Essay Assignment #3 Options from Contemporary & Classic Arguments in which you will use the Toulmin Argument (Due 10-24-17)
Option One: Support, refute, or complicate the argument that Garrett Hardin’s analogy in “Lifeboat Ethics” makes an effective argument against traditional liberal approaches to helping the poor.
Option Two: Support, refute, or complicate Harlan Coben’s argument in “The Undercover Parent” that parents are morally compelled to breach their children’s computer privacy for the sake of protecting their children.
Option Three: Addressing Alfred Edmond’s “Why Asking for a Job Applicant’s Facebook Password is Fair Game,” support, refute, or complicate the argument that prospective employees are morally obligated to give up their social media information to potential employers.
Option Four. In the context of Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation,” support, refute, or complicate that humans are morally compelled to eat a vegan diet.
Option Five. In the context of James Q. Wilson’s “Just Take Away Their Guns,” support, refute, or complicate the argument that anti-gun legislation is both ineffective and morally wrong.
Option Six. In the context of Charles Lawrence’s “On Racist Speech,” support, refute, or complicate the assertion that there are conditions that obligate us to censor speech so that there is no such thing as “free speech” as is commonly accepted.
Option Seven. In the context of the essays in Chapter 4, support, defend, or complicate the argument that in the New Economy college is an overrated and overpriced product that should cause many prospective college students to ponder more viable alternatives to building a strong career.
"Why Asking for a Job Applicant's Facebook Password Is Fair Game" by Alfred Edmund
“Should business owners be allowed to ask job applicants for their Facebook passwords?” Many people who watched me on MSNBC’s Your Business on Sunday were surprised to hear that my answer is “Yes,” including the show’s host, JJ Ramberg. (For those who missed it, the show reairs on Saturday, April 7, at 5:30 a.m.) This question became a hot news topic last week, especially in business and social media circles, when Congress failed to pass legislation that would have banned the practice of employers asking employees to reveal their Facebook passwords.
Now, if I was asked the same question as a guest on a show called Your Career, I would have been hard-pressed to think of a situation where I would share my Facebook password with a potential employer. For me to consider it, I would have to want the job pretty badly, with the amount and type of compensation (including benefits, perks and even an equity stake in the company) being major considerations. But before doing so, I would see if there were other ways I could address the potential employer’s concerns without revealing my password, such as changing my privacy settings to give them the ability to view all of my Facebook content. If they persist with their request for my password, I would try to negotiate terms to strictly limit both its use of the password and the length of time the potential employer would have access to it before I could change it. I might even consider getting an employment attorney to negotiate an agreement, include terms of confidentiality, to be signed by both me and the potential employer before sharing my password.
Of course, for the vast majority of positions, neither I nor a company looking to hire would deem it worth the time and expense to jump through all of these hoops. Most companies would not care to have password access to an applicant’s social media accounts. (For what it’s worth, Facebook’s terms of rights and responsibilities forbids users from sharing their passwords.) In probably 99 percent of such cases, if a potential employer made such a request, my answer would be, “No, I will not share my password. Are there alternatives you are willing to consider to satisfy your concerns?” I accept that I’d risk not being hired as a result. On the other hand, if that was all it took for me not to be hired, I’d question how badly they really wanted me in the first place, as well as whether that was the kind of place I would have been happy working for. But for certain companies and positions, especially if I wanted the job badly enough, I’d consider a request for my Facebook password at least up for negotiation.
That said, my response on Your Business was from the perspective of the business owner. And if I’m the owner of certain types of businesses, or trying to fill certain types of positions, I believe I should be able to ask job applicants for access to their Facebook accounts. The applicant may choose not to answer, but I should be able to ask. Depending on the position, knowing everything I possibly can about an applicant is critical to not only making the best hire, but to protecting the interests of my current employees, customers, partners and as well as the financial interests of the company.
