I recall that well. Colonel Ripley and VMI Board of Visitors President, Joe Spivey are friends (were friends in John Ripley's case, RIP) and they kept me informed almost daily about what was happening in the trial. What Northam and VMI did to General Jackson is just inexcusable. You have hit my hot button (one of several).
Yet another (key) step closer in the march to Socialism. This has the fingerprints of Austin the Idiot doing the bidding of his Puppet Masters. I am not a Gray Hog according to the standards in place today, but this action has angered me greatly.
The final sentence of the next to last paragraph of MacArthur's speech mentions drums. They do not beat a "role", but instead, beat a "roll". More importantly, he did not speak of an imaginary "musket tree", but to the real and ominous rattle of distant musketry.
Typos dilute what is one of the most beautiful speeches ever made.
Oran, thank you for this. No matter how many times I proofread something I invariably miss something after the 10th reading. I had caught “musket tree” but still missed “drum role” so I appreciate your corrections. And you are absolutely correct that such errors detract from one of the best speeches ever made. Pure poetry.
As if my comment seamlessly flowed straight from my brain to the tips of my fingers.... LOL. If you check, you'll see "Edit", "Edit", and maybe "Edit" again.
In 2003 the Air Force Academy, from where I graduated in 1975, removed the "Bring Me Men" sign in two foot-high brushed aluminum letters that stood above the main ramp leading to the cadet area. It was based on a poem by Sam Walter Foss "Bring me men to match my mountains, Bring me men to match my plains..." as an inspiration to the cadets. With the Rocky Mountains which form the backdrop of the Academy it was very fitting. Many critics had suggested the removal beginning in 1999, as it was not considered inclusive of women. The Academy resisted for historical reasons, but a sexual abuse case in 2003 provided the pretext needed. Now on the wall above the Warrior Ramp are the Academy's "Core Values:" "Integrity First. Service Before Self. Excellence in All We Do" Upon learning this I wrote to the Academy Superintendent and told him straight away that this new motto sounded like something out of a 1990s Total Quality Management (TQM) corporate training seminar. He was good enough to write back, but I knew then this type of rewriting of history, the country's cultural "evolution, and the weakening of the service academies’ ethos and traditions, were not going away, and as recent events have shown, it will only get worse.
There no way anyone can defend the indefensible, replacing duty, honor and country which symbolizes why serving in the U.S. Military was a honorable calling and those that gave their lives in defending their country was the ultimate sacrifice of why defending freedom comes with a cost. Just another ruse in destroying the greatest military in world history. I am surprised they didn’t replace the motto with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which is destroying the Military from within. For all who served and died I am sure they’re rolling over in their graves in disgust.
VMI class of 1970…ya’ll have been putting up with this woke shit longer than we have - we didn’t have to take women til 1997 after RBG’s wrecking ball…but they’ve gone for all of our traditions, on steroids since Ralph Northam was gov and they put in the DEI superintendent….not sure how much longer this can all go on….
I personally am appalled at this change to the Mission Statement.. But while you bitch, moan and complain about women in the military..Explain to Lieutenant colonel Amy McGrath, retired, who during her 20 years of service in the Marine Corps, flew 89 combat missions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Tell her how fucked up it is to have women serve their country in combat..
All of this commentary does nothing but
disparage a fellow American’s service to their country..
BS…I have known and worked with a number of outstanding female combat officers (mostly pilots) - and enlisted members - and honor their service as I do every member’s…That doesn’t mean I think the admission of women has been good for the academies or the formerly all male senior military colleges. VMI has probably done the best job of keeping its standards and integrating women into the Corps, but it has changed the Institute. It was, in my view, the beginning of slippery slope. Note that I specified the all out assault on our traditions was not the admission of women but Northam’s regime and the firing of Binney Peay for the DEI supe.
I’ve read your remarks, and have read about the Northam situation..Allow me to get a better grasp of this issue, particularly the differences you point out between military academia and actual military service..before I comment further..Thank you for sharing your thoughts..
Here is where I am at the moment, until I do a deeper dive into this..and garner a greater understanding..I am having trouble reconciling, what appears to me to be the objection with diversity including women in the military prep schools & academies and the acceptance and embrace of it in actual military service.
