Is my timeline correct on this:

The first female Corps commander was selected simultaneous to the marking of 40 years of women in the Corps?

You're right - it was pure coincidence. The 40th Anniversary of Women in the Corps was supposed to have been held in the fall of 2014 - 40 years after women entered the Corps in 1974. Due to some issues with venues and other coordination problems, the celebration was re-scheduled for the weekend of 20-22 Feb 2015.

The selection of our Corps Commander, Deputy Corps Commanders, and Major Unit Commanders is always held in late Jan - early Feb, and this year was no exception. The timing of the announcement of the new Commanders had been planned back in the fall for that week Feb all along.

So yes, it was a complete coincidence that the announcement of the first female Corps Commander ever in the 139 year history of the Corps and the 40th Anniversary of Women in the Corps just happened to coincide with each other.

Not sure what your post is all about, but you just heard it from the top exactly how this all occurred and how it was all coincidence.

quote:

---

Due to some issues with venues and other coordination problems, the celebration was re-scheduled for the weekend of 20-22 Feb 2015

---

Unfortunate series of spontaneous events for sure.

Commandant, there's no point in trying with some of these people. No matter how qualified our new Corps Commander is, there are people out there who think that she should have had to jump through additional hoops that no prior Corps Commander has had to jump through, just to prove that she was the most qualified zip in the Corps. There have been many prior male major unit and Corps commanders who have done poor jobs, but none of these folks who are now critizicing the new CC raised a peep in criticising those selections. To some people, a minority is a minority and has to prove themselves more than anyone else, otherwise it only "proves" that they were selected for political correctness/diversity, and there's no way there wasn't a non-minority more qualified.

Edit: Oh wow, I just realized that March is Women's history month. Is it a coincidence that the Corps decided to announce the first female Corps Commander just before Women's history month? Interesting "coincidence" indeed.... [/sarcasm]

There is certainly an unspoken agenda in the selection of Corps leadership that looks at features beyond grades and leadership capability.

I just would hate to see a candidate with tremendous leadership skills be passed over just because that candidate had the chromosomal makeup and pigmentation contrary to the driven agenda.

I'll preface those comments not directed at my initial posting but address to the broad environment overall; all based on my own experiences in our beloved Corps.

quote:

---

all based on my own experiences in our beloved Corps.

---

Was your experience based in 1945?

People like Dubyian are why A&M and the Corps still have a bad reputation in some circles

quote:

---

Was your experience based in 1945?

---

Based on the TexAgs responses. it seems it's more the New Army types who are grumpy, as opposed to the old Ags. Maybe it's maturity, maybe it's the fact that so many of us have daughters. And among my close Aggie buddies with kids in the military, it's about 30% daughters to 70% sons.

quote:

---

And as my old friend and former Army leader LTG Russ Honore used to say: "You can't fix stupid..."

---

Him and Ron White.

quote:

---

And as my old friend and former Army leader LTG Russ Honore used to say: "You can't fix stupid..."

---

But duct tape helps muffle the sound of it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Was your experience based in 1945?

---

Based on the TexAgs responses. it seems it's more the New Army types who are grumpy, as opposed to the old Ags. Maybe it's maturity, maybe it's the fact that so many of us have daughters. And among my close Aggie buddies with kids in the military, it's about 30% daughters to 70% sons.

---

It's amazing the number of mouth breathing knuckle draggers that still have problems with women in positions of authority.

The op:

Thanks for all the comments, but none where of any quality in response to my claims; instead, there were just replies full of ad hominem (Comm79), strawman (traxter), and incoherance to my claim (canyonag).

So, let me circle back around, clarify my comments and position, and we'll shake hands and press forward to next business.

My initial post commented on the timing of announcing the first selected Corps Comm simultaneous to the commemoration of female admittance to our beloved Corps.

At first glance, it seemed fishy the two events coincided almost in tandem. [Among my network of fellow Aggies, late 30 year olds, mind you, it is believed the selection of a female for the position was exploited to suit the commemoration, this is not stated as fact but as opinion only] Comm79 dispelled those claims with plausible reasons.

The cancellation and postponement is understandable and reasonable enough. (though I've been around enough politics that I wouldn't be surprised if the cancellation of the fall commemoration events where postponed once the prospect of a female commander was looking more and more like a reality as the selection process neared its ending. I would also be curious whether the herald of the first female commander was proclaimed with great fanfare at this event. If it were, my claims are bolstered. This is my own conspiracy theory, dispose of it at will).

