Army Equal Opportunity Program

Last updated

The Army Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEO) is a U.S. Army mandated program designed "to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, reprisal, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a parent, or other impermissible basis, and to promote the full realization of EEO through a continuing diversity and inclusion program". [1]

Contents

In recent years military branches have continued to implement anti-discrimination rules. Starting in 1973, the U.S. Government embarked on reforming sensitivity training which was given to all federal employees. [2] The U.S. Army quickly followed with implementing these new changes. Following the creation of the "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" policy in 1994 by the Clinton administration, the U.S. Army once again reorganized its stance on internal discrimination. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was repealed in 2010, allowing openly gay and lesbian military personnel to serve, and the Army EO Program was then established to protect both men and women from any form of discrimination from military personnel. [3]

The controversial program has sparked great divisions among armed forces officials who wonder whether social comfort or unit cohesion, as well as combat efficiency, is more important to the U.S. Army. [4]

Origins

The U.S. Army's first step toward diversity training and appreciation came via the Army Language Program (ALP) in 1946, shortly after the institution's involvement in World War II. The U.S. Army advocated for the expansion of spoken languages other than English among its armed forces personnel in order to attain a strategic military advantage. [5] The ALP marks the first step toward the inclusion philosophy that permeates the current Army EO Program.

The proposal set the groundwork for the U.S. Army's EO Program first introduced in 1973 via the Civil Service Commission. [2] The U.S. government acknowledged a disconnect that existed between anti-discrimination philosophy and the day-to-day functions of its federal institutions and employees. In 1973, the Civil Service Commission first authorized the use of goals and timetables to counter and eventually eliminate rising discrimination in U.S. federal government work.

The goals created centered on strengthening one minority group at a time. These groups included African Americans, religious denominations other than Christianity, mentally and physically disabled individuals, and women. Composing a timetable was difficult for the Civil Service Commission because they were skeptical about whether the changes would impact the efficiency of federal work. Even though the fundamentals of the Army EO Program were authorized, a plan to fully implement it had yet to be devised. [2]

Development of the program

The U.S. Army began to experience a negative stigma in the 1970s and 1980s due to rampant sexual, racial, and gender discrimination. The U.S. government was then motivated to institute the anti-discrimination agenda they formulated in the early 1970s. The first governmental action to eliminate the progression of discrimination in the armed forces was to correct the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ are the written laws of the United States Military. The UCMJ was made more responsive to all forms of discrimination by writing into law that the punitive measure for any military personnel engaging in that line of behavior to be an Article 15. An Article 15 is the official form of punitive discrimination for violation of the UCMJ that can result in company level punishment or a criminal charge. [6]

As a result of the changes the U.S. Army made to its legal system regarding discrimination, it was clear that a program that protected victims of discrimination, and helped prevent soldiers from becoming perpetrators of discrimination was needed. The U.S. Army first sought to develop a program that created a specific course of action for victims of discrimination to report acts committed against them. EO offices were established on military bases to conduct the discrimination reporting and investigation processes. The U.S. Army also felt they needed to promote mandatory training that informed soldiers about what is considered a discriminatory action and how they could prevent it. [7]

Army equal opportunity training

Starting in the late 20th century, and continuing into the 21st century, U.S. Army senior officers and congressional officials developed a process for teaching soldiers to competently approach diversity. The method consisted of annual training for all soldiers about how to avoid racial, sexual, and gender discrimination as well as the consequences for UCMJ violations. In addition, soldiers were to be educated about the formal process for reporting any violations of the Army EO policy under UCMJ protocol. [8]

The program began to gain military-wide traction at the beginning of the 21st century as formal training took place annually regarding micro-aggressions, and victimized soldiers began reporting violations. The number of cases pertaining to EO violations were too many for senior officers to handle efficiently. An amendment was made to the Army EO Program consisting of enlisted Army EO representatives that would be more accessible to soldiers. [9]

Army Equal Opportunity representatives

United States Army EO representatives are non-commissioned officers trained to report, instruct, and know the legal policy of discriminatory behavior in the armed forces. These individuals serve as advocates, mediums, and decision-makers for cases of discrimination against victimized soldiers. In order for a non-commissioned officer to become an EO representative, s/he must receive an appointment from Army command, pass a background investigation, and complete extensive sensitivity and legal training. Furthermore, each U.S. Army unit has an EO representative who is in charge of cases of discrimination within that particular unit, and reports violations to U.S. Army judicial officials. [9]

