To make tomorrow better than yesterday The
Uniform code of Military Justice needs a complete overhauled. Last updated in
1983, the code is lacking any mention of the term sexual harassment. Thought
this is a startling realization to us civilians, it is total normal for the
military. Sexual harassment, though not mentioned in the code, is a crime under
Article 134; ¡§Article 134 is the catch-all of this nation¡¦s military justice
system, a compendium of 55 offenses that the armed forces say are prejudicial to
good order and discipline or likely to bring discredit on the
service¡¨(Gross-Justice¡K). Article 134 establishes an extremely high standard
of conduct to maintain an orderly fighting force and prevent abuses of power in
a hierarchical system where men and women live and work together 24 hours a day.
Sexual harassment is an offense committed by both females and males in
assorted measures; it is predominately committed by males against females. It
can ¡§occur in a variety of circumstances¡Ksome examples include: sexual
insults, whistling, catcalls, pressure for sexual activity, [seeing girly
magazines] and pinching¡¨(Facts¡K). Very simply, sexual harassment is any
unwanted and unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that creates a hostile work
environment; usually engaged in by co-worker or supervisor, which renders the
workplace atmosphere intimidating, offensive and can/will interfere with work
performance and group cohesion.
¡§Sexual harassment is an important issue
and should not be taken lightly; on the other hand, it should not be taken out
of control either¡¨(Facts¡K). The military is full of political correctness.
Soldiers and officers constantly have to watch what they say. For instance, a
common line heard describing this atmosphere of political correctness is, "I
can't talk to this other person if this other person is of a different culture
or a different sex. I'm very uncomfortable." This is usually the case because
what is harassment to one person is a joke to another.
Women¡¦s
experiences with inequality have been similar to those of black men; their
integration into the military has also differed in several ways. Because of our
society¡¦s fundamental belief that going to war is a man¡¦s job, men from
minority groups have often been accepted more readily in the military than
women.
Women have been viewed as outsiders in this male environment.
Discrimination and harassment occurs for women because they are entering an all
male dominated area. Some areas are still restricted because of it. For example:
serving in direct combat capacities such as infantry, and Special Forces¡Xis
limited to men. Though this policy is rational in light of one, the physical
handicaps of women; and two, the image of sending women home in body bags, which
no U.S. senator wants too take credit for. Even so, this gender bias is a
discriminatory policy, and a limiting of opportunities for women. If women
¡§don't get the same opportunities to go out and compete,¡¨ as men do, then
they¡¦ll have a much less chance of reaching a senior leadership position
(generals); which are usually drawn from combat hardened/experienced officers
(Baxter). ¡§By precluding women from the core functions of the military, they
define women as marginal service members, thereby fostering sexual harassment
[and discrimination]¡¨(Tailhook Incident 92).
In 1994, the annual Navy wide
Personnel Survey included questions on women¡¦s role for the first time. Some 65
percent of officers and almost 50 percent of enlisted respondents said they did
not think women were fully accepted in combat roles. While approximately 80
percent said harassment was not tolerated at their command, almost half of all
respondents disagreed that everyone is treated equally in promotions and
advancements.
Some of this is based on the presumed physical and
psychological characteristics of women, which may interfere with their
performances in combat rich situations. For example: the physical strength of
women. People believe that women are not strong enough to lift and carry heavy
equipment or wounded fellow soldiers and that they lack endurance to perform
these tasks over a lengthened period. In addition, there is the idea that women
cannot perform strenuous tasks quickly, like loading heavy shells into a weapon.
Moreover, combat is not for the weak and slow. Although allowing women in combat
remains a top priority, women are now serving in virtually every other
occupational capacity in all four branches of the military.
Even though women are restricted from direct hand-to-hand
combat positions, their prospects are growing by the day. A large number of
previously restricted areas to women have been opened in the Army, Marine Corps,
and the Air Force. Even the Navy is improving, which is a shock on its own.
(Side note: Today in the Navy ¡§all ships are open to women except submarines
and Coastal Patrol ships¡¨, -because submarines and Coastal Patrol ships are
lacking habitability for women (Women in the Navy).) Even with increasing sexual
harassment/assault/ and discrimination (S.H.A.D.) cases, the rising number of
women being recruited is not due to any idealistic vision of the right of women
to serve their country in uniform. One might say this trend is driven by the
need to recruit an increasingly intelligent, well-educated, and fit military in
the face of data that reflects the shrinking amount of qualified male
candidates.
Then again, Marine Corps recruiter, C. J. Chivers feels that by
¡§1993, in the wake of the Tailhook scandal, the military was desperate to show
that it could shed sexism. In recruiting, this translated into hiring as many
women as possible¡¨(Chivers). Accordingly, many servicemen resented their female
peers, because they felt women, who are not as qualified, were allowed to enter
into the military through a side door. Women are asking for fair treatment.
However, officers are pressured to cut corners to increase the number of women
in the ranks for reasons previously mentioned.