On Your Business, I pointed to an example where I believe a request for a Facebook password as part of the hiring process is entirely reasonable: the childcare industry. If I am running a school or a day care center, the time to find out that a teacher or other worker has a record of inappropriate social media communication with minors, or worse, a history of or predilection for sexual relationships with students, is during the hiring process—as New York City is finding out the hard way, with an epidemic of public school employees being revealed to have had such relationships with students. To me, such a request falls into the same category of checking the backgrounds of potential employees as the common (also still debated) practice of asking job applicants to agree to a credit check, especially for jobs that will require them to handle money, keep the books or carry out other fiscal duties on behalf of a company. In these and other cases, safety and security issues, and the legal liability that they create for business owners if they are not adequately addressed during the hiring process, outweigh the job applicant’s expectation of privacy when it comes to their social media activities.
Speaking of which, I can still hear people screaming (actually tweeting and retweeting), that an employer asking for your Facebook password is a horrible invasion of privacy. Well, for those of you who still believe in Santa Claus, I strongly recommend that you read The Filter Bubble: What The Internet is Hiding From You by Eli Pariser (Penguin Press). Or you can just take my advice and let go of the illusion of privacy on social media. The courts are conflicted, at best, on whether we as social media users have a right to an expectation of privacy, with many cases being decided against such expectations. The last place you want to share anything that is truly private is on your Facebook page or any other social media platform. Better to think of social media as the ultimate “Front Street.” No matter what their privacy policies are (which they can change at will without your permission) and what privacy tools and settings they offer (which they also change whenever it suits their business models), always assume that posting on Facebook is just the ticking time-bomb version of you shouting your private business from the middle of Times Square—on steroids.
To paraphrase a quote shared in The Filter Bubble, if you’re getting something for free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product. Social media is designed for the information shared on it to be searched and shared—and mined for profit. The business model is the very antithesis of the expectation of privacy. To ignore that reality is to have blind faith in Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. operating in your best interests above all else, at all times. (I don’t.)
Whether you agree with me or not about a whether a potential employer asking you for your Facebook password is fair game, I hope you’ll take my advice: When considering what to share via social media, don’t think business vs. personal. Think public vs. private. And if something is truly private, do not share it on social media out of a misplaced faith in the expectation of privacy.
This debate is far from over, and efforts to update existing, but woefully outdated, privacy laws—not to mention the hiring practices of companies—to catch up with the realities of social media will definitely continue. I’d like to know where you stand, both as entrepreneurs and business owners, as well as potential job applicants. And I’d especially like to hear from human resources and recruiting experts. How far is too far when it comes to a potential employer investigating the social media activity of a job applicant?
Rebuttals
One. Valid slippery slope: If we give up our Facebook account to our employer, what's next? They get digital receipts of all our consumer purchases? Full medical records? Our psychological evaluations?
Two. Wanting something badly enough doesn't justify compromising ourselves to get it. We shouldn't base important decisions on our desperation.
Three. Rigorous background protocols existed before Facebook.
Four. That we have less privacy in Internet Age doesn't mean that we must therefore surrender even more privacy to our employers.
I call this the "Pie Fallacy." I cheated on my diet by eating two slices of pie, so I might as well eat ten slices. Or the crappy sandwich at LAX was $20, so I shouldn't mind spending $50.
Five. Giving up our privacy on Facebook can lead to discrimination. What if my prospective employer discriminates me based on my identity and lifestyle, things that may be explicitly expressed on Facebook but not in my professional life?
Six. Author says "Filter Bubble" is free. Does this mean we should accept its abuses? Secondly, it makes money off our data, so it's not "free." The author is wrong on two counts.
Sample Thesis Against
Alfred Edmund's claim that we should give up our Facebook accounts to prospective employers is larded with logical errors and is morally offensive.
