Following a full review of the FHRIC report, I sat down and started cataloguing a list of leading questions I plan to use in our Rogue Leader Academy over the next three weeks, where I plan to focus a big majority of my time on these topics. Intent is to drive dialogue...
What are the linkages between gender discrimination/sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault?
How does sexism set conditions for SH/SA?
How do we create a culture/climate within our unit that eliminates gender discrimination/sexism?
How do we create a climate that values women and other minority populations and makes clear that discrimination will not be tolerated?
How do we ensure that all soldiers are receiving mentorship? (i.e. we aren’t reliant on women to mentor women)?
How confident are we in our SHARP program?
Does it clearly articulate what constituted SH/SA and does it clearly communicate reporting procedures and requirements?
Do we clearly understand the difference between an unrestricted and restricted report?
How confident are we that we understand the level of sex education our Soldiers come to us with?
How can we overcome this?
How do you, as a leader/commander, facilitate the training and ensure it gets the proper emphasis?
How do we avoid “fear mongering” or trivializing SHARP? (i.e. “dude you better be careful, you’re going to get SHARP’d!”)
How do we grow and develop Soldiers of character who do not harass or assault each other?
How do we dispel the myth and perception of false reporting as retaliation or other purposes?
How do we remain complaint in our SHARP training requirements & ensure new soldiers are trained in a timely manner upon in-processing the unit, understanding new Soldiers are among the most vulnerable population?
Do we have a climate & culture where our soldiers are comfortable/ trust us enough to report sexual harassment and sexual assault?
Do they have faith in the system and processes?
How do we react when there is an allegation of sexual harassment or sexual assault within our unit?
How do we provide support to alleged victims and prevent retaliation, ostracization, shaming, and re-traumatization?
How do we provide support to alleged subjects?
How do we ensure we are providing periodic updates to both alleged victims and subjects on their cases?
What is the role of alcohol in sexual assault? (70% of FHIRC cases; 62% of cases DoD wide in 2019)?
More from Life
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
