
    culinery chefs in the military.  You get Bula the ballbreaker in there
    and the food will equal Tobins here at Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    The West Point cadets are already complaining about the slop they have
    to eat.  Why spread misery evenly??!
502.945CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageMon Mar 31 1997 20:585
    source for the "well-known fact" please.  I never heard that.  Griping
    about institutional food is a college pastime, much as it is in
    corporate enviornments.  
    
    BTW think you could avoid the gender slurs for at least one reply?
502.946BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROMon Mar 31 1997 21:007
        <<< Note 502.944 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

	I thought so.

	You are dismissed.

Jim
502.947ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 21:029
    Oh fer crying out loud Meg...can't you tell when I'm groveling!!? :-)
    I mean...this is obviously a factoid that was pulled out of thin
    air...I have no idea how the food is there!!  
    
    By the way Meg, are you with me on the benefits of single gendered
    schools, or are you one who believes we should all be raining on each
    others parades?
    
    -Jack
502.948ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsMon Mar 31 1997 21:034
    Jim:
    
    What is your feeling on subsidized schools by the gummint promoting
    single gendered education?
502.949CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageMon Mar 31 1997 21:429
    Jack,
    
    You forget I am a liberal, ERA following person.  I find that
    encouraging all people of any gender to interact in the same classroom,
    particularly at the university level, to be more to my taste. 
    Individual tutoring is another matter, but tht can be done after normal
    school hours.
    
    meg
502.950BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Tue Apr 01 1997 00:1613
| <<< Note 502.918 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| they should consider West Point or some other school that offers comparable 
| education to women.

	Jack... the above is funny. I want you to think about something. Did
West Point ALWAYS offer education to women? If not, then your ship has sunk. I
mean how can you say that one institution is wrong for doing it, yet say that
this one is ok?



Glen
502.951BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Tue Apr 01 1997 00:197
| <<< Note 502.929 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| Glen, and other apparently professional victims continue to make this a 
| sexism issue.  Why is that!?

	You are good at mentioning names (mine and then the word, 'others'),
but you never answer the questions asked of you.
502.952BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROTue Apr 01 1997 12:4611
        <<< Note 502.948 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

>    What is your feeling on subsidized schools by the gummint promoting
>    single gendered education?

	Personally, I believe it to be wrong, regardless of any perceived
	(or imaginary) benefits.

Jim


502.953BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Apr 02 1997 01:2022
    >Personally, I believe it to be wrong, regardless of any
    >perceived (or imaginary) benefits.

    As I understand it, girls that attend all girl schools get a better
    education than those who attend co-ed schools. As reported on a PBS
    program some years ago, girls are apparently intimidated by and
    less aggressive than the boys in the classroom and end up sitting
    in the background of activity.

    Putting girls in a single gender environment removes this 'mental
    barrier' and they compete and perform much better.

    I'm not at all convinced the same can be said for boys in a single
    gendered environment, but I can well imagine that it would be a more
    disciplined structure for them as well.

    I would perceive both of these to be beneficial to the students
    and teachers while promoting educational excellence.

    Doug.
    
502.954BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Wed Apr 02 1997 02:176
| <<< Note 502.953 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>


| program some years ago, 

	How long is, "some years ago"?
502.955CSLALL::HENDERSONGive the world a smile each dayWed Apr 02 1997 03:154


 quite some time, I'm sure..
502.956WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed Apr 02 1997 10:285
    Doug, so the women will perform better in a single gender environment.
    
    that's nice, but how would this possibly prepare them when they leave
    the "safe house"? it seems to me that the real world is a far better
    teacher than the gender-isolation method.
502.957WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Apr 02 1997 12:0423
    >that's nice, but how would this possibly prepare them when they leave
    >the "safe house"? it seems to me that the real world is a far better
    >teacher than the gender-isolation method.
    
