Posted on 02/09/2003 1:49:29 PM PST by pabianice
"...It is regrettable that I had to spend more than $ 500,000 to defend CMR [against] a baseless suit filed by former Navy LT Carey Lohrenz (Lorhenz had been "female quotaed" through Navy flight training and finally relieved of flying duty by her carrier CO after she had so scared the rest of the crew that no one would fly with her. She then sued CMR for releasing the details of her incompetence and grounding for "ruining her career." CMR subsequently successfully defended itself in US District Court).
"...Shortly after out victory... plaintiff Carey Lohrenz, who blames me for her failure to succeed as an F-14 pilot, filed an appeal... Lohrenz's feminist attorney, Susan Barnes of Colorado, is getting high-powered help. We don't know who is financing her effort, but the new attorney for Lohrenz is law professor Rodney Smolla of the University of Richmond in Virginia... who last year appeared before the US Supreme Court to defend the First Amendment rights of cross-burners...Smolla is fighting for the First Amendment right of cross-burners to speak lies and hatred [while denying CMR's right] to speak the truth about Lohrenz and the truth about double standards in naval aviation training..."
I have sent them another contribution. The bums of the Clinton Administration aren't gone; they've just gone underground. And they continue to hate the Navy and the US just as much.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT: CMR WINS DECISIVE VICTORY 8/21/2002 10:44:25 PM
U.S. DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMS FIRST AMENDMENT The Center for Military Readiness is celebrating victory in litigation that President Elaine Donnelly described as "harassment by feminist advocates who misused the Court to threaten my rights of free speech. This victory upholds the right of CMR to question official policies that elevate risks, and to advocate high, uncompromised standards in naval aviation training."
The lawsuit was filed in April 1996 by former Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who was one of the first two women trained to fly the F-14 Tomcat. In October 1994 her colleague, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, crashed and died while attempting to land on the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Lohrenz was removed from carrier aviation in May 1995, due to flawed flying techniques that her superiors described as "unsafe, undisciplined, and unpredictable." With the help of attorney Susan Barnes, a feminist activist, Lohrenz blamed Donnelly for causing her to wash out by publishing the 1995 CMR Special Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation Training. The 20-page report, backed by 104 pages of training records and related documents, exposed a pattern of low scores and major errors in the F-14 training of both women that may have contributed to the tragic death of Kara Hultgreen.
On Friday, August 16, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia GRANTED CMR’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Lohrenz’s action "with prejudice."
Judge Lamberth also DENIED a cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Lohrenz, who asked the Court to declare her a "private individual" eligible to sue Donnelly and CMR for libel and defamation. Instead, Judge Lamberth found Lohrenz to be a "limited purpose public figure," who was featured in abundant news coverage since 1991. Lohrenz was at the epicenter of a significant public controversy--not just women in combat aviation, but long-standing questions about special treatment in training. That controversy intensified after the death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen.
CMR lead attorney Kent Masterson Brown, of counsel with Webster, Chamberlain & Bean in Washington D.C., hailed the massive, well reasoned 55-page opinion as "A tremendous victory for the First Amendment." Brown noted that, "Even though Judge Lamberth properly considered the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,’ he found that Elaine Donnelly and CMR acted responsibly and without ‘actual malice’."
In the Court’s opinion, Lamberth found that since "Donnelly [took] care in verifying her facts and sources," he could not rule in favor of the plaintiff, Carey Lohrenz. "Donnelly did obtain portions of plaintiff’s training records, did confirm that the facts contained in those records were correct, and did base her publication on those portions."
The Court acknowledged that some Navy officials disagreed with Donnelly’s conclusions, even as they confirmed that the facts she had obtained from her source were "largely accurate." The opinion affirms that Donnelly had the First Amendment right to question "the Navy’s ‘party line’," especially since experienced aviators who reviewed Lohrenz’s training records told her that they were the worst they had ever seen.
The controversy began in 1994, when one of the women’s instructors, then-Lt. Patrick (Jerry) Burns, expressed his concerns to local commanders about the women’s safety and competence. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, Burns and other instructors were told that the women were going to graduate to the fleet, "no matter what."
