Publication: Air Power History
Publication Date: 22-JUN-07
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Gawlinski, Allison
Article Excerpt
In the spring of 1972, Congress attempted to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. They expected it to gain ratification as the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would guarantee that citizens not be deprived of a law-given right based on gender. (1) Members of Congress actively pursued ratification. Congress passed the statute for this amendment in March 1972, and law requires ratification within seven years of its proposal. By its deadline, only thirty-five of the necessary thirty-eight states had ratified the amendment. In an attempt to gain the remaining three ratifications, Congress extended the deadline to 1982. However to this day, despite this extension the amendment remains dormant. (2) Regardless of the exclusion of the equal rights amendment from the Constitution, women made strides towards equality with men.
However, a very significant achievement towards gender equality occurred in the United States Service Academies. In 1974, the U.S. Air Force and Naval Academies rejected two women applicants, whose names remained anonymous in news reports. This started the litigation process that eventually made the service academies coeducational. (3 The academies used gender discrimination to deny them entrance. Frustrated, the women filed suit, challenging the single sex makeup of service academies. Each of the heads of the service academies, along with Deputy Secretary of Defense William P. Clements, Jr., filed affidavits encouraging a government motion to dismiss the suit. (4) The women won the assistance of their congressmen, who publicly supported them in this case. Together, these women and their representatives responded to the government's attempt to end the suit. Observers of this case predicted it would eventually go to the Supreme Court. (5)
At first, the plaintiffs suffered a major setback. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals denied their plea to enter with the Class of 1976. Judge Oliver C. Gasch of the United States District Court ruled against the two plaintiffs and their congressional sponsors. He refused to force the service academies to admit the women into the classes entering the next month. (6) Judge Gasch believed that his ruling represented a legitimate government interest, served by continuing the exclusion of women from the service academies. Because law forbade women from serving in combat, educating women at the service academies would waste government money.
Testimony given by an unnamed witness from the Air Force to the United States District Court said that enrolling a woman at the Academy would waste a leadership slot better suited for a male cadet, who was more likely to lead in combat. (7) In response to the government's attempt to end the suit, these women immediately filed an appeal with the circuit court, requesting an emergency hearing of their case. However, the court determined that the primary argument behind the plaintiffs' case countered the law prohibiting women from serving in combat. The court could not accept a topic such as this in a hurried hearing. However, they did agree to hear the case, in full, at their next session. Yet, this refusal removed the final chance for these hopeful applicants to enter the academies with the incoming class. The women hoped to take their case to the Supreme Court for an emergency hearing; however, it was not likely that the court would agree to hear the case at this point. (8) Additionally, it was even less likely that the Supreme Court would reach a ruling in time for the women to in-process with the incoming service Academy classes.
The delayed court discussion gave Congress an opening to debate the issue. At the time, they were considering legislation to change the service academies to coeducational institutions. If Congress passed a bill mandating female entrance to the service academies, the courts would not have to review the cases. (9)
The government maintained that the academies rejected the two plaintiffs on legal grounds. Traditional laws excluded women from military roles. However, the plaintiffs argued that their rejection was based on gender discrimination and therefore unconstitutional. (10) Congress retained the power to put forth a bill proposing the admittance of women to enter the service academies. If congress chose not to act, or if they decided against integrating the service academies, the courts would have further reason to rule against the women and in favor of the service academies. (11)
The issue of gender integration at the service academies ran deeper than the composition of the schools. If the service academies existed to educate officers for combat--and they intended to maintain this role--no value existed in educating women at these institutions until women could serve in combat. (12) Women trained as officers, while prohibited from filling that function, would be purposeless. Additionally, the Air Force Academy traditionally served as a primary source of future pilots, and laws existed prohibiting women from serving as combat pilots. (13)
Although the official argument against integrating women into the service academies was the legal ban on women in combat, the Air Force Academy Superintendent, Lt. Gen. A. P. Clark, presented further arguments. He expressed concerns about integrating the dormitories, suggesting that this integration would lead to marriages, pregnancies, and abortions. He feared decrease in discipline and morale as a direct result of integrating women into the Academy. (14) Additionally, General Clark discussed the potentially negative impact on military training at the Academy: "I am vitally concerned that this proposed reorientation of Academy life to accommodate females would provide continuing disruptive and adverse influence on the discipline and morale which underlies the motivation of the cadet wing." (15) General Clark was not alone in his opposition.
Further discouragment came from Deputy Defense Secretary Clements and Jacqueline Cochran, the leader of the Women Air Service Pilots (WASP) in World War II, and the first woman to break the sound barrier. In an April 1974 memorandum to the service secretaries, Clements discouraged the integration of women into the service academies. He described other means for women to receive a college education and a commission in the armed forces, suggesting those paths as better alternatives for women. Clements stated that until the American people, through Congress, expressed interest in making the academies coeducational, they should continue to educate only men. (16) More surprisingly, considering her accomplishments and experiences, Jacqueline Cochran, in an appearance before the House of Representatives, testified against integrating women into the service academies. She determined, from her observations in working with the WASPs, that women are not as well suited for military service as men. Additionally, she noted that women have a biological urge toward marriage and child bearing, causing inordinate numbers of women to resign from their duties. (17)
Virginia Dondy, from the Center for Women Policy Studies, testified in opposition to Cochran's statements. She asserted that women are fully capable of succeeding at the service academies and should have the same physical and educational standards as male cadets. Dondy insisted that any alterations to the Academy curriculums and training would deny the rights of women. She expressed the importance of staffing the academies with more women and integrating women into the student bodies based on qualifications, not gender quotas. Dondy declared that a qualified woman could lead in combat as well as a qualified man. In support of this claim, Lt. Col. Grace King (USAR) presented results of a survey she conducted during the previous two years. The results showed 80 percent of surveyed civilian and military citizens favored the acceptance of women to the service academies. Additionally, 73 percent of those surveyed supported altering the law to allow women to volunteer to serve in combat. (18)
The bill that formally opened the service academies to female candidates, gained House approval on July 30, 1975. It passed by a vote of 348 to 60, and went to the Senate for further authorization. This compromise bill was part of a $31.2 billion Weapons Authorization Bill and allowed women to enter all of the service academies, beginning in 1976. The bill specifically prohibited any alterations to training at the academies in order to accommodate females. Additionally, the law required academies to ensure equality for all cadets, regardless of gender, in admission, training, graduation, and commissioning. (19) After continued debate, the bill passed the senate and reached the President, where it awaited final approval. On October 7, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed the Military Procurement Bill into law, officially permitting women to enter the service academies as cadets and midshipmen.
The same day this bill became law, the Air Force Academy...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.
More articles from
Air Power History
Modern warfare: desert storm, operation Iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom, 22-DEC-07
Books received, 22-SEP-07
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the First Indochina War, 1947-1959, 22-SEP-07
Looking for additional articles?
Click here to search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Click here to search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information. |