     This is an argument I've had with my wife. I took the same position as
    you. Having met a number of girls who've been educated (or are being
    educated) at an all girls school, I am beginning to suspect it's not
    quite that simple. A lot of the preparation to deal with the real world
    is a matter of believing you are up to the task; if you have the self
    confidence to believe in your own ability to make decisions and deal
    with the fallout thereof, you can handle whatever life sends your way.
    I am finding that one of the benefits to single gender education for
    girls is that they are able to develop self-confidence during a
    critical time in their lives: puberty. This is a time when a great many
    girls are very self-conscious and often first begin to defer to the
    (typically) more aggressive boys in the classroom and in other
    situations. Unfortunately, once girls get into the habit of deferring
    to their more aggressive counterparts, it often becomes a difficult
    habit to break.
    
     I am slowly coming to believe that self-confidence is one of the most
    important indicators of future success in females, and therefore
    anything we can do to increase self-confidence is beneficial. 
502.958PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Apr 02 1997 12:0812
>               <<< Note 502.957 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
    
>     I am slowly coming to believe that self-confidence is one of the most
>    important indicators of future success in females, and...

	Interesting.  I mean that you're "slowly coming to believe" it.
	You didn't used to think it was that important?  I would have
	thought it was very apparent that that was the case.




502.959WMOIS::GIROUARD_CWed Apr 02 1997 12:106
    agreed, Doc. that self confidence needs to be cultivated as early as
    possible. parental guidance and support of the individual is critical
    to success prior to, and including the academic experience. scholastic
    cultivation and support notwithstanding.
    
    you know, something like the Citadel models for young women. ;-)
502.960WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Apr 02 1997 12:168
>	Interesting.  I mean that you're "slowly coming to believe" it.
>	You didn't used to think it was that important?  
    
    I didn't think it was as important as actual talent, but I currently
    think that self-confidence is more important an indicator for success
    than talent. It seems that many have talents that they don't have the
    self-confidence to use. This does not seem to be as prevalent in boys.
    
502.961BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Apr 02 1997 12:5614
>| program some years ago, 
>
>	How long is, "some years ago"?

This is just as irrelevant as knowing the exact number of how many people
have dies of AIDS ... (which BTW, is a number that differs depending on
who is supplying the numbers)

But to answer your question:

It was long enough ago not to remember which year it was, but not so long
ago that I have forgotten the substance of the program.

Doug.
502.962BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Apr 02 1997 13:1322
>    Doug, so the women will perform better in a single gender environment.
>    
>    that's nice, but how would this possibly prepare them when they leave
>    the "safe house"? it seems to me that the real world is a far better
>    teacher than the gender-isolation method.

   I would have to think that putting them in an environment which results 
   in stronger acedemic performance and promotes self confidence in their 
   own abilities would better prepare them for life outside the 'safe house'.
   This might also avoid the problem of growing up accepting that they should
   play second fiddle to the superior male counterpart, a trait that can
   plague them the rest of their lives.

   Separation in the learning environment doesn't translate into separation
   from society. Social interaction does not begin and end in a classroom.
   
   As for the real world being a better teacher; it is common practice for 
   parents to shelter their children from the real world until an appropriate
   age is reached for such exposure. 

   Doug.

502.963BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Apr 02 1997 13:3419
<<< Note 502.953 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>


>    As I understand it, girls that attend all girl schools get a better
>    education than those who attend co-ed schools. As reported on a PBS
>    program some years ago, girls are apparently intimidated by and
>    less aggressive than the boys in the classroom and end up sitting
>    in the background of activity.

	I am not against single-gendered schools. I am against the government
	running them.

	Even so, I remain somewhat skeptical concerning any perceived
	advantages to the students in such schools. Girls might possibly,
	as you note, do better in academics, but I have questions about
	how the lack of competition with boys will affect their ability
	to deal with the "real" world after graduation.

