For as long as she can remember, my Aunt Robyn always knew she wanted to join the Army. She would follow anyone who happened to be wearing a uniform. In 1981, Robyn finally got to put on her own uniform when she enlisted at the age of 18, straight out of high school, and became a Private E-1.
Although the Army had integrated basic training for men and women some years prior to Robyn joining up, she always felt that commanders were scrutinizing the women to see what they could handle when compared to their male counterparts. To prove themselves, she and her fellow females had to work harder.
After basic, Robyn served as a field radio operator, a military occupation specialty that had just opened to women for the first time. However, direct ground combat positions were off limits to women. When asked if she would have served in direct combat, if given the chance, Robyn replied, “Yes, I wanted to test my mettle. I always wondered how I would perform.”
Yet, current Department of Defense (DoD) policy still precludes women from being “assigned” to most combat units. This policy is wrong and should be changed as soon as possible.
In fact, the congressionally established The report recommends the removal of “institutional barriers in order to open traditionally closed doors, especially those relating to assignments — both the initial career field assignment and subsequent assignments to key positions.” It explains that about 10 percent of Marine Corps and Army occupational specialties are closed to women, and that the exclusion serves as a barrier to women’s advancement. The off-limits occupations (including infantry, armor, artillery, cavalry, and special forces) are held by nearly a third of all Army personnel — all men. And approximately 80 percent of officers are promoted from combat arms occupations.
Moreover, as the Service Women’s Action Network notes, there is a The policy does not reflect the realities of modern warfare, where battle lines are undefined and servicewomen find themselves in the thick of the fight, challenging gender stereotypes. , “Women serving in combat environments are being shot at, killed and maimed.” At most recent count, have made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unlike men, women are prejudged to be unqualified for the physical demands of ground combat based on overly broad generalizations and outmoded stereotypes. My aunt tells a funny story about a combat simulation during basic, where she and two other females were the only recruits left standing by the end, the men couldn’t cut it. So much for stereotypes.
Yet evidence from women’s actual experience in combat shows that their presence can actually enhance military effectiveness, and that .
The ACLU cares deeply about ending discrimination in the military and is heartened that military advisory commissions have that acts as a barrier to the advancement of women in the armed services. Now we await the department’s response and hope that it finally gives credit where credit is due: to the military women who bravely serve our country.
Learn more about discrimination in the military: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.