Here are the questions I ask myself..”Why can’t a diverse body of students / cadets all share the same ethos of Duty, Honor, Country as a collective whole? Why is that not okay?
First where I am coming from in making my comments: A Navy family from both WWI and WWII. My Mom's Dad came from Russia as a kid in the early 1900's speaking nothing but Russian, but by 1917 he was a full fledged US Citizen in the Navy fighting in that FIRST WW. THEN my Dad --Lt. Commander in the Navy & for 27 years, he worked with the submarine program specifically in WWII because of his specialties of computer use for military tactics, strategy, logistics, etc., a Naval Aide to President Truman, later: a registered GOP and finance chair for both President Bushes, and he also accompanied members of Congress to Israel as a military aide in the early 1970's.
I was registered GOP, too, for about 20 years, a lawyer for almost 50 years, a member for many years of the RJC or "Republican Jewish Coalition", and I almost joined the JAG* but did not for a variety of reasons, and am urging one of my daughters to join one of the services.
*I did serve for many years as a government lawyer, however, as an Assistant County Attorney for Miami Dade County and took an Oath there to Constitution and Country, State and County. (And by the way as part of my job was to protect the taxpayers from workers' compensation insurance fraud.)
ALWAYS, I believed and believe in "DUTY, HONOR, and COUNTRY even though not a Navy motto. I still believe in Duty, Honor, Country and wish it had not been changed for you all as a motto.
I appreciate your historical research and believe you are honestly aggrieved. But you lost me -- as do some of your commenters -- when you / they rail against "Wokeness" and "DEI" and Austin. While I personally am never comfortable with trendy words and will not use them, I heartedly believe in beating back any thinking and actions that come across in any way as wanting to exclude any patriots willing to lay down their lives or lose body parts to defend our Constitution and Country no matter what their race, gender, national origin and so forth.
I do hope you take my comments as my attempting to be part of the "marketplace of ideas" and I hope that any and all keep objecting to the change of motto and that you all know it's possible because it's been changed before and can be changed again.
And P.S., when I started as a lawyer I was part of the then 3% of lawyers that were women. Now, we're the majority of law students in some parts of the Country. We all too believe in "Duty, Honor, Country" and in equality of opportunity and the right to prove to our Country that we love it.
At a conceptual level, there is absolutely no reason that a diverse group of cadets (which might include some women who actually want the same rigorous military experience the academies and senior military colleges provided 50 years ago) could not accept and embrace “Duty, Honor, Country” and a traditional Honor Code (single sanction, non-toleration clause).
But, that assumes that admitting women, and a more ‘diverse’ student body, does not change anything essential. The fact is that the admission of women into the federal academies resulted in lowered physical fitness standards and significant changes to the schools’ plebe/rat/knob systems. It also introduced intra-corps dating/sex as a real issue.
VMI made a concerted effort to avoid the problems the federal academies had when women were admitted - physical fitness standards were not changed (only in very recent years), upper class female cadets from co-ed institutions were brought in as exchange student mentors, there was a concerted effort to maintain the “brother rat” spirit among classmates without regard to sex, and VMI retained its strict, single-sanction Honor Code. VMI carefully screened for young women who really wanted the ‘full experience’ - a number had VMI connections, and a real effort was made to make sure the prospective cadets knew what they were getting into.
The VMI Rat system - and its analogies - is not for everyone, male or female. It’s probably fair to say more young men will prosper in such a system than young women. As a general matter, VMI did what has been widely regarded as good job, but there have been problems involving male/female relations, as I suspect there always will be in these kinds of environments even with all the good will in the world and best efforts to minimize them.
To my mind, if you admit only women (and men) who want the full traditional military college experience, it can work, but my question is whether there are enough women who really want the full experience to make it worth the changes it will inevitably make. I think the jury is still out here. My mind is still open.
Where I have a real problem is with all of the assaults on the traditions of the military schools, their way of doing things, etc. DEI is divisive and only makes race and male/female relations worse. To me, DEI has absolutely no place in a military school or a military whose purpose is to win wars. We want to encourage unit cohesion and solidarity, not division.
This is truly shocking, but nothing should surprise us any more. Removing all honor and integrity from our Armed Forces, especially it's leaders, seems to be what the left wants. What we the people want is exactly the opposite. We want a return to integrity and honor in our government and are Armed Forces.
