Military sexual assault

"It's not threats," explained US House Rep Loretta Sanchez last Wednesday. "It's sort of like this is important to us for you to be graded on. I mean when you go to a class in college, you, if you're a smart student, you understand what the professor wants and what they're going to grade you on. And you tend to work on those issues that are going to get you the A if you care about the grade."



Sanchez was speaking to Sgt 1st Class Michael Horwath during last week's House Armored Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on military sexual assaults. She was floating an idea before the first panel: "It's been my contention that the only way we're going to make the command understand how important this issue is is that it's actually a section on every promotion that they receive. That in order for them to be promoted, they have to deal with, 'What did you do about this? How much of this has happened under you? How come you were ineffective about this?' And that they don't get promoted if they don't take this seriously."



Horwarth saw it as a threat. Capt Daniel Katka fretted and came close to a meltdown declaring that he wasn't sure such a move would cause change in the ranks -- real change. Why, what if it only resulted in "disingenuous culture change"?



Last Wednesday's special prime time broadcast of The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric included Couric offering this statistic on military sexual assaults, "A third of service women and six percent of service men say they have been victims." One-third. And Katka wants to fret that an alteration in performance evaluations for commanders might lead them to do their job but for "disingenuous" reasons?



The fact that a proposed alteration to a performance evaluation results in counter-charges of "threats" goes a long way towards explaining just how deep in denial the military is about sexual assault.



In 2001, Laura Watterson was sexual assaulted while serving in the Air Force. She offered testimony to the panel which included the following:



I reported it as I was supposed to -- to my supervisor, as well as his. They said it would be taken care of and I trusted that. Two weeks later, I was at work and everyone was asked to stand up because there was going to be a pinning-on ceremony. That pinning-on ceremony was for the man who assaulted me to now outrank me and become a supervisor. He was rewarded. This was when I got very angry. [. . .] I was told by my commander that I needed to understand that, "Different people have different personal bubbles. For example, when you go to England, sometimes when you meet people over there and you shake their hand, they like to hold on to your hand while they're speaking and, as Americans, because we don't do that, it's uncomfortable for us." And that is how he told me that I needed to get over what had happened.



In various ways throughout the first panel and the second, Watterson and other survivors like her were more or less told to "get over it" by the other six witnesses. Five of the six work for the US military, the remainder frequently works with the US military.



If you think they may have made time for some serious self-critiques you (a) are very optimistic and (b) missed the hearing. The response to Representative Sanchez' suggestion -- the dismay over it -- was only one indication that they're not really interested in changing much in the institution that pays their bills.



As bad as the nonsense frequently got, the first panel always had Watterson who owed no debt to anyone and could speak frankly. The second panel had nothing but the indebted. Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis introduced the trio, "For our second panel, we're pleased to have two witnesses from the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and one from the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Dr. Kaye Whitley is the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office -- what we all have been say SAPRO -- she holds a doctorate in counseling and human development. I also believe that this is her first appearance before our subcommittee. Welcome. and also from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is Teresa Scalzo. Ms Scalzo is the senior policy advisor for the Office and is a former director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. Her purpose here today is to provide her subject matter expertise on the Department of Defense's policy of restrictive reporting. [. . .] But we're very fortunate to have Robert Coombs who did manage to arrive before the bad weather. Mr. Combs is the public affairs director for the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault." Davis disclosed that the Coalition frequently works with the Department of Defense and that should have indicated to all but the last die-hards that there would be little of value emerging in the second panel.



US House Rep Niki Tsongas attempted to explore the US military's 'novel' policy of "restricted reporting." Unrestricted reporting is what happens when someone tells authorities that they have been raped. An investigation follows and (if the charges appear to have merit) a trial follows that. It is how the legal justice system exists in the United States.



The trio of losers represent the push for "restricted reporting." This 'works' by allowing a victim to self-disclose an assault to a SARC and it ends there unless the victim wants to move to unrestricted.



This allegedly has benefits for the victim.



Really?



Whitley would offer that nearly 2,000 victims had used this option since 2005. Some, she would say, had moved to undisclosed status after the fact. She had no number for that which seems rather strange when she knew the exact number of victims who had used 'restricted reporting.' 1,896 isn't a number most of us would readily commit to memory. It's not 1,234. But for some reason, Whitley was able to reel that number off from memory.