Jim
502.964PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Apr 02 1997 13:379
>    <<< Note 502.963 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

> but I have questions about
> how the lack of competition with boys will affect their ability
> to deal with the "real" world after graduation.

	yes, i wonder about that too.


502.965BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Apr 02 1997 13:3917
It just bugs me that "real world values" seem so indistinguishable from
"male values."

That many women don't know how to act in a competitive environment, I see
as a problem.  That everyone seems to take as a given that competitive
environments are "good" or "normal" or "necessary," I see as a bigger
problem.  That competitive environment does adequately describe what we now
have as "the real world," I just find depressing.

Not that it stops me from thriving in that real world.  I just hate
competition.

(Backing off now, while we get all the inevitable replies defending
competition as a way to improve the breed, etc.  Well, I still don't have
to like it, or think it's "right."  Yeah, it's emotionalism on my part, but
there isn't anything wrong with that; I'll happily concede everything else
on "logical" grounds.  Have a nice day.)
502.966BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Apr 02 1997 13:3923
<<< Note 502.962 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>   I would have to think that putting them in an environment which results 
>   in stronger acedemic performance and promotes self confidence in their 
>   own abilities would better prepare them for life outside the 'safe house'.
>   This might also avoid the problem of growing up accepting that they should
>   play second fiddle to the superior male counterpart, a trait that can
>   plague them the rest of their lives.

	So your basic argument in favor of single-gendered schools, at least
	for girls, is that the co-ed schools are not performing adequately.

	My suggestion would be that we hold the co-ed schools to task for
	this non-performance.

>   Separation in the learning environment doesn't translate into separation
>   from society. Social interaction does not begin and end in a classroom.
 
	Then your childhodd was a great deal different than mine. I would
	calculate the 90% of my friends during both primary and secondary
	school years were those individuals that attended the same school.

Jim
502.967WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Apr 02 1997 13:444
    >That everyone seems to take as a given that competitive environments
    >are "good" or "normal" or "necessary," I see as a bigger problem.
    
     How do you propose to change things? What is the alternative?
502.968PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Apr 02 1997 13:486
>               <<< Note 502.967 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>

	communism?


502.969BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Apr 02 1997 13:5218
    Uh, no.
    
    Competition is good when it's done right.  But, if someone has
    something to offer, don't penalize them just because they don't pass
    the ruler test.
    
    Case in point:  I've seen good engineers go down the tubes at digital,
    not because they were stupid or incapable of doing good work, but
    merely because they wanted more direction than the digital environment
    offers.  "Self starters" are cool, but not the only means to an end.
    
    In letting these engineers atrophy, digital was passing up on the
    opportunity to get quality work out of these people - work that was
    good enough to be patented elsewhere.
    
    I fail to see how managing such a person would be any greater burden
    than the day to day refereeing of who's got the longer pee-pee that
    managers have to do now.
502.970Who knows ?GAAS::BRAUCHERAnd nothing else mattersWed Apr 02 1997 13:5815
  Educational theories come and go, like pet rocks and beanie babies.

  Nobody really knows if single sex or coed makes any difference.  As I
 said, I went to an all-male college, and there was an all-female one a
 mile away.  Both are co-ed today.  Does it matter ?  I don't
 know, and nobody else does, either.

  Now it's true our public education in the USA is a disastrous failure,
 compared to the past.  But is that due to co-ed ?  Public high schools
 were always all co-ed, mostly for cost reasons.  It seems like the
 decline must have some other cause.  At least, to me.  But single-sex
 is back in, now, I'm told.

  bb
502.971PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Apr 02 1997 14:0610
    So you don't really "hate competition", then, Dawn?  It sounds
    that way, anyway.

    I haven't had anyone try to measure the length of my pee-pee
    yet.  I guess it's something to look forward to, though.


    

502.972POWDML::HANGGELIBecause I Can.Wed Apr 02 1997 14:103
    
    Oh dear.  Oh dear.
    