USMA BoV meeting minutes from the 28 Mar 23 BoV meeting reflect that “LTG Gilland added that USMA was considering simplifying the mission statement, so people better understand what the Academy does and reviewing the Honor Code to make it more aspirational”. (See para 8 Superintendent’s update on page 3.
On 10/3/23 i wrote LTG requesting to know details. Letter is still unanswered. Further have requested of the USMA BoV that they request clarification from USMA and LTG on what is being undertaken to make the Honor Code aspirational.
Request to BoV was sent to every Congressional member directly and through the official pOC for the BoV. BoV btw has five (5) USMA graduates on it ( three congressmen; two Presidential appointees). Not one graduate on the BoV raised any question on his statement. None have answered my requests,
nor has the BoV as a body requested any details from USMA / LTG Gilland. I have thus requested their collective resignations (letters are public record in BoV minutes).
An aspirational Honor Code is likely the next announcement. There will be no consideration to the concerns of Graduates. Do not be surprised!
An “aspirational” honor code is not an Honor Code. The only real Honor Code is “a cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do”. The non-toleration clause is key, as is the ‘single sanction’ of dishonorable dismissal.
USCGA '84. I stopped renewing my alumni membership over woke policies. CGA refuses to release a rejection list of applicants. Suspect many overqualified white straight males are denied admission to meet social quotas. Many socially favorable tribes have special support groups and have vast resources spent on recruitment and retention. SWM has no such advantages.
I recall that well. Colonel Ripley and VMI Board of Visitors President, Joe Spivey are friends (were friends in John Ripley's case, RIP) and they kept me informed almost daily about what was happening in the trial. What Northam and VMI did to General Jackson is just inexcusable. You have hit my hot button (one of several).
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
Let's be frank, I don't think the current administration wants people who are honorable or care about their country.
I am an AFA grad, class of 79, LCWB. The woke shit at the Academies is out of control. I have stopped donating to the AOG.
Yet another (key) step closer in the march to Socialism. This has the fingerprints of Austin the Idiot doing the bidding of his Puppet Masters. I am not a Gray Hog according to the standards in place today, but this action has angered me greatly.
Duty-Honor-Country: Well defined, succinct, timeless.
Army values: Amorphous, indefinite, depends on the whims of the social elite.
Unless the politicization of our armed forces is stopped, and soon, we'll be singing "The East is Red" as our national anthem in short order.
And what happened to “country”? BTW, those seven Army “values” read like a USG employee’s job description metric.
The final sentence of the next to last paragraph of MacArthur's speech mentions drums. They do not beat a "role", but instead, beat a "roll". More importantly, he did not speak of an imaginary "musket tree", but to the real and ominous rattle of distant musketry.
Typos dilute what is one of the most beautiful speeches ever made.
Oran, thank you for this. No matter how many times I proofread something I invariably miss something after the 10th reading. I had caught “musket tree” but still missed “drum role” so I appreciate your corrections. And you are absolutely correct that such errors detract from one of the best speeches ever made. Pure poetry.
Thanks again.
As if my comment seamlessly flowed straight from my brain to the tips of my fingers.... LOL. If you check, you'll see "Edit", "Edit", and maybe "Edit" again.
Edit: Thank you for the article. It was great.
In 2003 the Air Force Academy, from where I graduated in 1975, removed the "Bring Me Men" sign in two foot-high brushed aluminum letters that stood above the main ramp leading to the cadet area. It was based on a poem by Sam Walter Foss "Bring me men to match my mountains, Bring me men to match my plains..." as an inspiration to the cadets. With the Rocky Mountains which form the backdrop of the Academy it was very fitting. Many critics had suggested the removal beginning in 1999, as it was not considered inclusive of women. The Academy resisted for historical reasons, but a sexual abuse case in 2003 provided the pretext needed. Now on the wall above the Warrior Ramp are the Academy's "Core Values:" "Integrity First. Service Before Self. Excellence in All We Do" Upon learning this I wrote to the Academy Superintendent and told him straight away that this new motto sounded like something out of a 1990s Total Quality Management (TQM) corporate training seminar. He was good enough to write back, but I knew then this type of rewriting of history, the country's cultural "evolution, and the weakening of the service academies’ ethos and traditions, were not going away, and as recent events have shown, it will only get worse.