Sample Thesis For
Alfred Edmund makes a convincing case for giving up our Facebook password to prospective employers. We've already lost privacy on the Internet. What's wrong with losing more? So what if I'm discriminated against. That's the price we pay when we're looking for those top-tier jobs. If giving up my Facebook account means losing even more freedoms down the road, then so be it because at the end of the day, I really need a good job, and beggars can't be choosey. While true, there were rigorous background checks before Facebook, giving up our social media accounts to prospective employers makes their job easier, and we want to show them that we're "team players." Finally, the Internet is free. We have to show our appreciation and pay it back somehow or other. Let's agree to give up on our privacy. What do we got to lose?
“On Racist Speech” by Charles L. Lawrence
Does free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment include racist hate? Such hatred is on the rise everywhere, including college campuses as we see in the NYT article.
In this essay, Lawrence refutes the free speech absolutists.
One. In the first paragraph, why does Lawrence want to keep the government out of regulating speech?
Lawrence points out that free speech absolutists claim it is better for the community to combat “bad speech.”
Free speech absolutists assuming society is better off if we don’t act lazy and are forced to address racist speech.
Better not to let government sweep ugly speech under the rug, free speech absolutists reason. We are a healthier society if we address racist speech for ourselves.
Possible Objections
The essay was written in 1989. Does Facebook, fake news, and Russian infiltration of hate speech and the Alt-Right present a threat that might change free speech absolutists’ views today?
A second objection is that the “community,” as Lawrence calls it, is not a monolith. The community of America is divided. Much of America we see savors and relishes in racist speech. Think of those white men in Charlottesville with the Tiki torches.
Were we better off as a society to have one woman killed as the “community” of counter-protesters showed up to address the white supremacists?
How much stupid do I have to look at in order to know something is stupid?
Do I have time to “confront” all the stupidity and racism that is disseminating throughout social media?
Does not a lot of this racist speech, unhindered by the government, incite violence?
Racist hate crime is up 21% over a one-year period, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Indeed, in the very next paragraph Lawrence concedes that he is concerned about the “resurgence of racial violence” as a result of racist “verbal assault.” So he pivots his essay to address the connection between racist speech and violence.
Two. How is the way free speech vs. in conflict with ending racism the wrong way to frame the debate?
Lawrence contends that the debate isn’t free speech vs. ending racism; rather, it’s free speech and its connection to a physical assault and racist hate crimes.
A bigot who endangers others shouldn’t be able to say, “Hey, man, you’re suppressing my right to free speech.” Don’t give the bigot the “moral high ground,” Lawrence observes.
The bigot whose hate speech is censored or censured is not a victim; rather, the victims of physical assault are.
Three. How does Lawrence use Brown v. Board of Education as a grounds for suppressing racist speech on campus?
This landmark legal case was based on granting constitutional rights to African Americans who, during times of school segregation, were treated like an “untouchable caste.”
Racist speech treats black people, once again, like the untouchable lower caste during times of segregation. This is the real issue, Lawrence contends, not a bigot’s entitlement to free racist speech.
Suppression of racist speech does not make school administrators “thought police,” as Lawrence observes. Rather, they are protecting black students’ constitutional rights.
Four. Why is racist speech not protected by the First Amendment?
Because, as Lawrence notes, racist speech is “fighting words,” which is an exception clause in the First Amendment.
Racist speech is not an expression of ideas; rather, it is a “physical blow,” and an “assault.”
Possible Objections
Imagine someone counter argues in the following manner: Even if we agree that while some hate speech is indeed the equivalent of a physical blow, what about people who curtail free speech by widening the definition of what constitutes language as a physical slope?
The law of slippery slope states that any speech one disagrees with can be labeled as a “physical blow.” The result? The end of free speech.
Possible Rebuttal to the Above
Reasonable societies should be able to draw a demarcation line between offensive language and violent-inciting language.
It’s not unreasonable to say we can protect offensive speech and speech that is totally void of ideas and is simply designed to denigrate others.
Five. In what spirit should we uphold the First Amendment?