U.S. Army EO representatives also assist in company, battalion, and brigade level training for soldiers. These representatives conduct role-playing, videoing, and situational based training that are designed to foster awareness among soldiers. EO representatives are ultimately held responsible for the racial, sexual, and cultural sensitivity within their respective units. [9]

Controversy

Some arguments pose the possible side effects of "over-sensitizing" the Armed Forces. The U.S. Army operates predominantly in a white male-dominant environment with a history, not limited to, the following: extreme aggression, misogyny, harassment, racism, hazing, bullying, ostracization, reprisal, coercion, exclusion, and re-victimization of soldiers outside of their majority demographic. [10] The U.S Army reported 55% of their Active Duty Demographics for the Fiscal Year of 2020 as White. 21% were Black, 16% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 3% other. [11]

Teaching soldiers, who identify with the majority demographic, to be compassionate of others' experiences and systemic biases of the minority populations within the U.S Army is a ghost of a chance. The social theoretical framework of the Army EO Program hinges on its ability to blend combat aggression and toughness with diverse cultural sensitivity effectively, yet fails to hold accountable its own legalities and social stigmas. [12]

One prominent modern example of this dilemma is the ambivalence towards women operating in combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). The Army EO program protects the fair treatment of women in combat-related positions under the UCMJ; however, military culture often characterizes female combat soldiers as inferior and counter-productive due to their inherent physiological disparity concerning muscle mass, bone density, and body fat. [13]

Other recent examples include accepting the transgender community into the Armed Forces with the U.S. Department of Defense's policy addressing those who want to serve in the military and those who are already serving. [14]

Don't Ask Don't Tell

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a U.S. military policy that discouraged the open expression of LGBT servicemen and women in terms of their sexuality. Removal from the armed forces was the punitive measure for violation of this policy. Coinciding with the establishment of the Army EO Program, the Clinton administration worked to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" per Army EO policy. In many ways, the legacy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" continues to be linked to the Army EO Program both in legality and social stigma. Many soldiers who supported "Don't Ask Don't Tell" now openly criticize the Army EO Program for the same reasons. They primarily connect back to whether combat efficiency or preventing discrimination among units in the armed forces is more important to the long-term vitality of the United States Army. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't ask, don't tell</span> Former policy on gay people serving in the US military

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on military service of non-heterosexual people, instituted during the Clinton administration. The policy was issued under Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 on December 21, 1993, and was in effect from February 28, 1994, until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by Public Law 103–160, which was signed November 30, 1993. The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reserve Officers' Training Corps</span> Military officer training program in the US

The Reserve Officer Training Corps is a group of college- and university-based officer-training programs for training commissioned officers of the United States Armed Forces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 9981</span> 1948 order by President Truman

Executive Order 9981 was issued on July 26, 1948, by President Harry S. Truman. This executive order abolished discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin" in the United States Armed Forces. The Order led to the re-integration of the services during the Korean War (1950–1953). It was a crucial event in the post-World War II civil rights movement and a major achievement of Truman's presidency.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel are able to serve in the armed forces of some countries around the world: the vast majority of industrialized, Western countries including some South American countries such as Argentina and Chile in addition to South Africa, and Israel. The rights concerning intersex people are more vague.

Charles Constantine Moskos, Jr. was a sociologist of the United States military and a professor at Northwestern University. Described as the nation's "most influential military sociologist" by The Wall Street Journal, Moskos was often a source for reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and other periodicals. He was the author of the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy, which prohibited homosexual service members from acknowledging their sexual orientation from 1994 to 2011.

