“One week before my unit was scheduled to return back to the United States, I was raped by another service member that had worked with our team,” former Army Technician Rebekah Havrilla told the U.S. Senate last week. “Initially, I chose not to do a report of any kind because I had no faith in my chain of command. … The unit climate was extremely sexist and hostile in nature toward women.”

About 20 percent of military women report experiencing Military Sexual Trauma (MST), according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This includes unwanted sexual touching or grabbing, threatening or offensive remarks about a person’s body or sexual activities, and threatening and unwelcome sexual advances. By comparison, only one in 100 men report MST.

Two Service Women’s Action Network staff members testified this month before the Senate on behalf of thousands of military service women who have been victims of sexual harassment and assault. This historic hearing marked the first time in almost 10 years that the Senate examined these outstanding issues.

SWAN Executive Director Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine Captain, and SWAN Outreach and Education Coordinator Havrilla shared their personal stories before the Senate.

Despite the large number of sexual harassment and assault cases reported to the VA, Bhagwati and Havrilla said that little has been done to prevent MST from occurring and that reports of sexual harassment, assault and rape, such as Havrilla’s, are frequently “swept under the rug,” says Bhagwati.

Bhagwati detailed to the Senate how she once attempted to file an investigation of an offending officer—and immediately was given a gag order by her commanding officer. She then “lived in fear of retaliation and violence” from the offender and her chain of command, while the offender went on to be promoted.

“Sexual violence is not just a ‘women’s issue.’ It is widely misunderstood by military personnel, who have been overexposed to a culture of victim-blaming and rape mythology, where victims are considered responsible for their own assaults, and perpetrators are simply naïve young service members who might have had a lapse of professional judgment,” Bhagwati said.

Bhagwati and Havrilla urged policymakers to:

1. Professionalize the military criminal-justice system: Authority over criminal cases should be conducted by trained prosecutors, as commanding officers cannot be truly impartial and unbiased.
2. Open civil courts to military victims: Currently, military persons are not allowed to bring claims for discrimination or negligence; therefore, the military is not held liable for failing to prevent or reprimand sexual harassment or assault infractions.
3. Ensure survivors’ VA claims get accepted: The Ruth Moore Act, not yet passed into law, could help in providing survivors of sexual assault with effective treatments for conditions such as posttraumatic stress disorder.

The post ‘I Was Raped,’ Military Women Tell Senate appeared first on DiversityInc.

Same-gender partners are expected to receive military identification cards, which will allow access to military perks such as commissaries and family-support programs, and access to military-only facilities including gyms and movie theaters. Additionally, same-gender partners could receive some privileges in health programs. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, which enforced a mandatory discharge of any troops identified as gay or lesbian, was repealed 16 months earlier.

“Considering DADT was repealed well over a year ago, our families have waited far too long for the Defense Department to extend benefits to same-sex military spouses,” said Stephen Peters, president of the American Military Partner Association. “No military family should suffer because of outdated regulations. For the sake of our families, we hope for substantive action and look forward to hearing from Secretary Panetta on exactly what benefits will be extended.”

While a step in the right direction, the benefits being extended to same-gender couples will not encompass the full breadth of allowances—including medical, dental, housing and other spousal benefits—because of the continued existence of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law states that the federal government only recognizes heterosexual marriages.

What About DOMA? What Will SCOTUS Rule?

As more states have recognized same-gender marriage, the next big question is how the Supreme Court will rule on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8? Both cases will appear before the high court starting in March, with rulings expected sometime this summer. Proposition 8 refers to the ballot measure against same-gender marriage that was approved by voters in California but which has been ruled unconstitutional by lower courts.

“If you provide benefits to individuals seen as the most deserving and the social fabric doesn’t tear, that does make it easier down the line to do away with DOMA,” said Tammy S. Schultz, the director of the National Security and Joint Warfare Program at the Marine Corps War College. However, she says the benefits announced by the Pentagon “could be a flanking maneuver to keep chipping away at it.”

Global Equality Increasing

While global inequities for LGBT people remain and are examined in our recent Global Diversity Research report, there has been progress in certain countries. Our report examines LGBT resource groups and benefits, and companies’ abilities to create safe workplaces and to lobby for human rights. Most of the progress in LGBT equality globally has come in Western Europe. To that end, the British House of Commons just voted overwhelmingly to approve same-gender marriage in the United Kingdom.

The post Pentagon to Issue Same-Gender Couple Benefits appeared first on DiversityInc.

“Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles,” says Panetta. “The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.”

Panetta: Diversity Champion

DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti, a veteran, interviewed Panetta in 2010 on his desire for a more inclusive federal workplace, including the military. “Our mission is to gather intelligence throughout the world. …You can’t get good intelligence without understanding the world that we’re in, without reflecting the ethnic background of the world [and] relating to the nations that we’re involved in,” said Panetta during the interview, in which he discussed his experiences as a civil-rights champion and public servant. “The most fulfilling thing you can do in life is make a difference.”