It should be about preserving the free flow of ideas, a “vehicle of liberation.” It should not, though, be an instrument of racist hate and “domination” over others.
Six. In paragraph 15, how does Lawrence refute the notion that free speech should be an “unregulated marketplace of ideas” in which the best ideas “rise to the top”?
Because of the evidence, Lawrence observes, indicates otherwise. He notes that too many blacks have seen the worst speech rising to the top and that this hate speech has been used as a weapon against blacks.
I support Lawrence’s contention here. Once again, I refer you to Jason Brennan’s provocative book Against Democracy in which he divides Americans into three groups:
One. Hobbits, the “nice,” mindless shoppers.
Two. Hooligans, the trolls who have no qualms about resorting to misogyny and racism, and who specialize in spreading their message
Three. Vulcans, the dispassionate, fair-minded critical thinkers who are only about 3% of the population.
Too often, the Hooligans dominate the discussion. There’s not enough Vulcans to counter-attack, and the Hobbits are at Starbucks and Banana Republic.
Kool-Aid Drinker’s Response in Agreement with Charles Lawrence
I’m ashamed to say I drank any writer’s Kool-Aid, but in the case of Charles Lawrence’s essay “On Racist Speech,” I didn’t just drink the Kool-Aid; I made the Kool-Aid long before I ever read Lawrence’s convincing polemic. His contention that free speech absolutists are seriously misguided is convincing when we consider the history of hate speech against minorities is not about speech at all but physical assault, that hate speech is a violation of people’s constitutional and civil rights, that the so-called free marketplace of ideas does not work as it is claimed, and that it is a dangerous fiction to rely on some community to counteract racism in the absence of government intervention.
However, there is information, as of writing, that complicates the debate.
Information That Complicates the Debate
An essay that refutes some of Lawrence’s central points published after the white supremacist march in Charlottesville: “The Most Shortsighted Attack on Free Speech in Modern U.S. History” published in The Atlantic by Conor Friedersdorf.
Here is an excerpt:
If rules forbidding hate speech were passed into law and approved by the Supreme Court, they might well prohibit Nazis and Klansmen from marching to anti-Semitic chants, or waving flags with swastikas, or marching in a torchlit parade through the streets, causing some white supremacists to stay home and others to become more radicalized, as happens when groups are prohibited from seeking political remedies.
Meanwhile, Trump and Sessions, the two most powerful law-enforcement figures in the federal government, already draw equivalences between white supremacists and the counterprotesters who meet them on the streets; and they conflate Antifa, a movement that explicitly condones extralegal violence, with Black Lives Matter, a movement dominated by people who reject violence.
Yes, those equivalences are false. And that wouldn’t matter.
Under a legal regime where hate speech was not considered free speech, Trump and Sessions could likely punish words used by members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Do you think he’d police their speech more or less vigorously than white supremacists?
Under a legal regime that treated more kinds of speech as incitement, on the theory that Nazis and other white supremacists are pushing an inherently violent ideology, Trump would very likely use the same rules and precedents to target, say, imams at whatever mosques Sessions judges to be inciting Islamist violence; or Twitter activists who tell their followers that punching Nazis is woke. Those whom Trump has taken to calling the “alt-left” would be most at risk.
With Trump in the White House, that warning is even truer today. A weakened First Amendment in today’s climate would be marshaled against Trump’s opponents, even as it robbed them of their ability to fight back. It would be a gift to white supremacists, not a blow against them.
So now, as of writing, we have a President who makes a faulty moral equivalence between white supremacists and left or left-radical organizations. Whether you agree or disagree with the radical left, they are not the moral equivalent of white supremacists.
In this new political landscape where a President makes such a moral equivalency, opposition to racism can now be censored because the President is equating racist opposition with the racists. This new element challenges the sound argument made by Charles Lawrence thirty years ago.