Here's reality. The military has covered up sexual assaults for a long, long time. There is a culture of denial within the military. Anyone wanting to ensure that no trial or headlines resulted from a sexual assault could very easily 'counsel' a victim to go with (and stay with) 'restricted reporting.' Where's the check to ensure that's not happening?



Oh, but it wouldn't happen! These are trained professionals!



The military has always had 'professionals' and that didn't prevent the cover ups of multiple incidents of sexual assaults.



As for trained . . .



Katka explained that the way he does things, and he's even made himself a nice little notebook binder, is he finds out which people are coming to the base, asks around about them, and then calls them up and offers them the position. Katka could tell you about his binder, but he didn't volunteer (and wasn't asked) to explain what criteria he uses to compose his list.



Volunteer?



The position is a volunteer position. It's not a paid position. A paid position would apparently allow prestige and move it from 'candy striper' to 'real worker.' A paid position might mean that one's duties in the position could be included on (and evaluated) one of those dreaded performance reviews. A paid position might mean that the person could really devote time to the serious problem.



What better way to indicate how little the military still cares about sexual assault than for the Air Force to make the position a volunteer one?



When you grasp that Katka's hiring -- apparently with no supervision -- is based on his 'gut' and that he's hiring someone to do their regular daily duties and turn around and volunteer time to deal with sexual assault, you grasp that there's a problem.



You also begin to see how a victim could easily be steered into restricted reporting which would certainly be less time consuming for a volunteer and less messy for the military.



Tsongas pointed out to Whitley that 1,896 'restricted reports' "means a significant number of people who committed these assaults are not accountable. [. . .] The question I have, and I think that's a worthy goal for the victim, on the other hand, we do have new women coming into the military who have no real understanding of the threat that might exist [ . . .] at the same time, we have many young people coming into the services who we want to protect."



That is a serious issue and we need to grasp that (a) sexual assault is a crime, (b) sexual assailants statistically assault again and (c) crimes are supposed to be punished.



It as though the military has decided the way to deal with sexual assault is to create a group of volunteer-workers who function as priests in that they hear the victim's 'confession' -- but the only one being absolved is the assailant who continues to roam freely.



It's appalling and telling that there were three people allegedly trained in assisting victims of abuse on that second panel and not one of them brought up the fact that for most victims of assault, confronting the assailant is one step of the recovery. There are even therapeutic models to allow victims to confront assailants who are now dead.



But somehow they forgot to inform Congress of that Wednesday. Possibly because it didn't jibe with the 'restricted reporting' they kept pushing?



'Restricted reporting' isn't worth it and needs to ended right away. It puts others at risk -- while pretending to 'deal' with the issue -- and it doesn't help most victims. Nor is there any check currently on its usage.



Here's the big fear about 'restricted reporting' from military victims advocates, in ten years we learn that 'restricted reporting' actually resulted in more cover ups but, ten years from now, it's now an accepted part of the process and, instead of immediately ditching it, the cry is to reform it. It's time to get rid of it. There is no check on it and considering how easily it could be abused, it needs to be ditched.



In fact, the move should be for these victims rights advocates to be civilian jobs funded by the federal government. There should be no chance of anyone pulling rank on or intimidating an advocate. The advocate should be under no obligation to anyone but the victim.



Laura Watterson's problem with getting help wasn't that she wanted a 'restricted report,' it was that she didn't get help. It was that she utilized the chain of command, followed the rules and regulations and still didn't get help. That's not back during the Colonial War, that's at the start of this decade and it was appalling to watch the second panel attempt to minimize Watterson's experience and insist that changes, changes, changes have addressed those issues.



"Sexual assault is a complex problem where most, if not all, aspects are interrelated. Such a topic does not lend itself to a single hearing. As a result, we have chosen to hold multiple hearings on discrete topics so that members and witnesses can have in-depth discussions about various issues to build towards a comprehensive understanding of the problem. This will guide our deliberations on what can and should be done next," Susan Davis explained as she brought the hearing to order.



While that's wonderful that there will be multiple hearings to address the issue, we should all grasp that the issue is not going to be addressed by asking the military to report on the military. For example, the next hearing's topic is "current and planned Department of Defense programs to prevent sexual assault." Those programs are already in writing. Before that hearing, get victims rights advocates who do not work with the Defense Department to go over the manuals and materials. Bring those people into the hearings and let them offer evaluations. Until moves like that are made, expect the same frustration Loretta Sanchez voiced (twelve years in Congress, multiple laws passed and still the assaults continue) to mount and multiply.



------

VETWOW is among the resources for victims of military sexual assault.