Navy public affairs officials led the nation to believe that Lt. Hultgreen’s death was primarily due to engine failure, rather than pilot error. At that point Burns called and then sent a signed letter to Donnelly, asking for her assistance in informing high-level officials of special concessions in training that may have contributed to the death of Hultgreen.
The opinion affirmed, "[T]his Court's review of the letter sent from Lt. Burns to defendant Donnelly clearly reveals the letter as one that would not be immediately suspect or one that would provide "obvious reasons" to doubt its veracity; much to the contrary, the letter is replete with technical vocabulary, dates, scores, and details that appear to validate the experience and knowledge of the author."
Elaine Donnelly expressed great satisfaction that the Court ruled in her favor, just as she predicted it would all along. She noted that "In 1995 I learned that the information I had was 'largely accurate,' but top officials of the Navy had no intention of admitting there was a problem or doing anything about it.
"This victory will strengthen the Navy by discouraging official cover-ups, as well as any repetition of double standards in training that elevate risks and undermine morale."
For more background on Lohrenz v. Donnelly and CMR, see the Issues/Lawsuit Section of CMR’s website, www.cmrlink.org. The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues.
.....or destroying the careers of many excellent male combat pilots [and their superiors] as a result of their bitching about 'tailhook' parties in San Diego..
women have already flown successfully in fighter combat (WWII, USSR), and currently there are also women combat pilots actively serving in other countries where there is less PC focus and hysteria, (and nobody make a big bruhaha deal out of it one way or the other, unlike here).
Very few men qualify, very few women qualify - but there is no basis for saying NO women can qualify, some already have and do.
"The sad irony was that Admiral Kelso was known as a "gentleman of the old school" and both he and Garrett had spent some of their time in office trying to formulate ways of improving the status of women in the military and discouraging sexual harassment.
Kelso also tried to open up more opportunities for women in the Navy.
For example, in 1992, Kelso had urged the Senate Armed Services Committee to permit women to fly combat aircraft — a big step forward for ambitious women pilots in the military.
In 1994, the Navy — perhaps shamed into the decision by the Tailhook debacle — agreed to allow women to serve on combat ships. The U.S.S Dwight D. Eisenhower — a carrier — was the first to be outfitted to accommodate the incoming women.
The fallout was blunt and to the point. Coughlin's boss, Snyder, was relieved of duty for ignoring his subordinate's complaints, putting an end to his career.
Three admirals were censured (which also meant, most probably, the end of their careers) for failing to prevent or stop the misbehavior of the junior officers at the convention.
Thirty other admirals received letters of caution to be placed in their permanent records.
Nearly 40 lower ranking senior officers (captains and commanders in the Navy; colonels in the Marine Corp) were fined or otherwise disciplined with letters of censure or reprimand — putting a probable end to their careers as well. "......
Irrelevant or not , a failed female Navy pilot is pursueing a vendetta for money....Paula C. received over 3 million dollars for the pinch on her butt.....
Until there is a woman who can pass the SEAL course, the answer is none.
Straw man argument though.
Different skill sets and qualifiacations for fighter pilots and Navy SEAL. How many male fighter pilots can qualify for SEAL? Some, sure, but certainly not all, probably not even the majority. Same for how many SEALS can be made into successful combat pilots? Some, sure, but not all.
No, I'm not saying to enforce an alien PC culture on the military just for PC and which obviously detract from combat effectiveness. I am saying that given time, culture tend to evolve on its own - both men and women will adapt. Military and warrior culture has NOT remain fixed over the thousands of years where we have had organized military culture - it's just that it evolve at a slow pace that people don't notice the changes.
Have another beer..
"Most" women ?
I'd argue that also applies to "most" men.
But I would agree that it would be a rare woman who could achieve the competency that fighter pilots (themselves a rare breed) achieve.
Cut the crap please. My best instructor was a woman. She is now a senior pilot and instructor with Southwest Airlines. She is that because she was good at her job.
The real problem is that the military has changed and has become politically correct when it comes to gender. The real problem is is political correctness has become more important than competence.
Isn’t today the first day there’s officially no more ‘outing’ in the U.S. Armed Forces? OK, perhaps another kind of outing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.