New Thesis in Response to a President Who Is Willing to Censor Racist Opposition
While Charles Lawrence is a brilliant writer with a deep understanding of the law, his claim that we must compromise the First Amendment in the name of protecting minorities against violations of their civil rights, while convincing in the past, is now not so convincing in the new political landscape where people in the highest office of power are more than willing to shut down free speech through the totalitarian use of moral equivalence in which they conflate white supremacists with their very opposition. Such a political landscape forces us to take the lesser evil of allowing racist speech so that all speech won’t be censored.
Debate of Allowing Women in Combat
Arguments in Favor of Allowing Women in Combat
Argument One
Women need to be in all phases of the military, including combat, because combat creates more opportunities for advancement, promotion, and pay.
Opposition to Above
Comparing gender opportunities to civilian world to military world is a faulty comparison. Championing women’s rights in the military is an ideological trap that will weaken military.
Argument Two
US women have already been serving in combat and in large part have represented themselves rather well.
Opposition to Above
Over time, this mix of genders in combat will create worse and worse problems. Having to be naked together and having to go to the bathroom together will be demoralizing.
Over time, there will be the mutual sexual attraction, relationships will form, and these relationships will compromise battle-ready mentality and weaken the cohesion of the military unit.
Argument Three
Many women have been shown to have the physical capabilities to perform MOS (military occupational services).
Opposition to Above
While some women can perform the MOSs, they are outliers. Study after study shows that women are not the same in this regard.
Opponents to women fighting in combat claim that military standards will decline in order to accommodate more women.
One argument cites that Army drill instructors have to wear “empathy bellies” when they’re training pregnant women, and this absurdity shows how the military is already being compromised. The military, where life and death are on the line, is no place for worrying about “empathy bellies” and the like.
Moreover, studies show that in a crisis women are prone to motion sickness and vertigo, and these afflictions will impede their ability to perform.
Another study is cited that women cannot bear pain as much as men.
Argument Four
Studies show women have superior “group intelligence” and this kind of intelligence is an advantage in combat. There is no opposition to this argument.
Strident Thesis in Support of Women Entering Combat from an Ideological Point of View
Women must be allowed to enter combat to create opportunities for advancement, to show their equal physical attributes, and to contribute their superior group intelligence to the war arena.
Strident Thesis Against Women Entering Combat from an Ideological Point of View
The last thing our country needs is to feminize the combat arena by allowing women into combat, which will be a mortal disaster evidenced by their large-scale inability to perform MOSs, their sexual attraction to the men, their lower threshold for pain, and their many deleterious effects on union cohesion.
Nuanced Support of Women in Combat with Qualifiers
Too much of the debate about women in combat relies on studies to make generalized claims about women, either showing their superiority or inferiority, depending on the study. Let’s stop looking at women as generalizations and give individuals, man or woman, the opportunity to meet the tough standards that will make our military great.
“Military Women in Combat: Why Making It Official Matters” by Jena McGregor
It’s been a big couple of weeks for women in the military.
Last week, female soldiers began formally moving into jobs in previously all-male battalions, a program that will later go Army-wide. The move is a result of rule changes following a February report that opened some 14,000 new positions to women in critical jobs much closer to the front lines. However, some 250,000 combat jobs still remain officially closed to them.
The same week, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D, Calif.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, N.Y.) introduced legislation in both houses of Congress that would encourage the “repeal of the Ground Combat Exclusion policy” for women in the armed forces. Then this Wednesday, two female U.S. Army reservists filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the remaining restrictions on women in combat, saying they limit “their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits.” (A Pentagon spokesperson told Bloomberg News that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “is strongly committed to examining the expansion of roles for women in the U.S. military, as evidenced by the recent step of opening up thousands of more assignments to women.”)
One of the arguments behind both the lawsuit and the new legislation is that the remaining restrictions hurt women’s opportunities for advancement.
