When Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the end to the ban on women in combat roles on Jan. 24, I was stunned.
I watched and re-watched his Pentagon press conference, making sure that I had heard every word correctly.
Even though a series of modifications to the existing rule had opened 14,000 previously off-limits jobs in early 2012, I was not expecting a complete reversal of the 19-year-old policy to happen so soon.
Even though most major polls show that the American public is in favor of lifting the 1994 direct ground combat definition and assignment rule that has kept women from the front lines (Gallup, the Washington Post), that is not enough to keep many people from speaking out against the Department of Defense decision.
They provide a wide array of excuses: Women have no place in combat positions, women are too compassionate, their mere presence on the front lines will disrupt the cohesiveness of units or the effectiveness of the mission.
Some even go so far as to cite female hygiene (read: menstruation) as a disqualifying factor.
There are, of course, the more practical concerns regarding physical fitness that people often cite to bar women from combat roles.
One of my good friends, an Army 2nd lieutenant on active duty and alumnus of Ole Miss, raised a similar question in a discussion of ours several months ago.
While he agreed that women play an important and effective supporting role, he didn’t think that a woman would be able to handle the physical demands of combat positions at all.
Cable networks, social media sites and syndicated op-eds have all carried the voices of Americans who oppose lifting the ban. But in all the negative opinion pieces I have read that claim the standards of our combat forces will be lowered, the authors have failed to recognize the fact that Panetta specifically stated that qualifications for these positions will remain the same.
“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job — and, let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job,” he stressed, “if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation.”
General Dempsey took to the podium after the secretary and reaffirmed his statement: “We’ll integrate women in a way that enhances opportunity for everyone.
This means setting clear standards of performance for all occupations based on what it actually takes to do the job.”
Not every man has what it takes to be on the front lines, but every man has the opportunity to try.
Before Jan. 24, women didn’t even have the chance, but now they do. Not every woman will make the cut, but now the reason will be, “You don’t meet the qualifications,” and not, “Sorry, you’re a girl.”
As for the argument that women will ruin “cohesiveness,” people said the same thing about the workplace when women broke out of traditional gender roles and began competing for the same jobs as men.
They argued against permitting women into the military service academies in the 1970s because they would be a “distraction” for male students.
But if companies in the private sector adapted to an increasingly gender-equal workforce and the academies continue to produce quality young officers regardless of a cadet’s gender, there is no reason why combat units cannot adapt as well.
Opening combat roles will not lower military standards but reaffirms the fact that equal opportunity is a cornerstone tenet of the United States. The armed forces are no exception.
Lexi Thoman is senior international studies and Spanish double-major from St. Louis, Mo.