The Navy¡¦s greatest
modern-day blunder was the Tailhook scandal, which rocked the country and made
aware to all that there was indeed a problem in our esteemed military. The
incident took place during the Navy¡¦s annual Tailhook Association convention in
September of 1991. What occurred at the hotel-wide party following the
convention¡¦s itinerary for the day was a disgrace to the military, but more
specifically, the Navy. Female guests and officers at the party were surrounded
by Navy aviators ¡§and passed down a gauntlet,¡¨ having their breasts and
buttocks grabbed; some of the men attempted to strip off their clothes.
(TAILHOOK INCIDENT 92)
The investigations following the Tailhook incident
revealed a most upsetting trend set by the leaders of the Armed forces. The
leadership, knowing that this same ¡§practice has occurred since 1986,¡¨
demonstrated a tolerance and overlooked the attitude of contempt toward women
held by many military men. Further, the investigations showed, that military
leaders ¡§did not take the women's reports of the incident seriously and the
perpetrators and others aware of the incident obstructed the investigation.¡¨
(TAILHOOK INCIDENT 92)
A review, conducted by the DoD of the investigations
following the Tailhook incident indicated, ¡§that the scope of the
investigations should have been expanded beyond the assaults to encompass other
violations of law and regulation as they became apparent and should have
addressed individual accountability for the leadership failure that created an
atmosphere in which the assaults and other misconduct took place.¡¨ They
concluded these failures to ¡§collaborative management failures and personal
failures on the part of the Under Secretary, the Navy IG, the Navy JAG, and the
Commander of the NIS.¡¨ The DoD believes that the shortcomings of the
investigations ¡§were the result of an attempt to limit the exposure of the Navy
and senior Navy officials to criticism regarding Tailhook 91.¡¨ (United States)
To its credit, the Pentagon leadership is seriously trying to deal with
volatile and complex issues of sexual misconduct. The brass is now debating
whether and how to prosecute cases of adultery. The Navy has made a strong
effort, since the 1991 Tailhook scandal, to putting an end to sexual harassment.
In fact, all the services have. In March of 1994, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense asked the Secretary of the Air Force and the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness to develop a sexual harassment policy action plan.
This plan was provided in April 1994, and included among its elements (1) the
establishment of a Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC) Task Force on
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment to review the Military Services'
discrimination complaints systems and recommend improvements, and (2) the
conduct of a Department-wide sexual harassment survey.
Three survey forms
were used in the study. The first survey (Form A) replicated a 1988 DoD-wide
survey that produced the first baseline data on sexual harassment in the
active-duty Services. The sole purpose of administering Form A was to permit
comparisons of the 1988 and 1995 time frames. In summary, these surveys
documented a decline in harassment experiences and cited the DoD¡¦s increased
emphasis on combating sexual harassment for the success.
The efforts of the
militaries ¡§equal opportunity training,¡¨ received by everyone in the military
is seen as the main contributing factor to this reduction in reported sexual
harassment cases.
When sexual harassment allegations were made in reference
to Sergeant Major McKinney, the highest-ranking enlisted Officer in the Army;
the Army reacted swiftly and harshly. It even called a press conference to
publicize the case. Fearful of appearing soft on sexual harassment, the
leadership never seriously offered Sergeant Major McKinney the option of
retiring, as it has done in comparable cases¡¨ (Finder). (By comparable cases I
am referring to the ¡§Pentagon records obtained by the sergeant major¡¦s
lawyers¡K[which] shows in the last three years (95-98) at least 23 senior and
general Army officers were accused of offenses including child molestation and
adultery - and not one was prosecutes. Each was simply allowed to retire¡¨
(Finder).)
The consequences of the accusations against Sergeant Major
McKinney seriously damaged the Army¡¦s reputation. They were looking for a quick
fix. A show trial that would demonstrate the Army¡¦s determination and in part
make up for the Navy¡¦s Tailhook incident. In the Tailhook trial a number of
officers ¡§were courts-martial, but no one went to prison. The resulting public
outcry made the other armed services sit up and take notice. They wanted to be
sure they didn¡¦t make the same mistakes¡¨ (Finder).
It takes a lot of cases
and re-occurring problems for sexual harassment to finally get the notice it
needs. Basis trainees are learning that at all levels, the word is getting out
that discrimination and harassment have no place in the military profession and
will not be tolerated. On a visit to my local Air Force recruitment office, I
came upon a pamphlet concerning S.H. that read, ¡§The Air Force can not isolate
itself from these social trends¡K¡¨ and must take a zero tolerance position on
these issues. On November 13, 1996 in a speech at the Navel academy in
Annapolis, then Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, conveyed the DoD¡¦s
position on sexual harassment, here is an excerpt:
"...Our policy on sexual
harassment is crystal clear. We believe that sexual harassment is wrong,
ethically and morally. We believe it is wrong from the point of view of military
discipline. And we believe it is wrong from point of view of maintaining proper
respect in the chain of command. And for all of these reasons therefore, we have
a zero tolerance for sexual harassment."