<i>Holmes v. California National Guard</i>

Andrew Holmes v. California National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 was a federal court case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that restricted service by gays and lesbians in the California National Guard of the United States. The court decided that a member of the National Guard could not be discharged for saying publicly that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, but could be restricted to assignments that did not require recognition by the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13087</span>

Executive Order 13087 was signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton on May 28, 1998, amending Executive Order 11478 to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce. The order also applies to employees of the government of the District of Columbia, and the United States Postal Service. However, it does not apply to positions and agencies in the excepted service, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military sociology</span> Subfield within sociology which studies the military as a social group

Military sociology is a subfield within sociology. It corresponds closely to C. Wright Mills's summons to connect the individual world to broader social structures. Military sociology aims toward the systematic study of the military as a social group rather than as a military organization. This highly specialized sub-discipline examines issues related to service personnel as a distinct group with coerced collective action based on shared interests linked to survival in vocation and combat, with purposes and values that are more defined and narrow than within civil society. Military sociology also concerns civil-military relations and interactions between other groups or governmental agencies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the military by country</span>

The recent history of changes in women's roles includes having women in the military. Every country in the world permits the participation of women in the military, in one form or another. In 2018, only two countries conscripted women and men on the same formal conditions: Norway and Sweden. A few other countries have laws conscripting women into their armed forces, however with some difference such as service exemptions, length of service, and more. Some countries do not have conscription, but men and women may serve on a voluntary basis under equal conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010</span> 2011 US federal law allowing LGBT people to openly serve in the military

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 is a landmark United States federal statute enacted in December 2010 that established a process for ending the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy, thus allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces. It ended the policy in place since 1993 that allowed them to serve only if they kept their sexual orientation secret and the military did not learn of their sexual orientation, which was controversial.

The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States military chaplains</span>

United States military chaplains hold positions in the armed forces of the United States and are charged with conducting religious services and providing counseling for their adherents. As of 2011, there are about 2,900 chaplains in the Army, among the active duty, reserve, and National Guard components.

Unit cohesion in the United States military it has been the subject of dispute and political debate since World War II as the United States military has expanded the categories of citizens it accepts as servicemembers. Unit cohesion is a military concept, defined by one former United States Chief of staff in the early 1980s as "the bonding together of soldiers in such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the unit, and mission accomplishment, despite combat or mission stress". The concept lacks a consensus definition among military analysts, sociologists, and psychologists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender people and military service</span>

Not all armed forces have policies explicitly permitting LGBT personnel. Generally speaking, Western European militaries show a greater tendency toward inclusion of LGBT individuals. As of January 2021, 21 countries allow transgender military personnel to serve openly: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Cuba and Thailand reportedly allowed transgender service in a limited capacity. In 1974, the Netherlands was the first country to allow transgender military personnel. The United States has allowed transgender personnel to serve in the military under varying conditions since President Joe Biden signed an executive order that allowed them to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the United States Marine Corps</span>

There have been women in the United States Marine Corps since 1918, and women continue to serve in the Corps today. As of 2020, women make up 8.9% of total active duty Marines. The Marine Corps has the lowest percent of female service members of all of the U.S military branches. Women's presence in the Marine Corps first emerged in 1918 when they were permitted to do administrative work in an attempt to fill the spots of male Marines fighting overseas. It was not until 1948 that women were able to become a permanent part of the Corps with the passing of the Women's Armed Services Integration Act. However, even with the Integration Act, women were still banned from certain military occupation specialties. It was not until 2016 that Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that all military occupations would be open to women without exception. As of 2018, there were 18 women serving in the Marine Corps combat arms. In December 2020, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego agreed to join the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island in accepting female recruits, with 60 female recruits starting their boot camp training at the San Diego depot in February 2021. 53 of these recruits would successfully graduate from boot camp in April 2021 and become Marines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in the United States Air Force</span>

There have been women in the United States Air Force since 1948, and women continue to serve in it today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military</span> LGBT in the US military

In the past most lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel had major restrictions placed on them in terms of service in the United States military. As of 2010 sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military varies greatly as the United States Armed Forces have become increasingly openly diverse in the regards of LGBTQ people and acceptance towards them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Prevention</span> US Army program dealing with sexual harassment

SHARP is a proactive U.S. Army program which aims to end sexual harassment and assault in the service. Sexual harassment is a crime in the armed forces, under the UCMJ Article 134 by executive order on 26 January 2022. Those accused of a crime such as sexual harassment,or assault are subject to the UCMJ. Victims of such crimes are protected from disciplinary action, or prosecution by Army Directive as of 2022. A Special Trial Counsel, part of the Judge Advocate General's Corps has been established to combat harmful behaviors, in order to conduct independent prosecutions.