“This was a good move, about eight years overdue. [The ban has] been holding down the careers of women who served in combat, but many officially have been in combat-support roles for the past 10 years. It shouldn’t have taken this long for policy to reflect reality,” says Visconti. Visconti served as a Naval aviator and commissioned officer with the U.S. Navy from 1982 to 1990, and he now serves on the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Committee, where he has co-chaired three subcommittees regarding diversity and women’s issues, reporting out to the Chief of Naval Operations. Visconti also was a driving force in pressing now-retired Admiral Michael Mullen to revise the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which was repealed in 2010.

Women & Diversity in the Military

Military branches will have until January 2016 to implement the changes or to request special exemptions if they believe certain positions should remain under the ban. Congress will also have 30 days to consider the policy change. Front-line jobs could begin opening to women later this year.

“Today, by moving to open more military positions—including ground-combat units—to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens,” President Obama said, giving his endorsement. “This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 150 women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan—patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.” 

Women currently make up 14 percent of the country’s 1.4 million active military personnel. Although women were not allowed to serve in combat officially, military women frequently had to engage in combat throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which blurred the roles of combat and non-combat personnel. More than 800 women were wounded, in addition to the more than 150 who were killed.

The decision is one of the last acts that Panetta will implement as Defense Secretary. Obama has nominated Chuck Hagel to assume the position for his second presidential term. Hagel is a former senator from Nebraska and a Vietnam veteran.

Panetta is a veteran who served as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He attended Intelligence School and was Chief of Operations and Planning for Intelligence at Fort Ord prior to starting his political career. Panetta served as a legislative assistant, then Special Assistant to Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Robert Finch, and was Director of the U.S. Office for Civil Rights where he worked to enforce equal-education laws during the Nixon Administration.

The post Finally! Ban on Women in Combat Lifted appeared first on DiversityInc.

The findings resonate with recent news of a class-action lawsuit ruling, in Collins v. United States, that requires the Pentagon to reimburse $2.5 million in severance pay to the 181 gay and lesbian service members who had been targeted and discharged under the policy. The regulation dictated that all service members who were forced to leave military service because of their orientation were penalized half of their allotted severance pay—leaving them just $14,000 each. Normally, discharged military members would receive $28,000 in compensation.

Under terms of the settlement of the lawsuit, which was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN), the government will award $14,000 to each plaintiff who was involuntarily dismissed, both honorably and dishonorably, because of DADT.

“This means so much to those of us who dedicated ourselves to the military, only to be forced out against our will for being who we are,” said Richard Collins, a former Air Force staff sergeant and lead plaintiff. “We gave all we had to our country, and just wanted the same dignity and respect for our service as any other veterans.” Collins served his country for nine years prior to being discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Collins had been seen kissing his boyfriend off-base.

“There was absolutely no need to subject these service members to a double dose of discrimination by removing them from the armed forces in the first place, and then denying them this small benefit to ease the transition to civilian life,” said Laura Schauer Ives, an ACLU lawyer.

History of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy went into effect in December 1993 under the Clinton Administration. It stated that military applicants could not be asked about their sexual orientation. DADT was introduced in Congress as a compromise to the regulations from Ronald Reagan’s 1982 defense directive that stated that all military personnel who engaged in sexual acts with people of the same gender or who said that they were gay or lesbian would be discharged.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed in May 2012 under the Obama Administration.

The post Who Was Most Hurt By ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’? Black Women appeared first on DiversityInc.

The NDAA is an enormous bill that specifies the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense (DOD). It also contains sections that deal with military issues ranging from the total number of troops to retiree benefits, and everything in between. It is one of the primary vehicles used by Congress to provide oversight and mandate change within the military. Every year, SWAN partners with key members of Congress to provide bipartisan legislative recommendations to both the House and Senate to improve the welfare of service women and women veterans.

This year, SWAN was able to help introduce into the bill a record number of provisions based on our policy agenda, chief among them to improve the way the military handles sexual assault and sexual harassment in the ranks. Other provisions were also included that improve health care for service women and military families. Specifically, the law now provides for:

• Prohibiting the military from recruiting anyone convicted of a sex offense

• Mandatory separation of convicted sex offenders

• Insurance coverage for abortions in cases of rape or incest for service women and military family members

• Retention of restricted report documentation for 50 years if so desired by the victim

• The creation of “Special Victims Units” to improve investigation, prosecution and victim support in connection with child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault cases

• Allowing victims to return to active duty after separation to help prosecute sex offenders