Prevention is the best tool to
eliminate sexual harassment. The DoD following the Tailhook scandal prudently
addressed the sexual harassment issue, by instituting the Initial Entry Training
and Equal Opportunity Program. With a comprehensive, detailed written policy on
sexual harassment they next sought to relieve tensions concerning the issue of
sexual harassment. General Dennis J. Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff,
¡§videotaped a segment for broadcast on Army television stations worldwide to
reassure the troops that top Army leaders were taking the [sexual harassment]
matter seriously¡¨(Schmitt-Sexual Harassment¡K). Second, they distribute the
written policy to all officers globally. The policy was distributed, and
training to combat sexual harassment begun.
Sexual harassment is believed to
be decreasing, but one must remember a lot of sexual harassment goes unreported.
Women are afraid to report cases for fear of being thrown out of their job.
Women can get the feeling of not trusting anyone in the military command, easier
than then men for two reasons. One, 99 percent of commanding ranks are taken by
men, and two, men are more likely to help men than women. A woman cannot get
help from a commanding officer that¡¦s a woman, because the commanding officer
is probably in a rut of her own.
In lieu of these issues, a panel of senior
Army officers and civilian military officials were issued to investigate sexual
harassment in the United States Army. The panel was to ascertain the
shortcomings of: the Army¡¦s Equal Opportunity (EO) program, leadership, and
Initial Entry Training (IET). Their finding, recommendations and conclusions are
here summarized:
„« ¡§The Army lacks institutional commitment to the Equal
Opportunity program and soldiers distrust the EO complaint system.¡¨
„«
¡§Sexual harassment exists throughout the Army, crossing gender, rank, and
racial lines; sex discrimination is more common than is sexual harassment.¡¨
„« ¡§Army leaders are the critical factor in creating, maintaining, and
enforcing an environment of respect and dignity in the Army; too many leaders
have failed to gain the trust of their soldiers.¡¨
„« The majority of
officers perform competently, but ¡§respect as an Army core value is not well
institutionalized in the IET process.
Their view was that passive
¡§leadership has allowed sexual harassment to persist; active leadership can
bring about change to eradicate it.¡¨ Leadership is the problem. (Findings¡K)
¡§Leaders set the values compass for the Army; it is from them that respect
and dignity flow¡¨ (Findings¡K). Officers live by an ethos that rules and
regulations are there for a purpose and are to be upheld by all military
personnel. Unfortunately, the military¡¦s leadership, and senior officers have
not lived up to that code. Throughout the military, senior leaders regarding
sexual violations of DoD policies, see their charges overlooked; the offenders
slapped on the wrist and then allowed to retire quietly.
This lack of
ethical leadership is what is creating an environment that undermines human
dignity, trust and respect for others. Too many leaders today are more concerned
with protecting their careers than with doing the right thing. Many leaders do
not deal with incompetent personnel or controversial issues because it is too
hard, too time consuming, or may create a problem with their career.
Leadership should get back on the ethical track and make integrity, honor,
morals, courage, and honesty more than mere words. I read about these
injustices, and I implore the men and women of the military to take the
appropriate action and not to quit fighting the system until the right thing is
done. We should not ignore injustice and inept leadership. The members of the
Armed Forces cannot perform their mission as a team if they cannot trust and
depend on each other to do the right thing.
Preventing sexual harassment
requires a considerable investment of time and personnel. However, investing in
these resources the military will benefit from increased worker productivity and
a more hospitable work environment. Sexual offenses are in a way, abuses of
power that can affect order, cohesion and effectiveness in the life-or-death
environment of the military (Gross-Justice). The military only stands to gain if
it takes a no-nonsense, hard-line position on sexual harassment. Not only is it
the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Works
Cited
Baxter, Roxanne. ¡§Transcript: Interview with Roxanne Baxter.¡¨
PBS Online (1998).
Chivers, C. J. ¡§Yes, There is a Double Standard.¡¨ New
York Times 17 Nov. 1996:
Late Ed.
Facts about Sexual Harassment.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
January 15, 1997
Finder, Joseph. ¡§The Army on Trial.¡¨
New York Times 17 Feb. 1998: Late Ed.
¡§Findings and Recommendations of
Army Panel Studying Harassment.¡¨ New York
Times 12 Sept. 1997: Late Ed.
Gross, Jane. ¡§Justice in the Military Has its Reasons.¡¨ New York Times
1 Mar. 1998:
Late Ed.
----. ¡§When Character Counts.¡¨ New York Times 15
Mar. 1998: Late Ed.
Schmitt, Eric. ¡§Senators Doubtful Over Army¡¦s
Policies on Women.¡¨ New York Times
5 Feb. 1997: Late Ed.
----. ¡§Sexual
Harassment Case Polarizes Soldiers.¡¨ New York Times 16 Feb. 1997: Late Ed.
¡§TAILHOOK INCIDENT 92.¡¨ National Organization for Women. June 1992
United
States. Department of Defense. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Report of
Investigation: Tailhook 91 - Part 1. MEMORANDUM FOR ACTING
SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY: 21 SEP 1992.
Webb, James. ¡§Transcript: Interview with James
Webb.¡¨ PBS Online (1998).
Women in the Navy. Navy of Office of
Information. 31 Dec 2000