502.973WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Apr 02 1997 14:1233
    re: communism
    
     Yes, well even if you could get it to work within some geographic or
    political entity, unless it's uniformly adopted by the entire world you
    haven't really eliminated competition, you've merely changed the level
    on which it operates.
    
    re: Dawn
    
    >Competition is good when it's done right.  But, if someone has
    >something to offer, don't penalize them just because they don't pass
    >the ruler test.
    
    >Case in point: [...]
    
     I see your point, but it occurs to me that you aren't bemoaning
    competition per se but instead you have quibbles with the metrics with 
    which specific competitions are measured. I guess my point is, doesn't
    everybody?
    
     Competition is certainly an entirely natural process. As humans, we
    have evolved beyond individual competition for the basics of life on
    many levels, having discovered the benefits of social interaction,
    community and specialization, yet we continue to compete on a very
    basic level for a great many things. It's not at all clear that it is
    A) possible or B) beneficial to eradicate competition; indeed
    experiments which attempt to do so have shown neither.
    
     It seems indisputable that the world is by its very nature a
    competitive place. I guess I can't reconcile that with your complaint
    that people consider competition to be normal. Where's the beef?
    
    
502.974PENUTS::DDESMAISONSperson BWed Apr 02 1997 14:186
   fwiw, i wasn't suggesting that communism would work - only wondering
   if that was what Dawn was suggesting, since it seemed that competition
   was a thing to be hated.


502.975BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Apr 02 1997 14:2021
    I guess what I object to is that competition is often the only game in
    town.
    
    I have nothing against it, as long as I don't have to play (and opting
    out doesn't end up costing me a ton).
    
    Perhaps it's better that I say that I hate competing.  And, I hate that
    just about everyone has to compete to succeed.  For some people "real
    world," for me, "screwed up value system."
    
    I hate that our educational system doesn't adequately prepare so many
    women for this "real world," and I hate that so many women are at
    either a constitutional or upbringing disadvantage when it comes to
    these things (and I'm not even going to begin to debate whether I think
    it's nature or nurture).
    
    But, as I keep saying, mostly I just hate that it's always taken as
    given that it's "normal" and "right" to compete.  Leave competition to
    those who would be competitors, but don't go laying negative judgments
    onto people who have something very useful to offer, but who don't want
    to (or don't know how to) compete.
502.976BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Apr 02 1997 14:227
    Oh, to answer the specific question:
    
    Communism:  nice idea, but naive in the extreme.  No, not suggesting
    communism ('specially having been nearly a McCarthyist in my early
    years).  I'm just suggesting changes on a more modest level, starting
    with less emphasis on competition, and more emphasis on what a person
    can do.
502.977WAHOO::LEVESQUESpott ItjWed Apr 02 1997 14:3334
    >I guess what I object to is that competition is often the only game in
    >town.
    
     The question is, how else can it be?
    
    >Perhaps it's better that I say that I hate competing.  
    
     This is not exactly a rare sentiment, particularly in those that don't
    win and don't expect to be capable of winning. It's pretty sobering and
    disquieting to come to the realization that your very best does not
    distinguish itself when compared along with the work of others. It's a
    fact of life for the vast majority of us. That's a good time to reframe
    the "competition".
    
    >For some people "real world," for me, "screwed up value system."
    
     If you could provide an alternative value system that could work that
    would make your criticisms more concrete and less sour grapish. Don't
    take that the wrong way.
    
    >But, as I keep saying, mostly I just hate that it's always taken as
    >given that it's "normal" and "right" to compete.  
    
     But you can't articulate any real alternatives.
    
    >Leave competition to those who would be competitors, but don't go
    >laying negative judgments onto people who have something very useful to
    >offer, but who don't want to (or don't know how to) compete.
    
