Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces

The role of women in the United States armed services became an important political topic in 1991.A useful compendium of newspaper and periodical articles on the political issue involved up to 1992 is E.A. Blacksmith (ed) Women in the Military The Reference Shelf v 64 n 5 (1992) Women military personnel had engaged in combat in the most recent U.S. military actions: Grenada in 1983 Panama in 1989, and the Gulf War in 1991. Senator William V. Roth (R-DE) introduced a Senate bill in 1991 to clarify women's roles in the armed forces, including combat. S. 1076, To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to prescribe the conditions under which female members of the Armed Forces may be assigned to duty in aircraft that are engaged in combat missions 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, April 25, 1991

Representative Patricia Schroeder (D-CO1) and Beverly B. Byron (D-MD6) then convinced the House Armed Services Committee to amend the House bill under consideration for military appropriations for 1992 and 1993 to allow combat roles for military women.Barton Gellman, "Combat Flights by Women Backed—House Armed Services Panel Also Drops B-2, Cuts 'Star Wars' Funds" Washington Post (May 9, 1991) In the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Glenn (D-OH) opined that a thorough review and study of the issue of women's role in the armed services would take up to 18 months.Barton Gellman, "Combat Role for Women Stalled by Senate Panel—Subcommittee Recommends Study which Could Take 18 Months" Washington Post (July 10, 1991)

Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Chair of the Senate Committee, then introduced several Senate bills—102 S. 1507, 102 S. 1508, 102 S. 1509, and 102 S. 1515—to create just such a commission.see especially S.1515, Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces Act of 1991 102nd Congress, 1st Session, July 22, 1991. The Congressional conference committee chosen to reconcile the House and Senate versions of bills for 1992-1993 military appropriations (of which Sen. Nunn was a member) included creating the Commission in the approved 1992-1993 military appropriations law.H. Rpt. 102-311 H.R. 2100, National Defense Authorization Act for FY92-FY93 Nov. 13, 1991

Official name

"Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces"

Enabling authority

Public Law 102-190, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1992 -1993 (December 5, 1991). Sections 541 through 549.

Purposes

"In general, the Commission shall assess the laws and policies restricting the assignment of female service members and shall make findings on such matters"PL 102-190 paragraph 542

Specific matters for the Commission to study included

Combat readiness of armed forces permitting women combat roles Their physical fitness The effect of pregnancy and other absences Unit morale and cohesion

Public attitudes regarding military women assigned combat roles Legal implications of Draft and conscription of women Voluntary assignments for women in combat roles Involuntary assignments for women in combat roles

Modification of facilities, quarters, vehicles, and equipment for women in combat roles Training of women in the combat skills to use these combat materials Costs involved in these modifications and training for women for combat roles Implications of allowing or restricting women from combat roles on the recruitment and retention of armed forces personnel

Membership

The President appoints the 15 commission members from among those in the public or private sector the President feels have both distinguished themselves in their own field of endeavor and have "significant experience" in one or more of the commission's areas of concern. --Retired military personnel --Academic institutions --Civilian industry --Non-defense related government agencies --The law --Armed forces combat --Armed forces combat support --Armed forces personnel management

Three of the commissioners must be women representing specific groupsPL 102-190 Section 541 (b) (2) Armed Services member Representative from a women-in-the-armed-services organization Representative from a women's issues organization

Commissioners Robert T. Herres, General, United States Air Force (Ret.) Chairman Mary E. Clarke, Major General, United States Army (Ret.) Samuel E. Cockerham, Brigadier General, US Army Elaine Donnelly,former Member of the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services,Final Report p. J-2. Thomas V. Draude, Brigadier General, United States Marine Corps Mary M. Finch, Captain, US Army William Darryl Henderson, PhD James R. Hogg, Admiral, United States Navy (Ret.) Newton N. Minow Charles C. Moskos, PhD Meredith A. Neizer,former Chair of the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services Final Report p. J-3 Kate Walsh O'Beirne Ronald D. Ray Maxwell R. Thurman, General, US Army (Ret.) Sarah F. White, Master Sergeant, US Air Force ReserveFinal Report, p. J-3

Information gathering by panels

Each member of the commission, except for the Chair, was assigned to a panel to collect specific information relating to the commission's purposes.

