Marine Corps Gazette censors Lieutenant Colonel Germano
I’m sure you remember earlier this month when we discussed Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano when she lost command of the 4th Recruit Training Battalion on Parris Island, S.C. when she was accused of “toxic leadership” for telling the females in her command that they needed to exceed the standards that the USMC sets for females.
Well, it seems that she had an article scheduled for publication in the Marine Corps Gazette along the same lines, but the Gazette spiked her article when she was relieved, according to the New York Times “At War” blog.
The editor of the Gazette, John Keenan, a retired Marine Corps colonel, denies that Marine Corps leadership had a hand in the spiking of Lieutenant Colonel Germano’s opinion piece;
For the Gazette’s part, the reasons behind the decision to pull the article were simple, Mr. Keenan said. Colonel Germano’s relief complicated prospects for publication in the journal not just because it had damaged her professional credibility but also because some readers might see publication as an implicit endorsement of her position in her dispute with the Corps about being fired.
“You could argue that running that article would bolster her argument” surrounding her dismissal, he said. “And I’m not going to bolster that argument – on either side.”
Yeah, well, the Marine Corps really didn’t have to say anything to Keenan – he knows which side of his bread is buttered. We certainly can’t have a Marine telling other Marines that there needs to be one standard irrespective of their ugly parts.
Mr. Keenan also said, however, that whatever the perceptions about Colonel Germano’s dismissal, her article contained valuable insights. “Personally, I feel there is a lot of validity to what she is saying about, ‘Don’t hold women to lower standards,’ ” he said.
Well, then what’s the problem with publishing her piece? She has a valid point that no one else in the Corps appears willing to say in public. Germano has the real world experience that bolsters her point. So, what’s the problem?
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Marine Corps
If she’s bitching about perceived bias, tha can be edited out. Without reading the article, this sounds like a smack to me.
Out of curiosity, I was able to read the article proposed by Lt Col Germano. The article is posted at the end of the “NYT At War” blog. A well written article by a person that takes boot training very seriously.
Link, please?
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/lt-col-kate-germano-on-the-marines-and-women/?rref=world
It’s a good article.
It’s better than good; the Colonel hits it out of the park. I’ve read many articles by men demanding equal standards for female soldiers and marines. This is the first by a female officer, and a highly qualified female officer at that, and it is definitely the best of the bunch. The Colonel knows whereof she speaks and she speaks damned well in making her case.
I can understand the charge of toxic leadership. She’s trying to change an embedded attitude regarding expectations that no doubt pervades her battalion staff as well as company officers and cadre. You don’t achieve such fundamental change by saying, “Pretty please, just try it,” but by kicking ass and taking names.
It would be interesting to hear what her sergeant major has to say because if he wasn’t on board with her then you know for certain the rest of the battalion cadre weren’t.
The lady’s got some stones, demonstrated by her going to the New York Times with her concepts, a career-ending move for sure. She’s determined to show she’s right and I, for one, agree with her.
There has been so much high-grade fertilizer raining down from on high for so long, every freakin’ house in this nation ought to have roses growing to the rooftop by now.
With all the “new” internet and social media out and about now, why is this a problem? Just do an end-run-around the entrenched Powers-That-Be, and self publish. Once you put it out there once, enough people will forward, screen save, and copy to make retraction impossible. Digital is forever.
The problem with a serving member of the military doing that is the potential impact on their career, and the use of their military status in conjunction with an article published “out of house”. The former shouldn’t exist – but in reality, it does (telling the General he’s been stepping on his johnson has to be done very carefully). The latter must also be handled carefully, particularly when discussing controversial matters related to current doctrine and/or practices, lest the “appearance of official endorsement/misuse of official position” issue come into play.
Bottom line: going “out of channel” is risky as hell on a controversial subject for someone who still has career prospects. And believe me: telling the USMC that they’ve been screwing up by the numbers for years in training female Marine recruits indeed qualifies as a controversial subject.
In this lady’s case, her career is almost certainly now toast (being relieved as Bn Cdr kinda does that for an officer; for her sake, I hope she’s close to or has already already achieved 18 years active duty service). So she really has no reason to avoid out-of-channel publication of her article.
As the Battalion Commander, one would consider her remarks “in her lane”. But I feel that others may think this is not her lane and that there is someone out there that is “supposed” to be conducting this study. Now, she has proven that, as usual, someone in the Government is not doing their damned job. This was probably why she was relieved (if it was indeed only due to this ideal and this article she wrote). Even though she has brought this out into the light and will probably never get credit or her career back, this issue will now be number one on the command’s list, IMO.
Toxic my ass!!! If she was considered toxic for making certain demands, I have no idea how USMC drill instructors in the 60’s would have been allowed to remain out of the brig. It is precisely that attitude which although it pisses off a recruit at the time, leads to a life time of “Can do, will get it done, not taking any shit off anyone who gets in my way.”
Abuse was the motivator for attacking and destroying without further command or hesitation. Can’t say we had it nearly as rough as Seals with regards to training and pushing the limits. But I can say without hesitation the Marine Corps boot camp was one hell of a discipline suffering hell hole. Made us old timers what we are today. That being, willing to help anyone when possible; but DO NOT fuck with one when you are looking for trouble. Too old to carry the physical fight as we used to, but little doubt a former Marine at any age would not find something to beat the hell out of an aggressor.
