Leon Panetta’s Half-Baked Scheme Almost Ended Historically Black Colleges and Universities For Integration, Now Women in Combat, Very Crazy!

Leon Panetta’s Half-Baked Scheme Almost Ended Historically Black Colleges and Universities For Integration,

Now Women in Combat, Very Crazy!

Blog by Charles Butler                                                             Date: January 28, 2013

 

 

Leon Panetta is well intended, but again off base with his vision and supposition, thank God Dick Nixon overrode his effort to eliminate black colleges to make integration successful. If it had happened, we would have tens of thousands fewer black college graduates in the nation today.

 

“In 1970 Leon Panetta, HEW’s ardent integrationist, requested plans to end the “racial identifiability” of black colleges in favor of a “unitary system of education.” Luckily, for black colleges and universities, and more importantly black American students Pres. Nixon had the foresight and intelligence to understand that ending black colleges “for the sake of integration would disrupt a whole generation of graduates from black colleges.”
In addition, what goes unmentioned is the destruction of decades of traditions of schools, families, and organizations.

 

If Pres. Nixon had listened to Leon Panetta suggestion of eliminating black colleges and universities the impact today would be that thousands of black American college undergraduates and graduate students would never have had the opportunity to attend college. The facts are HBCUs graduate more black American students each year than all other colleges and universities combined. Both Kennedy and Nixon realized the importance of black colleges. Nixon used Title III funds to assist separate black colleges, while Presidents Kennedy and Johnson talked about funding the schools; Pres. Nixon delivered the funds in excess of $29 million in 1973. “Even though black colleges received a greater proportion of federal aid given their enrollment. ”

 

Mr. Panetta’s foray into lifting the ban on women in combat is a disservice to the men and women on combat missions. The facts are very few women, if any, can handle the rigors of combat on a daily basis. A group of soldiers and Marines in battle for 60 days straight would have devastating physical consequences for women. Unit cohesion, training, field hygiene, and trust are something politicians will never understand unless they have served in the military. Mr. Panetta, overlooks the raw data in several regards in trial tests, the latest statistics I have seen is that 100% of women flunked the Army and Marine Corps basic infantry officer programs. What is going to happen is what continually happens with special programs that are going to lower standards, to meet political goals and get people killed! The Marines fighting in Fallujah is a perfect example of vicious urban fighting that was not MP-duty directing traffic and being shot at or returning fire, it was door-to-door.

 

I have read several stories from women Army officers and Marine officers that ask where this push is coming from to put women in combat. Those women who have experienced combat and simulated combat realize it is not a place, for social experimentation, or the integration of women because of technology. Click here for story. There are basic things that require strength, skill, and training, that have nothing to do with modern technology. Urban fighting calls for more physical strength in climbing a wall, climbing out of the basement, pulling one’s body weight, over ropes, and rooftops. We have not begun to discuss the physical element of hand-to-hand combat or humping with 80 pounds in a rucksack on your back.

 

Can you imagine if Pres. Roosevelt and the Congress had to make a decision to land on Normandy Beach on D-Day what would have happened? Probably, we would not have gone because the number of soldiers killed on the beaches would have been politically devastating at the polls. Fighting wars should be left to the generals and admirals with military experience, and not armchair Commander-in-Chiefs like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Bush, or Obama. One of the major reasons Germany lost World War II was Cpl. Hitler’s interference in major military decisions on strategy. The major reasons we have lost all the conflicts since Korea is because Presidents and Congress directed the fighting, instead of the military. We let the military run Desert Storm without the politicians interfering and we accomplished our mission.

 

We only need to look at women on police forces and fire departments to get a clear picture that there are some jobs, women may want to do, however they are better suited for the administrative track. We know that no woman is going to win a fight with a real man, not a male that is only on television and the movies. Women firefighters are brave enough to enter a fire but, can they bring an adult out of the burning building. Physical strength is not for discussion either you can work the long tough hours or you cannot.

 

In combat, there is no timeout, there is no second chance, there is no Oops, and I made a mistake let us take a do over. Mr. Panetta has made another faux pas with his overreach and zealousness to be a trendsetter and a leader. His strategy to eliminate HBCUs would have devastated almost 4 generations of black graduates. This is a man who has ideas that may be well intended; however, they are nonsensical, not supported by pragmatic facts, and detrimental, to the success of fighting Americans in the combat.

 

Women should not be in combat units until they are playing equally in the NFL, NBA, MLB, PGA, or Men’s Olympic squad. Combat is not a place for social experimentation.

Leave a Reply