Panel One Commissions members: Ray (Chair), Clarke, Henderson

Assignment: Women's roles in the armed services of other nations; women's roles in domestic law enforcement; the issue of prisoner of war

Panel Two Commission members: Cockerham (Chair), Finch, Moskos

Assignment: Physiological and cost issues for training, readiness, clothing, facilities, and equipment; the issue of pregnancy; the issue of combat unit cohesion

Panel Three Commission members: Neizer (Chair), Donnelly, Thurman

Assignment: Social and cultural issues, with a focus on the family; concerns about parenthood and child care affecting "deployability"; analysis of the surveys done for the Commission

Panel Four Commission members: O'Beirne (Chair), Draude, Hogg, White

Assignment: Legal and management issues; issues surrounding personnel retention and career development in all-volunteer armed services; examine recent : experiences of women in combat in Panama and Grenada

Survey research

Roper Polls "About the Roper Polls" http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/aboutroper.html The commission had this prestigious center conduct two surveys on the roles of women in the U.S. armed services. One survey polled 1,500 adults in the United States via telephone with a 20-minute survey. Those polled split 50-50 when asked if they supported the current policy categorically restricting women from combat assignments. 50% of those polled would allow women assigned to combat only if they volunteered. 50% of those polled favored drafting or conscripting women during national emergencies or wartime. However, 65% of those polled opposed requiring married women with children assigned to combat.Final Reportp. D-2.

The second survey mailed questionnaires to 8000 members of the U.S. armed services. Overall, 57% of the respondents supported the current policy categorically restricting women from combat assignments. 72% of the respondents currently assigned to combat supported the current policy. 78% of the respondents serving in the Marine Corps supported the current policy.,Final Reportp. D-4.

Moskos Survey Dr. Charles Moskos (a member of the commission) and Ms. Laura Miller, both of Northwestern University, conducted a survey of 1651 U.S. Army soldiers on the roles of women in the U.S. armed services in 1992. Of the women soldiers surveyed, over 70% favored allowing women volunteers to serve in combat roles, but only 12% said they would volunteer.Final Report, p. D-5.

Navy Personnel Research and Development Center The NPRDC conducted longitudinal studies covering 1988, 1990, and 1992 on reasons for time lost from active duty by Navy personnel. They reported to the commission that pregnancy rates among women Naval personnel were similar to those in the civilian population. Their studies found that single parents had negligible effect on naval activities. They further found that naval personnel held the perception that pregnant women adversely affected ship operations.Final Report pp. D-6, D-7.

Commission Survey of Retired Flag and General Officers The commission conducted its own survey of the 6,109 known retired flag and general officers in four all branches of the U.S. armed services. Those surveyed were overwhelmingly white males. A little over half responded, with the representation ranging from 70% from the Marine Corps to 41% from the Navy. A majority of respondents opposed assigning combat roles to women. The degree of opposition correlated directly to the age of the respondents; older respondents voiced greater opposition to assigning women to combat than younger respondents. The biggest concern 56%) of the majority was that women's presence would adversely affect combat unit cohesion.Final Report p. D-7.

Fact-finding trips by commission members to Armed Services installations

Air Force = 5 installations visited --4th Composite Wing internal, Seymour Johnson AFB, NC --USAF Weapons and Tactics Center, Nellis AFB, NV (2 visits) --Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape School, Fairchild AFB, WA --HQ US Central Command, MacDill AFB, FL --HQ, US Special Ops Command, MacDill AFB, FL

Army = 5 installations visited --4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO --1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS --24th Mechanized Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA --XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, SC --U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY

Foreign Military Representatives = 6 countries consulted --Canada --Denmark --Israel --Russia --The Netherlands --United Kingdom

Marines = 4 installations visited --II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC --Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, SC --USMC Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, CA --USMC Officer Candidate and Basic Schools, Quantico, VA

Navy = 9 installations visited --U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD --Norfolk Naval Station, Norfolk, VA --Navy Fighter Weapons School, NAS Miramar, CA --Navy Surface Fleet, Pacific, Naval Station 32nd Street, CA --Navy Special Warfare Command, Naval Amphibious Base, CA --Aircraft Static Display, Naval Air Station Glenview, IL --Carrier Air Wing 3, USS John F. Kennedy --Submarine Group Ten, NSB Kings Bay, GA --Commander Submarine Fleet Atlantic (ComSubLant), Naval Station, Norfolk, VA

Others = 2 installations --General Dynamics, Ft. Worth, TX --Aeromedical Seminar, San Antonio, TXThe Final Report did not explain where this seminar was held, but Brooks AFB and its Aerospace Medical Center is in San Antonio.

Formal commission meetings (Dates, location, and simple description)

March 25, 1992 Washington, DC Initial meeting

March 26, 1992 Washington, DC Survey of existing research

April 6–7, 1992 Washington, DC Defense Dept. physical fitness standards, demographics of armed services personnel, status of women in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force

May 4–5, 1992 Washington, DC Review information resources from the GAO, media, public opinion, "think tanks", Congress, and legal writings.

June 8–9, 1992 Washington, DC Testimony on women's in "non-traditional roles"; service specific definition of "combat"; prisoners of war issues; 5 other discussion topics

June 25–26, 1992 Washington, DC Members of Congress testimony; 8 sets of witnesses on various personnel issues

July 13–15, 1992 Chicago, IL Midwest perspectives; theological perspectives; mixed-gender armed services units' perspectives

August 6–8, 1992 Los Angeles, CA West Coast perspectives; theological perspectives; single-gender armed services units' perspectives; perceived combat "role" for each armed service

August 27–29, 1992 Dallas, TX