My second post made comments to my first and also introduced a new position, in that I believe there is an agenda (unspoken and not made public by the CoC) to bolster the beloved Corps with a higher percentage of female cadets. This is not headline news; currently in Congress a Democrat from California is pushing the service academies to bolster their ranks of female cadets/midshipman by twenty percent among other gender equitable acts for women.

This in and of itself is NOT A BAD THING. The bad thing, the immoral thing, and the unconstitutional thing is that it is a travesty to exclude another qualified gender, in this case, qualified males, from such positions in order to fill a quota simply to achieve gender diversity. This has the potential to lead to claims of reverse discrimination.

It is an insult to the female and it is an offense of the law in order to do so.

I certainly have no qualms about female leadership.

My favorites are Thatcher, Rice, S. Joan of Arc. These women were well suited for the job not simply because they were female but instead because of their merit which was enhanced, not defined, by their femaleness, resulting in a tremendous leader.

Please do not misconstrue my comments towards the young lady that was selected to the position as commander. I have no doubt her qualities meet the highest standards. I hope the entire process was pure and she was not a pawn used for ulterior motives. I hope she excelled ALL her peers in ALL fields including but not limited to academics, leadership capability, and physical fitness. I hope that for all leadership positions not just in our beloved Corps.

I offer my comments without intended insult to any of you but just for discussion purposes of recent events. These comments are my opinion and not expressed as fact.

We are all Aggies and have a common goal in seeing our beloved Corps grow in strength and quality.

@Dubyain45 - well stated, and please forgive my "Ad Hominem" comments from previous posts (its been a LONG time since I took Argumentative Writing at A&M!). However, it was YOU who posted "There is certainly an unspoken agenda in the selection of Corps leadership that looks at features beyond grades and leadership capability." Not Ad Hominem, per se, but flat out misinformation, most likely based on rumor, innuendo, or at best, second or third hand information. Either way it was wrong, and started the thread of comments which you criticized in your last post.

Your last post should have been your first, IMO, but that being said, I appreciate you clarifying your concerns that led to your original post.

Rest assured that we have gone to great lengths, with a very long and arduous process, to ensure we are selecting the very best cadets to lead in our Corps. Its not a perfect system, by any means (no such process exists), but its as close to perfect as we can get it. And its a process that is conducted by members of my staff, members of the ROTC staffs, and the current years cadet key leaders, including the Corps Cdr.

All members of the selection team have only one mandate: select the best possible cadets to lead our Corps next year. Period. There is no consideration given to gender, ethnicity, religion, or contract status. We select the very best to lead our Corps based on criteria such as academics, Corps performance, involvement in organizations on and off campus, and how well they do in the interviews that all participate in during the selection process. Again, its a very long, arduous, but fair process, and IMO has led to us selecting the best cadets to lead in our Corps.

Alyssa Michalke was selected LAST year to be the Corps CSM this year, and she earned it. Just look at her credentials - and even better, talk to her - and you'll understand why she was selected to be the Corps Cdr next year. She's fully qualified, is an exceptional cadet and leader, and was the clear choice to be Corps Cdr after the selection process was completed. There was no "unspoken" agenda to select a female over a more qualified male cadet to meet some sense of PC gender equality in the Corps. NOT what we are about. We selected the BEST cadet to be Corps Cdr next year, and her gender had absolutely nothing to do with it. THAT is the TRUTH. Nothing Ad Hominem or Ad Vericundium about any of it.

Again, I appreciate your last post, and hope that you understand how the selection of next year's Corps Cdr was made, and more importantly, that you understand that as Commandant I am committed to selecting the best cadets to lead - regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or contract status. And I am completely satisfied that we selected the BEST cadet to lead the Corps next year, and stand solidly behind that selection. Alyssa Michalke is going to be a GREAT Corps Cdr next year, and I look forward to seeing her continue to grow and develop as a leader, and watching her lead the Corps with decisiveness, maturity, respect, and compassion - just as all previous Corps Cdrs have.

Thanks for your love and support of our Corps! Gig 'em!

Hasn't it been tradition that the Junior Sgt/Maj has been the next Cadet Colonel ?

Each year, the most qualified junior in the Corps that applies is selected as Corps Commander. Many times, that is also the current Corps Sergeant Major. Sometimes, it is not. It is not a guarantee anymore like it used to be. Many 1SGs/SGMs fail to move up to CO/MUC because they aren't the most qualified.

My son is currently a "Butt" and he was very complementary of her selection. He is normaly not very wordy, doesn't say much, but when his mom asked about the selection of a female, he seemed very pleased with the choice.....