Paul, unfortunately the DEI infection has spread to all of the Service Academies.
There no way anyone can defend the indefensible, replacing duty, honor and country which symbolizes why serving in the U.S. Military was a honorable calling and those that gave their lives in defending their country was the ultimate sacrifice of why defending freedom comes with a cost. Just another ruse in destroying the greatest military in world history. I am surprised they didn’t replace the motto with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which is destroying the Military from within. For all who served and died I am sure they’re rolling over in their graves in disgust.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, John.
VMI class of 1970…ya’ll have been putting up with this woke shit longer than we have - we didn’t have to take women til 1997 after RBG’s wrecking ball…but they’ve gone for all of our traditions, on steroids since Ralph Northam was gov and they put in the DEI superintendent….not sure how much longer this can all go on….
I personally am appalled at this change to the Mission Statement.. But while you bitch, moan and complain about women in the military..Explain to Lieutenant colonel Amy McGrath, retired, who during her 20 years of service in the Marine Corps, flew 89 combat missions against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Tell her how fucked up it is to have women serve their country in combat..
All of this commentary does nothing but
disparage a fellow American’s service to their country..
BS…I have known and worked with a number of outstanding female combat officers (mostly pilots) - and enlisted members - and honor their service as I do every member’s…That doesn’t mean I think the admission of women has been good for the academies or the formerly all male senior military colleges. VMI has probably done the best job of keeping its standards and integrating women into the Corps, but it has changed the Institute. It was, in my view, the beginning of slippery slope. Note that I specified the all out assault on our traditions was not the admission of women but Northam’s regime and the firing of Binney Peay for the DEI supe.
I’ve read your remarks, and have read about the Northam situation..Allow me to get a better grasp of this issue, particularly the differences you point out between military academia and actual military service..before I comment further..Thank you for sharing your thoughts..
This is the kind of comment that I like to see -- willing to consider other views even when they are at odds with your initial comment. Classy, Sam.
And, in the for-what-its-worth category, I think that @catorenasci's comment was on-point.
Here is where I am at the moment, until I do a deeper dive into this..and garner a greater understanding..I am having trouble reconciling, what appears to me to be the objection with diversity including women in the military prep schools & academies and the acceptance and embrace of it in actual military service.
Here are the questions I ask myself..”Why can’t a diverse body of students / cadets all share the same ethos of Duty, Honor, Country as a collective whole? Why is that not okay?
First where I am coming from in making my comments: A Navy family from both WWI and WWII. My Mom's Dad came from Russia as a kid in the early 1900's speaking nothing but Russian, but by 1917 he was a full fledged US Citizen in the Navy fighting in that FIRST WW. THEN my Dad --Lt. Commander in the Navy & for 27 years, he worked with the submarine program specifically in WWII because of his specialties of computer use for military tactics, strategy, logistics, etc., a Naval Aide to President Truman, later: a registered GOP and finance chair for both President Bushes, and he also accompanied members of Congress to Israel as a military aide in the early 1970's.
I was registered GOP, too, for about 20 years, a lawyer for almost 50 years, a member for many years of the RJC or "Republican Jewish Coalition", and I almost joined the JAG* but did not for a variety of reasons, and am urging one of my daughters to join one of the services.
*I did serve for many years as a government lawyer, however, as an Assistant County Attorney for Miami Dade County and took an Oath there to Constitution and Country, State and County. (And by the way as part of my job was to protect the taxpayers from workers' compensation insurance fraud.)
ALWAYS, I believed and believe in "DUTY, HONOR, and COUNTRY even though not a Navy motto. I still believe in Duty, Honor, Country and wish it had not been changed for you all as a motto.
I appreciate your historical research and believe you are honestly aggrieved. But you lost me -- as do some of your commenters -- when you / they rail against "Wokeness" and "DEI" and Austin. While I personally am never comfortable with trendy words and will not use them, I heartedly believe in beating back any thinking and actions that come across in any way as wanting to exclude any patriots willing to lay down their lives or lose body parts to defend our Constitution and Country no matter what their race, gender, national origin and so forth.
I do hope you take my comments as my attempting to be part of the "marketplace of ideas" and I hope that any and all keep objecting to the change of motto and that you all know it's possible because it's been changed before and can be changed again.