Advocates for women in the military say that even if women like Gen. Ann Dunwoody have reached four-star general status, she and women like her without official front-line combat experience apparently haven’t been considered for the military’s very highest posts. “If women remain restricted to combat service and combat service support specialties, we will not see a woman as Commandant of the Marine Corps, or CENTCOM commander, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” writes Greg Jacob, policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network. “Thus women in the military are being held back simply because they are women. Such an idea is not only completely at odds with military ethics, but is distinctly un-American.”
Women have been temporarily “attached” to battalions for the last decade; still, allowing women to formally serve in combat operations could help to break down the so-called brass ceiling.
Another way to break down the ceiling would be to consider talented women for top military leadership positions, whether or not they’ve officially held certain combat posts. Presidents have chosen less-senior officers for Joint Chiefs roles, which are technically staff jobs, wrote Laura Conley and Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in the Armed Forces Journal last year. They argue that putting a woman on the Joint Chiefs would help the military grapple with rising sexual harassment issues, bring nontraditional expertise (which women have developed because of some of their role exclusions) at a time when that’s increasingly critical, and send the signal that the military is not only open to women, but puts no barriers in their way.
Yes, putting women in combat roles beyond those that have been recently formalized would require many adjustments, both logistical and psychological, for the military and for its male troops. There are plenty of women who may not be interested in these jobs, or who do not meet the physical demands required of them. And gradual change may be prudent. The recent openings are a start; Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno’s acknowledgement last week that if women are allowed into infantry, they will at some point probably go through Ranger School, is encouraging.
But at a time when experience like the infantry is reportedly crucial for getting top posts, it’s easy to see how official and sizeable policy changes are needed in order to create a system that lets talented women advance to the military’s highest echelons. In any field where there are real or perceived limitations for women’s advancement, it’s that much harder to attract the best and brightest. Indeed, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended last March that the services end combat exclusion policies for women, along with other “barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all qualified service members.” As the commission chairman, Retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, told the American Forces Press Service at the time, “we know that [the exclusion] hinders women from promotion.”
For the military to achieve the diverse workforce it seeks, interested and capable women should either not face exclusions, or the culture of the armed forces needs to change so that women without that particular experience can still reach the very top. Both changes may be difficult, but the latter is extraordinarily so. Ending the restrictions is the shortest route to giving the military the best pool of talent possible and the most diverse viewpoints for leading it.
“Women Have Been in Combat All Along” by Katie J.M. Baker, published in Jezebel, a liberal, feminist online magazine.
In a groundbreaking move, the Pentagon lifted the ban on women in combat this week. But it's somewhat misleading to report that the military will now allow women to serve in combat, because guess what: women are already serving in combat, just without receiving the requisite benefits and honor that are supposed to follow. Acknowledging as much is facing reality.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is expected to announce today that more than 230,000 on-the-ground posts are now open to women. But that doesn't mean women will automatically be able to sign up for any job they please; military leaders have until 2016 to decide whether some positions will still be closed to women. Some jobs will open this year, but more elite and dangerous commando positions will take longer to sort out.
The transition won't be seamless, and much is still up in the air. What will happen to the draft? Will enough women be able to pass the infamously tough Infantry Officer Course? (BTW, most men can't pass it, either.) But large-scale initiatives of this scope are never simple. That's why it's inspiring that few members of Congress opposed the decision. "It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin told the AP.
Unfortunately, not everyone is ready for that reality. Jerry Boykin, retired Army lieutenant general and executive vice president of the Family Research Council, called the move "another social experiment" that military commanders won't be able to handle. "While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations," he said.
It was also "distracting" when women first enlisted in the Army, right? (Also "distracting" at first: minorities and openly gay people.) But women now make up about 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. More than 280,000 women have helped fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the more than 6,600 U.S. service members who have been killed, 152 have been women. So forgive us for being a bit irked at former Marine infantryman Ryan Smith's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today in which he literally argues that women shouldn't fight on the front lines because men might have to poop in front of them.
"Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units," he writes. "Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war."