• The creation of an independent review panel comprised of civilian and military members that will closely examine the way that the DOD investigates, prosecutes, and adjudicates sexual assaults

• Required sexual assault prevention training in pre-command and command courses for officers

• Improved data collection and reporting by the military on sexual assault and sexual harassment cases

• Annual command climate assessment surveys to track individual attitudes toward sexual assault and sexual harassment

• A review of unrestricted sexual assault reports and the nature of any subsequent separations of victims who made those reports

• Notification to service members of the options available for the correction of military records due to any retaliatory personnel action after making a report of sexual assault or sexual harassment

• Requirement for DOD to establish a policy for comprehensive sexual harassment prevention and response

• Language that will allow better oversight and tracking of DOD’s implementation of sexual assault provisions from prior Defense Authorizations in order to ensure they are being enforced properly

Legislating reform of DOD policies can be a difficult, complicated and sometimes painfully slow process, and is only one of several tools SWAN uses to make institutional change happen. Ensuring those policies are properly implemented by the services and fairly practiced in individual units “where the rubber meets the road” is a continuous process for us. Calls from active duty troops and veterans on our Helpline continue to inform and guide our work. We are grateful to be able to provide help to service members and veterans in need. We are also thankful for our incredible coalition of military, veterans and civil rights organizations, the members of Congress who have partnered with us, and each one of you who have supported us this year. In order to eradicate sexual assault and sexual harassment we must continue to work together to transform military culture. The passage of the 2013 NDAA is another critical step in moving the military one step closer to change.

As we move forward with this year’s policy and legislative agenda, and prepare for our second annual Summit on Military Sexual Violence, SWAN will continue to hold our civilian and military leadership accountable for the welfare of our nation’s service members and veterans. We will continue to fight for changes in the execution of military justice for victims of sexual assault, service members’ access to civil courts, and comprehensive reform of VA policy regarding “Military Sexual Trauma” compensation claims. With your support, we look forward to continued success as we begin work on the 2014 NDAA.

* This article is republished with permission from Service Women’s Action Network

The post Obama Signs New Military Sexual Violence Provisions Into Law appeared first on DiversityInc.

Why doesn’t DiversityInc extend an invitation to the federal government agencies to participate in the DiversityInc Top 50 Survey as corporate America does in sharing best practices for diversity management? It is much needed and I am sure that if they did, it might ring the alarm and move some mountains.

Answer:

We used to have a DiversityInc Top Federal Agency competition, but there is a consortium of Equal Employment Opportunity officers who decided to not participate, so after a few years of struggling along to get participation, I dropped the effort.

Of the dozen or so agencies that did participate (yours was not among them), results were not on par with the corporate sector. In my opinion, other than in the U.S. Navy (and currently, the U.S. Marine Corps), there is little leadership involvement. Read Retired Admiral Mike Mullen: Trust, Candor & Reliability for more on diversity in the military.

I don’t know how many times I spoke at federal agencies where some under-assistant-deputy-secretary-something-or-other introduced me and then ducked out so he didn’t have to hear my talk (and it was almost always a “he” and I could feel their disdain for the dog-and-pony-show diversity events that stood in for actually doing something).

I’ve observed that diversity management for federal agencies is much about face and little to do with actual work, accomplishments or accountability. Management is squirreled away in the EEO offices, where the leaders of EEO have very little interaction with people who actually run things and there is nothing more than compliance work going on. There is no “CEO commitment” among the majority of agency heads.

Old-School & Overwhelmed?

In my observation, President Obama’s executive order “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce” has resulted in no substantial change in behavior. I get the impression that most of the old-school federal executives are waiting to see what the presidential election will bring.

I must have had hundreds of visits to dozens of agencies over the years; I’ve been struck by the awkward and stilted manner that people interact with senior management. There’s a lot of pointy hierarchy and obsessive, starchy regimentation. I’ve never seen those attributes connected to productivity—and, indeed, I have the impression that if half of the federal workforce quit tomorrow, most Americans wouldn’t know the difference.

I had to laugh out loud when I read in The New York Times about the investigation into Google causing “one of the biggest violations of data protection laws that we had ever seen.” Michael Copps, who last year ended a 10-year term as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, said regulators were overwhelmed. “The industry has gotten more powerful, the technology has gotten more pervasive and it’s getting to the point where we can’t do too much about it,” he said.

Here’s the best part: Aside from admitting that his agency couldn’t keep up, the fine for the “biggest violations of data protection” was (hold on to your hats) $25,000. With that stunning level of organizational accomplishment, do you think someone’s going to care about diversity?

Innovation From Diversity Management

In a meeting in Washington, I heard the best explanation for why things are the way they are: A very wise man posited that you can’t help but avoid hiring 2 percent incompetent people every year. But if you don’t fire anyone, 2 percent becomes 4 percent, which becomes 6 percent—and soon, the incompetents are running the roost and figuring out how to squeeze out the competent people.