I went through San Diego in 1965 and landed RVN 03/10/1966. On my 11th day in country on Operation Texas I was shot in the head and neck. Regaining consciousness I found my rifle missing so I pulled my bayonet and a grenade and kept going forward. I found my Plt. Sgt crawling back with a nasty right arm wound. He said my rife was in the rice paddy with a bullet through it that deflected into his arm and not into his chest. I kept going and got another M-14 and with some binoculars started doing what my DI had trained me to do–fight against all odds as Marines have done before me. There was no thought of going to the rear, wherever it might be, as I was still a boot and proud of my training and I had a good rifle. Semper Fi
Jonn,
Perhaps contact the good Lieutenant Colonel Kate Germano and offer to publish the article here … as a free speech editorial.
Just sayin’.
MCPO
Excellent idea, Master Chief.
I look at it this way, without a tinfoil hat… maybe she was just a shitty officer… it happens and some of the shitty ones try to use some “protected minority status” as an excuse to save themselves.
I can’t believe a shitty officer would be advocating for common sense equal treatment of service members to foster a better working environment. Shitty officers do that exact opposite hence why we even have separate unequal standards for decades.
Not the point I am making… she may have the best ideas in the world… but she could and most likely is a soup sandwich when it comes to being a marine officer… a 300-page report found her to be “hostile, unprofessional and abusive”… a relief for cause is very serious and did not come out of the blue… that train wreck she started on her own… and it seems she is trying to push the blame on someone or something else… and I have to say that in its self, is conduct unbecoming an officer… I made it to a full retirement as an officer without ever being removed from command, so its not that hard.
Hmm. Can’t speak for the USMC – but if they do things similar to the Army, Bn Cdrs are selected from a list prepared by a central selection board that considers the files of promotable O4s and O5s. Those boards tend to be quite competitive. Poor officers don’t generally end up on the command list.
In particular, those boards don’t seem to select officers that are “soup sandwiches” (AKA FUBAR). Best I can tell, success at past assignments – particularly those involving leading troops – seems to be the focus of those boards. (On occasion a narcissist or backstabber who is otherwise very competent and effective does seem to get selected, though.)
From what I’ve seen over the years, most officers who get relieved while in O5 or O6 command slots seemed to have been otherwise very effective officers who managed to “step on it” in some way – and p!ssing off the wrong GO counts as “stepping on it” – or who finally were in a position of enough authority to lead to exposure of a previously-masked major character flaw. If they were a an incompetent officer, they generally never had opportunity for command above maybe O3. They certainly didn’t get an O5-level command.
I don’t know the lady from Eve. But a cursory analysis indicates to me she’s not FUBAR as an officer (e.g., not a “soup sandwitch”), even if her career is now almost certainly toast.
YMMV.
Nowadays, with some exceptions, an Officer with common sense and a “get it done” mentality IS probably considered a shitty officer.
OK, Mr. Keene, I am supposed to believe that your taking sides against the Lt Col by not publishing her article is proof that you are not taking sides? Why not just tell it like it is – you decided that it was in the best interests of (insert whoever’s ass you are protecting) to minimize the damage by not publishing?
Anther simple concept unnecessarily being made complicated. Figure out what it takes to do the job, established standards, then train to those standards.
We may never know what else is going on with this officer, but the part about telling those under her command that merely meeting the minimum standard is not a good enough goal is NOT bad advice and certainly not something for which she should be censured.
About two years ago, one LTC Robert Bateman (US Army) wrote this to Supreme Court Justice Scalia in an Esquire magazine piece: “You have got to be fking kidding me. Seriously? You spent nearly 4,000 words to deny the historical reality of thirteen words? That, sir, is an embarrassingly damning indictment not just of you, but of an educational system that failed to teach history.” Referring to those who own guns which he would prohibit from private hands, he wrote, “We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers.”
What happened to Bateman as a result of that and other highly incendiary and nasty things he wrote while wearing the uniform? Anyone? Anyone at all?
Bammo! Right on!
I’d stick it in her. Pretty good looking.
Thanks for posting the link to the article. Safe to say, she is getting much more readership for it through the NYT, than it would have gotten in Marine Corps Gazette.
I 100% agree with her sentiments and goal for holding women to the same standards as men. However, I depart from her when it comes to her desire for integrated boot camp.
While no training program is ever perfect and can always use some improvement,modification to the times, or just some good old self reflection; I believe that the Marine gender separated basic training is more right than wrong. I spent around 20 months at the Defense Language Institute where I got to see the direct output of every services basic training (DLI is AIT for all linguists of all services). The difference between the female products of gender separate (USMC) and gender integrated (everyone else) was staggering.
This is no different that teenage girls achieving higher levels of learning in STEM classes that are gender separate as opposed to those that are integrated. What’s important is the standard itself.
Now, just because I agree with LtCol G’s goal overall doesn’t mean that she didn’t take some actions that could be perceived as “toxic” and that would have resulted in the relief of a male officer as well.