     I don't see how you think this is supposed to work. Forget about the
    "negative judgments" for a minute. How are people supposed to be
    rewarded if not on the basis of merit? Should everybody be rewarded the
    same regardless of whether they contribue or merely exist? I don't see
    where you're going with this.
502.978BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapWed Apr 02 1997 14:3612
    Oh, I know how to win.  It just hurts a  lot doing it.
    
    No, I will offer no other constructive suggestion other than what I've
    already said:  If someone's capable of good work, but needs a little
    extra guidance, that's no less worthy of a merit increase than someone
    who needs no guidance and does mediocre work.  The digital way rewards
    the latter, and waits for the former to disappear, often to digital's
    disadvantage.
    
    But, I obviously ain't gonna communicate this (not because of the
    recipients, but because I'm just not doing well at communicating
    today), so I'll just shut up on the subject now.
502.979Second pass ...BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Wed Apr 02 1997 15:0946
re: BIGHOG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO"

>	So your basic argument in favor of single-gendered schools, at least
>	for girls, is that the co-ed schools are not performing adequately.

   No it isn't. I am not arguing in favor or against anything. I'm not 
   discounting anything either. It seems to me that there may be some value
   in single-gender classroom education.

>	My suggestion would be that we hold the co-ed schools to task for
>	this non-performance.

   Yup! Easier said than done though. I would also suggest that public schools
   look at providing the BEST environments for student education. This would 
   include exploring single gendered classes (not necessarily single gendered
   schools) where it has been shown to be of benefit to that gender.
   
<Personal opinion>

   It would also include getting back to basics, and removing all forms
   of electronic assistance until the latter part of highschool.
   
<\Personal opinion>

!>   Separation in the learning environment doesn't translate into separation
!>   from society. Social interaction does not begin and end in a classroom.
! 
!	Then your childhodd was a great deal different than mine. I would
!	calculate the 90% of my friends during both primary and secondary
!	school years were those individuals that attended the same school.

    I had a previous answer for this but it didn't come across correctly.
    I'll try again.

    Is it you contention that there would be no social activity in a 
    single-gender environment? Or that co-ed social interaction is an educational
    requirement of public school policies? Or that it would not take place
    if not for co-ed schools/classrooms?

    Is the social atsmophere more important than the educational atsmosphere?

    If the two do not compliment each other should we sacrifice from both
    to keep them together?

    
    Doug.
502.980DECWET::LOWEBruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910Wed Apr 02 1997 16:1014
> This is not exactly a rare sentiment, particularly in those that don't
> win and don't expect to be capable of winning. It's pretty sobering and
> disquieting to come to the realization that your very best does not
> distinguish itself when compared along with the work of others. It's a
> fact of life for the vast majority of us. That's a good time to reframe
> the "competition".

It's not just that one's best is not good enough. There are folks who do
extremely good work, but whose talents do not include the ability/willingness
to argue, influence, and win. Some teams go one way vs the other based on a
particular team member who gets his/her way based on a loud voice, insistent
manner, and intractable(sp) attitude, and other members with better ideas
just cave because the process gets too distasteful.
502.981BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROWed Apr 02 1997 21:1347
<<< Note 502.979 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>It seems to me that there may be some value
>   in single-gender classroom education.

	This may, in fact, be true. But no one has yet offered any actual
	data to support this supposed benefit. Personally, I would like
	to see some facts.

>>	My suggestion would be that we hold the co-ed schools to task for
>>	this non-performance.

>   Yup! Easier said than done though.

	Not really. But I would admit that it has to be done, not merely
	said. Lip service is not enough, REAL involvement, REAL committment,
	and REAL hard work need to be done in order to make this happen.

> I would also suggest that public schools
>   look at providing the BEST environments for student education. This would 
>   include exploring single gendered classes (not necessarily single gendered
>   schools) where it has been shown to be of benefit to that gender.
 
	Again, we need facts, not just anecdotes.

>    Is it you contention that there would be no social activity in a 
>    single-gender environment?