Aw, man. I always envisioned war as a particularly exciting tea party. Does that mean American Girl dolls aren't allowed on base?
Smith describes some of the conditions he experienced as a Marine: wearing chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack, urinating in empty water bottles, defecating "inches from his seated comrade's face" and stripping down to his naked, sore-covered body. Thank heavens no ladies were around to witness that.
Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.
Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.
"The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield," he writes. But Smith: women are already on the battlefield! As we've covered before, the realities of Afghanistan and Iraq forced women to unofficially join the front lines as medics, military police, and intelligence officers. But since women were technically banned from combat, they weren't able to move up the ranks to
higher-paid, elite positions. That constitutes discrimination — and also helped foster an environment in which massive sexual assault scandals were par for the course. Now, thanks to Panetta, they'll have those opportunities.
Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), who lost both legs flying helicopters in Iraq, quipped yesterday that she "didn't lose my legs in a bar fight." Her point? "The reality on the ground in a 360 battlefield is that women have been serving in combat." Changing the way the system works won't be easy. But moving backwards isn't an acceptable alternative.
Looking at conservative opposition, we turn to The National Review, and we examine the arguments set forth by Mike Fredenburg in his essay, “Putting Women in Combat Is an Even Worse Idea Than You Think.”
Excerpts
The first and most commonly used argument goes something like this: “Not sure if it’s a good idea, but if women can meet the same standards as men, then I guess it would only be fair to allow them into combat.” But the last 40 years of aggressive integration efforts by the U.S. military have shown that women cannot meet the same rigorous standards as men — and the answer has been to implement different standards for women, while lowering the standards for men, too. A 2011 study on physical requirements necessary for specific occupations in the military conducted by Dr. William Gregor for the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies concludes:
The Services, especially the Army, have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness. . . . The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s. The Army assigns women to these specialties anyway. What loads do women have trouble bearing? “Women soldiers are challenged by some field combat duties — carrying five-gallon cans of fuel and water, changing armor vehicle track and heavy truck tires, carrying 100-plus-pound loads of ammunition and fighting gear on extended dismounted operations, carrying stretchers of wounded soldiers, and the brute labor required to dig in fighting positions,” retired general Barry McCaffrey explains. (Another detailed, generously footnoted 2007 study published in the Duke Law Journal, “Constructing the COED Military,” by Elaine Donnelly, gives an overview of our military’s misguided gender-integration efforts and details how double standards, quotas, and preferential treatment are damaging our military.)
For proof that integrating women into combat will mean lower standards for men and women, just ask the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said in 2013, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary: Why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Given the current political environment and the lack of moral courage from our political and military leaders, there’s no doubt these standards will be reevaluated and less-rigorous ones adopted. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the military’s physical and psychological toughness standards for men have also declined. The military as whole — even in basic training — has become kinder and gentler, partly in order to accommodate women. In one of the more ridiculous examples of this, Army drill instructors were required to wear “empathy bellies” and fake breasts to better empathize with pregnant women. Today’s drill instructors are nicer than they used to be, but the speed at which we are discarding time-proven methods for training soldiers is breathtaking and reckless.