I won’t out you or the agency you work for, but it’s been in the news quite a bit lately; it has fallen behind the times and is now a drag on the budget. This is a management issue, and diversity management falls into that category.

Your “alarm bell” idea isn’t going to “move any mountains” until the first “mountain” gets scooped into bags marked “fertilizer” and trucked away by someone in authority. There is no perceived reason for change, so no change is happening.

There is no such thing as a trickle-up diversity effort. Your wistful desire for change at your agency is not matched by a perceived business reason or accountability to improve effectiveness via diversity management, which would have all sorts of benefits.

These include organizational effectiveness, higher-quality recruiting, improved productivity, meritocratic promotions, improved supply chain, multi-culturally competent interaction with citizens (marketing and sales of your agency’s services), nuanced understanding of problems and opportunities, etc.

Watch the video below to learn how cultural competency through diversity management helped Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, No. 13 in The 2012 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity, save millions in marketing costs. The company, along with nine others, presented innovations at our Innovation Fest! diversity event.

All those things that corporations know are a competitive edge lead to innovation, a subject which around which your agency has consistently lagged.

Good luck to you.

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

The post Ask the White Guy: What Is Wrong With the Federal Government? appeared first on DiversityInc.

The post The U.S. Navy Must Diversify Its Ranks to Stay Relevant appeared first on DiversityInc.

The post ‘Believing In People’ Is Key to Managing Talent appeared first on DiversityInc.

By not stating a deadline, Obama has left the gay people on active duty in jeopardy. The country’s been whipped up into a fever pitch by “entertainers” like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Loaded phrases such as “liberal fascist” and “socialist” along with talk of conspiracy theories have been used to build the perception that the people in their audience are “losing something.” Beck in particular is a dangerous man—go on his web site and look at the T-shirt he’s peddling. It features a paramilitary-looking logo with a shield and attack dog. The connection between iconic attack dogs, the Civil Rights Movement and the first Black president is right there in your face.

Non-veterans Limbaugh and Beck have had plenty to say about DADT. By raising the issue again, the president has made our homosexual men and women on active duty even more vulnerable to oppression.

Oppression of gay and lesbian service members is a real problem. I recently received an e-mail from a lesbian woman on active duty who wrote that she was being extorted by a heterosexual coworker to have sex—or else he would “out” her.

Besides sexual extortion, there’s the constant oppression of not being treated like everyone else: Retired Navy Captain Joan Darrah—who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 when it was attacked—told me about her deep concern that if she were hurt or killed, her partner of many years would not be notified.

Darrah also told me of her fear every time she was called into her boss’s office: Was this the day she would be outed?

Although this has been going on since DADT was passed into law, the stakes have been raised. After a summer of being whipped up into a froth over healthcare, I believe we’re in a very dangerous place as a country. The president put gay and lesbian service members directly in the sights of haters. It’s time for him to lead. Make an executive order immediately stopping people from being processed out under DADT. Support Rep. Murphy’s bill and Sen. Reid’s letter. Directly ask the chairman of the Joint Chiefs for a plan to end DADT by a specific date—and ask for that plan NOW (mind you, the president must not ask IF the military can do this; he must demonstrate conviction and leadership by simply asking for a plan on how it will get done).

By taking away any debate on DADT, the people currently serving our country will be much less of a target.

Delay means terror for the very people who’ve signed up to defend us. This is a monumental breaking of trust between government and the people and it needs to stop immediately.

The post Empty Promises Put Service People in Jeopardy appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
I agree with guaranteeing the rights of all Americans. But, there is a serious problem with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. The easiest way to make my point is to respectfully ask a question. “How would you feel if your daughter was forced to work, eat, sleep, use communal bathrooms and take showers with a group of men who found her sexually attractive”? If you want to do a social experiment why not fully integrate male and female service members first and see how it works out?

Click here to read “E-Mail of the Day: What Is Acting White?”

Click here to read “Where Are DiversityInc’s Black Developer and Builder Stories?”

Answer:
The modesty solutions that allowed women to integrate themselves successfully throughout the overwhelming majority of the military work for single-gender interaction also.

Many homosexual men and women serve honorably today–and always have, throughout history.

What cannot be tolerated is predatory or oppressive behavior from either homosexual or heterosexual people. It is proper behavior, not gender or orientation, that is the standard we need to uphold.

I was recently saddened to receive an e-mail from a lesbian servicewoman who was extorted to have sex with a heterosexual serviceman who threatened to out her.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is just as much egregious behavior done by heterosexual people as homosexual people. Since there are far more heterosexual people, that’s where the majority of the problem is.

The post Should Gays Be Allowed to Serve in the Military? appeared first on DiversityInc.