	NONE? Probably there would be some. But it would certainly be less
	than one would experience in a co-ed environment.

> Or that co-ed social interaction is an educational
>    requirement of public school policies?

	Interesting question. I believe that the answer is "yes". Even
	single-gendered schools make an effort to "import" students of
	the opposite sex for social functions. My highschool did this
	with girls from the all-girl Catholic highschool in the next
	town.

>    Is the social atsmophere more important than the educational atsmosphere?

	If our goal is to produce students capable of dealing with life
	after graduation, then I believe that teaching social interaction
	is every bit as important as the "3 Rs".

Jim
502.982BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Wed Apr 02 1997 22:0911
| <<< Note 502.961 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>


| This is just as irrelevant as knowing the exact number of how many people
| have dies of AIDS 

	False. If you try to compare something from 10 years ago to something
that is going on today, then you may be using outdated data. So it IS
important.


502.983ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsWed Apr 02 1997 22:328
 Z   False. If you try to compare something from 10 years ago to something
 Z   that is going on today, then you may be using outdated data. So it IS
 Z   important.
    
    And yet Glen you are constantly and gleefully approving of Affirmative
    Action policies based on antiquated data.  
    
    -Jack
502.984BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Apr 03 1997 13:4124
This likely belongs in a different string but ...

>| This is just as irrelevant as knowing the exact number of how many people
>| have dies of AIDS 
>
>	False. If you try to compare something from 10 years ago to something
>that is going on today, then you may be using outdated data. So it IS
>important.

    Glen, 
   
       There is a note somewhere that asks a stupid question or how
       many people have died and oh, BTW, don't look it up. Then the argument
       goes on to say  that if you don't know the number, you cannot justify
       your participation in the subject matter.  

       The 'exact' number is unimportant, and most likely, not even known.

    I don't need to know if 10K, 15K, or 20K people died. I need only
    know that AIDS is a KILLER virus, that it has killed LOTS of people,
    where and at what rate it is spreading, and how it gets transmitted.

    Doug.        
502.985BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Apr 03 1997 13:5827
<<< Note 502.984 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>


>       There is a note somewhere that asks a stupid question or how
>       many people have died and oh, BTW, don't look it up. Then the argument
>       goes on to say  that if you don't know the number, you cannot justify
>       your participation in the subject matter.  

>       The 'exact' number is unimportant, and most likely, not even known.

	Well, it was my question in repsonse to a claim made that given
	the number of deaths from AIDS, the research money would have
	been spent anyway due to public outcry. So context IS important.

	This implies that the general public is aware of the number of
	deaths and that they care. Concede the second point for a moment.
	All I did was ask the person making the claim to tell me how
	many have died. Since his assertion required that this be general
	knowledge, this should not have been a difficult task.

	Since the question remains unanswered, I can only conclude that
	either the premise is false, in which case we can dismiss it, or
	that the person making the claim is significantly more ignorant
	on the subject than his own claims for the general population, in 
	which case we dismiss his theories.

Jim
502.986It's fun catching up and seeing this all at onceTLE::RALTOThu Apr 03 1997 14:0939
Note 502.928          Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!            928 of 985
CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village"                      18 lines  31-MAR-1997 13:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    > ...Citadel still look pretty much composed of lily-white men.


Note 502.936          Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!            936 of 985
CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village"                      16 lines  31-MAR-1997 14:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    > ...I bet some pre-intergration, lily-white male schools 


Note 502.945          Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!            945 of 985
CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village"                       5 lines  31-MAR-1997 16:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    > ...BTW think you could avoid the gender slurs for at least one reply?


Note 502.949          Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!            949 of 985
CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village"                       9 lines  31-MAR-1997 17:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    > You forget I am a liberal...