And P.S., when I started as a lawyer I was part of the then 3% of lawyers that were women. Now, we're the majority of law students in some parts of the Country. We all too believe in "Duty, Honor, Country" and in equality of opportunity and the right to prove to our Country that we love it.
At a conceptual level, there is absolutely no reason that a diverse group of cadets (which might include some women who actually want the same rigorous military experience the academies and senior military colleges provided 50 years ago) could not accept and embrace “Duty, Honor, Country” and a traditional Honor Code (single sanction, non-toleration clause).
But, that assumes that admitting women, and a more ‘diverse’ student body, does not change anything essential. The fact is that the admission of women into the federal academies resulted in lowered physical fitness standards and significant changes to the schools’ plebe/rat/knob systems. It also introduced intra-corps dating/sex as a real issue.
VMI made a concerted effort to avoid the problems the federal academies had when women were admitted - physical fitness standards were not changed (only in very recent years), upper class female cadets from co-ed institutions were brought in as exchange student mentors, there was a concerted effort to maintain the “brother rat” spirit among classmates without regard to sex, and VMI retained its strict, single-sanction Honor Code. VMI carefully screened for young women who really wanted the ‘full experience’ - a number had VMI connections, and a real effort was made to make sure the prospective cadets knew what they were getting into.
The VMI Rat system - and its analogies - is not for everyone, male or female. It’s probably fair to say more young men will prosper in such a system than young women. As a general matter, VMI did what has been widely regarded as good job, but there have been problems involving male/female relations, as I suspect there always will be in these kinds of environments even with all the good will in the world and best efforts to minimize them.
To my mind, if you admit only women (and men) who want the full traditional military college experience, it can work, but my question is whether there are enough women who really want the full experience to make it worth the changes it will inevitably make. I think the jury is still out here. My mind is still open.
Where I have a real problem is with all of the assaults on the traditions of the military schools, their way of doing things, etc. DEI is divisive and only makes race and male/female relations worse. To me, DEI has absolutely no place in a military school or a military whose purpose is to win wars. We want to encourage unit cohesion and solidarity, not division.
Thank you John..
I only had to read the title, today's brass find those three words antithetical.
The only acceptable commitments today are to degeneracy in all its forms.
This is truly shocking, but nothing should surprise us any more. Removing all honor and integrity from our Armed Forces, especially it's leaders, seems to be what the left wants. What we the people want is exactly the opposite. We want a return to integrity and honor in our government and are Armed Forces.
Some background:
USMA BoV meeting minutes from the 28 Mar 23 BoV meeting reflect that “LTG Gilland added that USMA was considering simplifying the mission statement, so people better understand what the Academy does and reviewing the Honor Code to make it more aspirational”. (See para 8 Superintendent’s update on page 3.
On 10/3/23 i wrote LTG requesting to know details. Letter is still unanswered. Further have requested of the USMA BoV that they request clarification from USMA and LTG on what is being undertaken to make the Honor Code aspirational.
Request to BoV was sent to every Congressional member directly and through the official pOC for the BoV. BoV btw has five (5) USMA graduates on it ( three congressmen; two Presidential appointees). Not one graduate on the BoV raised any question on his statement. None have answered my requests,
nor has the BoV as a body requested any details from USMA / LTG Gilland. I have thus requested their collective resignations (letters are public record in BoV minutes).
An aspirational Honor Code is likely the next announcement. There will be no consideration to the concerns of Graduates. Do not be surprised!
Wally Heinz
USMA 1971
An “aspirational” honor code is not an Honor Code. The only real Honor Code is “a cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do”. The non-toleration clause is key, as is the ‘single sanction’ of dishonorable dismissal.
USCGA '84. I stopped renewing my alumni membership over woke policies. CGA refuses to release a rejection list of applicants. Suspect many overqualified white straight males are denied admission to meet social quotas. Many socially favorable tribes have special support groups and have vast resources spent on recruitment and retention. SWM has no such advantages.
How about this:
“Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night:Diversity, Equity, Inclusion”.
No, doesn’t quite do the trick. Really sad.
It’s time for at least 50% cut in the military budget. No point in giving these people almost a trillion dollars a year to waste.