The Quiet Professional is Dead

And the Army killed it.

(Article originally written last year but never published)

Veterans have recently come under much deserved criticism for the attitude they can sometimes display toward those who did not serve — the idea that they are different, that they are special. But in seeking to address this behavior, we should look at the example the Army itself sets.

One need look no further than the recent graduation of two females from the US Army Ranger School, which has been accompanied by what one can only characterize as an orgy of publicity, to see this pathos in action. No one seems to mind that in lionizing these female graduates, the very spirit of the Ranger Course is undermined.

What makes the course unique is that no one is special in Ranger School. There is a reason no rank is worn in the course. There is a reason no unit patches are worn. There is a reason students heads are shaved. It is because everyone is the same there. No one is special.

It does not matter whether you are an officer or an enlisted soldier, whether you are from a combat arms unit or a support unit, whether you are black or white, whether you are active duty or national guard, what state you are from, or whether you are 20 years old or 40 years old — all students are treated the same. Leadership positions are rotated out and the leader of a patrol one day is likely to be a simple rifleman the next.

The only distinguishing factor, the only thing that matters, is how you perform — not who you are, but what you do.

But this has been lost in the obsession with the female students. Gender, like any other demographic factor, should have been ignored rather than emphasized, accommodated, and celebrated.

Those singling out these females seem to think they are unique in having overcome hardships due to their gender. The truth is that these students are neither the first nor the last to overcome disadvantages and difficulties in the course. Some students have had it easier than them, and some have certainly had it harder. Hiking up the Tennessee Valley Divide with 100lbs of gear on their backs, the 5'6 135lb soldiers have always been at a disadvantage compared to the 6' 195lb soldiers. The 38 year NCO has always been physically less fortunate than the 21 year old soldier. The lieutenant fresh out of the basic course has always had a steeper learning curve than the combat veteran with three tours. The soft-skilled student has always had to learn faster than the rifleman from an infantry unit. The student facing problems with his family at home has always been more distracted, less focused and faced greater difficulty than others. And yet, nobody wanted to organize parades for these students. They simply showed up, did what was expected, and got their tab…just like every other student who graduated along with them. 
No one is special.

Yes, the females students were recycled, multiple times. This is not new either. Those who have served as Ranger instructors have seen students stick it out in the course much longer than these female candidates did, and for valid reasons, yet no one wanted to put their faces on a magazine…because no one is special.

That these particular graduates are being so lauded is indicative of one thing — their accomplishment is not really the focus here, their gender is. They are being singled out, they are being made special because of it. 
And this is precisely the opposite of the spirit of the course.

This circus makes a mockery of the idea of the quiet professional, it exploits the two female students, and it minimizes the efforts and accomplishments of the rest of their class — some who no doubt overcame more, and many who were critical in ensuring that these female graduates passed. None of these students would have passed had it not been for the other, mostly male, members of the squad and platoon to which they were assigned— because Ranger School is designed to ensure that no one passes on their own, that graduation is a team effort.

If the Army had truly wanted these women to be viewed the same as any other student, it would have treated them the same as any other student. But it did not. The Marine Corps has offered a sterling example of how to maintain integrity by how it has run its infantry officer course during the inclusion of females — the exact same way it has run every other course.

The Army should have followed suit. No differing haircuts, they should look like everyone else; no ‘female observers’ needed, they should show up and perform like everyone else; no special recycles, they should meet the standard others before have met; no daily media coverage as the class closed on graduation date, their status needn’t be published; no interviews about their ‘historic accomplishment,’ which hundreds accomplish every year.

But the Army did not do this. From Day 1 these students were different, they were special. We should have been content to let these students accomplishments speak for them. But the Army needed poster-girls for the political agenda.

The students as well, had they understood the course they just completed, would have displayed the humility and selflessness that we expect of good leaders and true heroes. Instead, they have embraced every opportunity for exposure in a seeming desire to be labeled a trailblazer and an example. Rather than chasing publicity, attention and fame, these students should have been content to be simply one member of the graduating class, another member of the team. They should have been content to have done something rather than focusing on trying to be someone.

That they graduated should be enough for everyone. What makes one special is having done so, but it makes them no more special than anyone else who stood on the field next to them on graduation day. If we want them to be viewed as just as legitimate as any other student, then we should be treating them just as any other student. Otherwise, we’ve missed entirely what the course is about.

If the Army wants to address professionalism it should start at home.

-LM