Well then, Meg, since you're a liberal, why don't you tell us all
exactly what liberals think a "lily-white man" is.  For bonus points,
explain whether liberals believe that "lily-white male" is:
    
    	a) a racial slur
    	b) a gender slur
    	c) a shining example of typical liberal hypocrisy
    	d) all of the above

Chris
502.987ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Apr 03 1997 14:3410
    Z        Well, it was my question in repsonse to a claim made that given
    Z        the number of deaths from AIDS, the research money would have
    Z        been spent anyway due to public outcry. So context IS
    Z        important.
    
    FYI: The claim was made by me.  I was contending that AIDS research
    would have risen regardless of whether the big mouths from ACT UP were
    in existence or not.
    
    -Jack
502.988CONSLT::MCBRIDEIdleness, the holiday of foolsThu Apr 03 1997 14:375
    Bet it wouldn't.  As much as I abhor zealots of any stripe, AIDS
    activists have done much to garner large scale funding.  Would there
    have been funding for AIDS research?  Without a doubt.  Would it be on
    the scale we have it now?  Not a chance.  Too bad we can't get a
    similar reaction for active prevention programs.  
502.989CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 03 1997 16:309
    Being lily-white, except for freckles my self, I find no problem with
    this reference.  
    
    Being one who believes in diversity, I find a school of all males, all
    females, all one sking-tone variation to be pretty non-reflective of
    the real world most of us will need to function in, unless we were
    borne to the boardrooms of wome corporations.
    
    meg
502.990BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Apr 03 1997 16:3724
>   Would there
>    have been funding for AIDS research?  Without a doubt.  Would it be on
>    the scale we have it now?  Not a chance.  Too bad we can't get a
>    similar reaction for active prevention programs.  

   And to complete the circle yet again; There comes a point in research
   where MORE money does not produce faster/better gains.

   So, when is it enough? If it were $3 billion they would have cried out for 
   $6 billion, if it were $6 billion they would have cried out for $12 billion.

   The government gets criticised because it wastes money and then we
   have fools who cry out to waste more money and blame the government
   for unnecessary deaths because they didn't spend enough money when that
   assertion is bogus.

   The actual number of deaths isn't the important question. Where and how 
   should we spend the money for best results is. Congress was tasked with 
   answering that question without benefit of hindsight ...


   Doug.

   
502.991BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Apr 03 1997 16:4310
  >  Being one who believes in diversity, I find a school of all males, all
  >  females, all one sking-tone variation to be pretty non-reflective of
  >  the real world most of us will need to function in,

   But in the world we all need to function in, 1+1 is always 2. No
   diversity necessary. Whether I sit next to a boy or girl in math
   class, this will always be true. Siting next to Jane or John in math
   class does nothing to prepare me for the real world.

   Doug
502.992SMURF::WALTERSThu Apr 03 1997 16:462
    Not if you meet your future wife in math class.  1+1 could be 3, or 4,
    or 5 or...                                                            
502.993BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Apr 03 1997 16:522
 I believe that would be covered in Biology  :-)
502.994BIGHOG::PERCIVALI'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-ROThu Apr 03 1997 17:0010
<<< Note 502.990 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>

>   And to complete the circle yet again; There comes a point in research
>   where MORE money does not produce faster/better gains.

	That was NOT the point in contention.

	But thanks for playing.

Jim
502.995BULEAN::BANKSSaturn SapThu Apr 03 1997 17:083
Arguments are much more fun, not to mention sustainable, when the point
being argued keeps moving... preferably imperceptably to one of the
participants.
502.996BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Thu Apr 03 1997 18:126
>	That was NOT the point in contention.

  I didn't say it was ....


     But thanks for playing ...
502.997BUSY::SLABGTI 16V - dust thy neighbor!!Thu Apr 03 1997 18:213
    
    	Must be a weird-looking circle, then.
    
502.998ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Apr 03 1997 19:588
    Meg:
    
    You are going on the presumption that everybody should be wanted
    everywhere...which of course is totally unrealistic.  Are you ever
    going to come to the realization there are times and places when men
    are simply not wanted and likewise women are simply not wanted?
    