This overview shows the regulations regarding military service of non-heterosexuals around the world.

References

  1. ↑ Department of the Army, Headquarters (22 Dec 2016). "Army Regulation 690-12" (PDF). Retrieved 9 Jun 2018.
  2. 1 2 3 Rosenbloom, David H. "The Civil Service Commission's Decision to Authorize the Use of Goals and Timetables in the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Program." The Western Political Quarterly 26, no. 2 (1973): 236-51.
  3. ↑ Butler, John Sibley. "Affirmative Action in the Military." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 523 (1992): 196-206. Butler, John Sibley (1992). "Affirmative Action in the Military". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 523: 196–206. doi:10.1177/0002716292523001017. JSTOR   1047591. S2CID   145106669.
  4. ↑ Teachman, Jay D., and Lucky Tedrow. "Divorce, Race, and Military Service: More than Equal Pay and Equal Opportunity." Journal of Marriage and Family 70, no. 4 (2008): 1030-044. Teachman, Jay D.; Tedrow, Lucky (2008). "Divorce, Race, and Military Service: More than Equal Pay and Equal Opportunity". Journal of Marriage and Family. 70 (4): 1030–1044. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00544.x. JSTOR   40056316.
  5. ↑ Sokol, A. E. "The Army Language Program." The Journal of Higher Education 17, no. 1 (1946): 9-16.
  6. ↑ Griffin, Mary C. "Making the Army Safe for Diversity: A Title VII Remedy for Discrimination in the Military." The Yale Law Journal 96, no. 8 (1987): 2082-109.
  7. ↑ Knowles, James A., Greg H. Parlier, Gregory C. Hoscheit, Rick Ayer, Kevin Lyman, and Robert Fancher. "Reinventing Army Recruiting." Interfaces 32, no. 1 (2002): 78-92. Knowles, James A.; Parlier, Greg H.; Hoscheit, Gregory C.; Ayer, Rick; Lyman, Kevin; Fancher, Robert (2002). "Reinventing Army Recruiting". Interfaces. 32 (1): 78–92. doi:10.1287/inte.32.1.78.17. JSTOR   25062777.
  8. ↑ Gropman, Alan L. "Blacks in the Military: The Equal Opportunity Imperative." The National Interest, no. 48 (1997): 77-81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42897126
  9. 1 2 3 White, William. "Army Trains Future Equal Opportunity Leaders." Www.army.mil. April 15, 2015. Accessed November 02, 2016. "Army trains future equal opportunity leaders". Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  10. ↑ McDaniel, Tiarra. "We Need to Create an Army EO/SHARP Structure that Will Outlast this Generation." (11 March 2021) Military New - Opinions. Military.com. Retrieved from https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/03/11/we-need-create-army-eo-sharp-structure-will-outlast-generation.html
  11. ↑ U.S. Army Demographics - FY20 Army Profile. (30 September 2020). Headquarters, Department of the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Strength Analysis and Forecasting Division. Retrieved from https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2021/02/01/aa8adcbb/army-profiles-fy20-tri-fold.pdf
  12. ↑ Shane, Leo III. "White nationalism remains a problem for the military, poll suggests." Pentagon & Congress. MilitaryTimes. (28 February 2019). Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/02/28/white-nationalism-remains-a-problem-for-the-military-poll-shows/
  13. ↑ Chowdhry, Prem. "Women in the Army." Economic and Political Weekly 45, no. 31 (2010): 18-20. Chowdhry, Prem (2010). "Women in the Army". Economic and Political Weekly. 45 (31): 18–20. JSTOR   20764357.
  14. ↑ "5 Things to Know About DOD's New Policy on Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons With Gender Dysphoria." News - Reform. U.S. Department of Defense. (2019) Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1783822/5-things-to-know-about-dods-new-policy-on-military-service-by-transgender-perso/
  15. ↑ Estes, Steve. "Ask and Tell: Gay Veterans, Identity, and Oral History on a Civil Rights Frontier." The Oral History Review 32, no. 2 (2005): 21-47. Estes, Steve (2005). "Ask and Tell: Gay Veterans, Identity, and Oral History on a Civil Rights Frontier". The Oral History Review. 32 (2): 21–47. doi:10.1525/ohr.2005.32.2.21. JSTOR   3675736. S2CID   161540241.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.