Another common argument is that women are already dying in combat zones, so it’s only fair to formalize what they are doing. But this debate is not about the supreme sacrifice that 144 servicewomen have made in combat zones since 9/11, but how effective women can be in doing a different job — projecting combat power, killing the enemy, and surviving to fight another day. The women who have died in service to their country need to be honored, but they should not be honored by increasing the chances that other servicemen and women will die as well. As former Marine Jude Eden writes in the April 2015 edition of Military Review, “Being in the combat zone, dangerous as it is, is still worlds away from the door-kicking offensive missions of our combat units.” Being killed in a crash or by an IED is not the same as surviving physically demanding combat patrols carrying combat loads of 60 to 140 pounds, which challenge even men’s superior endurance and strength. A willingness to die for one’s country is a noble and a necessary condition for effective combat soldiers, but it is far from sufficient. The third argument: In other cultures and times, women have performed as well in combat as men. In particular, modern-day Israel is often cited as an example of women successfully fulfilling combat roles. But Israel’s military position is almost nothing like that of the United States: It’s surrounded by hostile nations that collectively outnumber its population by over 20 to 1. Even so, for many of the reasons discussed, women no longer participate in front-line IDF combat units. While it is true that countries such as Israel and Russia in the past, and the Kurdish military today, have been forced by dire circumstances to rely on women to literally defend their own persons, their children, and their house against savage invaders, thankfully we are in no such position. So why do men and women perform so differently in combat-related tasks? First, physiologically and psychologically, women and men are significantly different. Men are not simply bigger women with different plumbing. Men’s blood carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does a women’s; and men’s VO2 max, a measure of the top rate of oxygen consumption, is 40 to 60 percent greater than that of women. An average fit man will weigh about 23 percent more, have 50 percent more muscle mass, and carry 10 percent less body fat than an average fit woman. Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser. Despite being much heavier, men’s vertical leap is nearly 50 percent greater than that of women. In terms of reflexes and reaction times, men significantly outperform women. When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are “more likely than women to take action.” Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently. For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men. Despite the gender-specific ability to handle the pain of childbirth, “study after study” conclusively shows that men have a much higher overall tolerance for pain than women. Individually, any one of above differences could make the difference between life and death. In the combat environment, the differences between men and women in speed, strength, endurance, agility, physical resiliency, and psychological resiliency represents an unbridgeable gap — and the impact on the battlefield is dramatic.
But in The Washington Post, we see a defense of women in combat. Read “Women in Combat Roles Would Strengthen the Military” by William Denn.
Excerpts
Opponents of women in combat rightly argue that the military’s physical standards must not be compromised to expand women’s access. The stakes could not be higher: our military’s fighting effectiveness. If the Army expects an infantry soldier to walk 20 miles while hauling 50 pounds of equipment, this standard should apply regardless of gender.
Fortunately, the Army and Marine Corps have begun establishing job-specific standards that would apply to men and women — and women like Cadet Kenyon are showing they can meet the bar.
As part of a pilot program last fall, four Marines became the first female graduates of the Corps’ enlisted infantry training course. All four passed what is considered the most strenuous aspect of the Marines’ infantry training: a 12-mile march carrying 80 pounds of gear.
The initial transition is likely to be difficult as our all-male combat units adapt to integration. But my experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have convinced me that what the military would gain by including women in combat far outweighs any short-term compromises. Our country’s most recent conflicts have demonstrated that the military needs women on the battlefield. We need their creativity, insight and empathy, qualities often lacking in male-dominated units.
Recent studies from Harvard Business School and MIT show that “group intelligence” of an organization rises when women are on teams. Women bring a unique level of “social sensitivity,” the ability to read the emotions of other people. On today’s complex battlefields, social sensitivity is a crucial skill for military professionals.
During my patrols in Iraq from 2007 to 2009, I came to appreciate how much women could have contributed to my mission. Most Iraqi men were reticent to speak with us for fear of retribution from al-Qaeda. Iraqi women, often fed up with the violence in their neighborhoods, could be persuaded to provide information, but first we had to bridge the gender gap, build rapport and earn their trust, all of which took valuable time.
Having women in our platoon would have dramatically increased our ability to elicit critical intelligence. This could mean the difference between a mission’s success or failure, with lives in the balance. Since 2011, U.S. Special Operations forces in Afghanistan have embedded all-female cultural support teams in their units. The program has been lauded by commanders for gaining access to the 50 percent of the Afghan population who have previously been inaccessible. Commanders are looking to deploy these teams to support operations in Africa. Army operations will probably require the same skill sets needed in Iraq and Afghanistan that women are adept at providing.
But David Frum writes convincing opposition in his Daily Beast essay, “The Truth About Women in Combat.”
Comments