    -Jack
502.999PHXSS1::HEISERMaranatha!Thu Apr 03 1997 20:082
    I attended an all-male prep. high school.  If I had to do it over
    again, I would've gone to a public co-ed high school.  
502.1000SNARFPHXSS1::HEISERMaranatha!Thu Apr 03 1997 20:081
    
502.1001HOTLNE::BURTrude people ruleThu Apr 03 1997 20:095
i really can't think of too many times when that would be reasonable, given that
it is the _19_ [nineteen] 90's; not even that, it's 1997! come on up a century
or so and live with the rest of us.

ogre.
502.1002CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 03 1997 20:374
    Jack,
    
    How are the callouses on your knuckle coming?  How do you keep those
    sheets so clean?
502.1003ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Apr 03 1997 21:032
    Ouuuuuu....that stung like a ball faced hornet!!  You're vicious
    today!!!!
502.1004CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 03 1997 21:054
    jack,
    
    
    flattery will get you nowhere  
502.1005ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Apr 03 1997 21:091
    Oh come on Meg...you know you love me!!
502.1006CSC32::M_EVANSbe the villageThu Apr 03 1997 21:135
    Love yes, like????????
    
    math is not hard
    
    
502.1007ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsThu Apr 03 1997 21:292
    See that's why we would have been a perfect couple!!  Opposites
    attract...and you'd love me but dislike me at the same time!!!
502.1008BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Apr 03 1997 22:2010
| <<< Note 502.983 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| And yet Glen you are constantly and gleefully approving of Affirmative
| Action policies based on antiquated data.

	Jack Martin, you are pathetic. I have always said it needed fixing,
just not that it should be tossed as you have stated.


Glen
502.1009BIGQ::SILVAhttp://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/Thu Apr 03 1997 22:238
| <<< Note 502.987 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| would have risen regardless of whether the big mouths from ACT UP were
| in existence or not.

	Just not nearly as fast. And as it was, the real increase happened when
it was discovered it was a heterosexual disease as well. A lot of deaths could
have been avoided. Both past and future.
502.1010BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Fri Apr 04 1997 00:155
    >    I attended an all-male prep. high school.  If I had to do it over
    >    again, I would've gone to a public co-ed high school.
    
    
    Why?
502.1011In the spirit of recent calls for FACTS ....BRITE::FYFEUse it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.Fri Apr 04 1997 00:2217
    
    >Just not nearly as fast. And as it was, the real increase
    >happened when it was discovered it was a heterosexual disease as well. A lot of
    >deaths could have been avoided. Both past and future.
    
    And, of course, you have the proper documents to back up this
    statement ....

    Real Increases? As opposed to what, the fake increases?

    Perhaps you could map out the spending timeline for use and
    correlate that with the events of the time to justify your statements.
    Feel free to include whaere and what the money was to be used for
    in each of the years on the timeline.
    
    Doug.

502.1012ASGMKA::MARTINConcerto in 66 MovementsFri Apr 04 1997 16:584
    Glen:
    
    Did you vote for Ted Kennedy?  If so, then you don't believe as
    strongly as you should!!
502.1013PHXSS1::HEISERMaranatha!Fri Apr 04 1997 18:1517
|    >    I attended an all-male prep. high school.  If I had to do it over
|    >    again, I would've gone to a public co-ed high school.
|    
|    Why?
    
    For one thing, there is more to life than academics.  I basically
    missed much of what is supposed to be "the best time of your life" and
    the socialization that goes with it.  I was doing homework for 2+
    hours/night while others were having social lives.  
    
    The other basic reason (which probably doens't apply to many) is that,
    even though my parents were well intentioned, a family tragedy forced
    me to pay for 2 of the 4 years.  When I wasn't doing homework, I
    was working to pay my own tuition.  $1000/year was a lot of money in
    the late '70s.
    
    Mike