Business
Discrimination of women in a military workplace
Sexual harassment is the type of sex discrimination that involves sexual advances which are not welcomed and making sexual favor requests and other physical or verbal behavior of sexual nature.
Following the infamous incident that happened in Tailhook in which 26 women were harassed sexually during the gathering of Navy aviators in September 1991, there has been significant attention to sexual harassment in the military. Nonetheless, the crisis widespread sexual assault was not new in the military. The women in uniform as well as the pentagon official whose duty is to address it knew about it (Callahan and Anderson, 2001).
This part of the paper is going to describe the caliber of sexual harassment within the military and suggest the reasons behind this crisis. It will also suggest necessary actions to eradicate this form of gender discrimination within the armed forces. Below is detailed information issue by the pentagon about sexual harassments that have occurred for almost two decades.
A study carried out in 1980 on sexual harassment in the navy revealed that out of all the women analyzed, 60 percent of them had been harassed sexually. In 1983 a study revealed out of all the navy women surveyed 84 percent of them had been sexually harassed.
In 1987, the Study Group on the Progress of Navy Women realized that more than half of the 1,400 women sampled had ever suffered the causality of sexual assault while in the Navy. Defense Task Force on Women in the armed forces department reported in 1988 during the month of January that sexual aggravation still remains a major problem in all forces.
According to Callahan and Anderson (2001), Defense Manpower Data Center carried out a study on over 20,000 personnel in the forces in 1990 and found out that almost two out of every three women were sexually assaulted in the past year. In the Tailhook event, there were at least fourteen women officers who harassed sexually.
As a result of the Tailhook incident, active duty women as well as veterans have come forward complaining on serious harassments the letdown of their seniors to seriously take their complaints. Some sexual harassment cases which were most troubling took place throughout the Persian Gulf War. Not less 24 service women of the United States army were either raped or harassed sexually by the personnel of the armed forces of the United States.
Studies carried out reveal that the extent sexual harassment suggests that few women fall victims of sexual harassment due to lack of self-belief in the armed forces system for redress. It was found out by The Defense Manpower Data Center that less than 37 percent of women had a belief that the charges for sexual harassment would be investigated in a swift manner or that the perpetrators would have penalties enforced to them. A good number of sexual harassment victims thought that they would labeled as trouble makers.
The Tailhook inquiry made by the Navy further indicates failings in the armed forces for investigating complaints from sexually harassed victims. At first there were efforts made to make the incident unknown. Among the over 1,000 interviews carried out by NIS the main criminal investigative agency of the Navy, all senior officials as well as aviators pretended not to know any of the perpetrators. A report issued by the pentagon on 24th September concluded that the officials of Navy intentionally challenged their own investigation in protection of their colleagues.
A number of senior Navy officials were demoted. Among those demoted are Navy Secretary Lawrence Garrett III who was in Tailhook when the incident happened and Rear Admiral Duvall M. Williams, who was the commander of the Naval Investigative service. Mr. Williams had compared the female pilots of the Navy to topless and go-go dancers. Another fellow who did not evade the demotion was inspector general and judge advocate general of the Navy.
Contribution of restrictive laws to the harassment problem
Other than insufficient sexual harassment policies enforcement, several other factors contribute to the high rate of military womens sexual harassment. In connection with Tailhook, secretary of the navy Sean OKeefe said that the cultural issue is the one that has brought about the uncouth attitudes and behavior towards women officers to prevail within the Navy. The laws and regulations limiting womens combat assignments are the ones that have brought much of this culture.
The restrictions bring out the view that women are substandard and may therefore be considered inferior. The report issued out by the Navy in 1990 on progress of women in the forces explained about the Navys warrior mentality character which says that women dont belong. The report also indicated that most of the Navy team members (both men and women) have a perception that women are not equal members of the team.
Legal restrictions when it comes to women assignments have made the quantity of female military personnel to only 11 percent which assist in the creation hostile atmosphere for women. Few women in places of work, working in fields that are not traditional and having a supervisor who is male in all situations just like the military women have been highly harassed sexually together with other forms of sexual discrimination.
Another harassment brought by restrictive laws is that jobs of higher ranks in the military are given to those who have experience in combat and since most women lack this combat experience very few women hold senior positions. In the long run men are the ones who are generally charged with harassment policy enforcement. These same never take problem seriously due to their dissimilar experiences.
There is protection of civilians against employment discrimination which also includes sexual harassment under the coverage of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act warns against employment discrimination basing on color, race, sex national origin as well as religion.
To add on procedures of grievance and policies, the employers could already be having Title VII in place to fight discrimination. Title VII is enforced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to provide employment discrimination victims with an avenue which is legal for seeking redress.
Even though title VII Act gives protection against employment discrimination, the protections does not apply to military personnel that is in uniform as far as United States Courts of Appeals which has addressed this issue is concerned. It is with this reason that a military member in uniform cannot claim military discrimination under title VII even though a civilian who is doing work within the military can.
Availability of limited redress for Military sexual harassment
The available remedies for a military woman pursuing a sexual harassment case are limited as compared to a civilian victim with the same case. The civilians are provided with compensatory and disciplinary damages up to limits are statutorily set Title VII coverage. This ensures that the perpetrator will be punished and at the same time the victim of sexual abuse will be compensated.
Conversely, internal military might discipline the perpetrator and provide compensation which is extremely limited for the sexual harassment victim but will later focus on the individuals behavior and accountability instead of organizations responsibility as a whole.
Back pay and reinstatement are the only forms of redress available to victims of military sexual harassment. This redress is usually in limited circumstance. In cases where the harassment has let to a military record that is unjust, a member of the service may request a military records correction board. The board has powers to correct the records and is in a position to repay allowances, emoluments, compensation and other small benefits to the claimant.
Recent steps to cub military sexual harassment
After the Tailhook infamous incident, the military took some significant steps against sexual harassment. There was a proposal made by the Navy for amendment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to explicitly deal with sexual harassment. There was an order to all units of the Navy to set aside a day for training for a period of not less than two months and the Navy opened a free hot line for sexual harassment victims.
The secretary of the Navy made an announcement of plan to restructure the designed plan to end the enmity and rivalry between the major fighting communities in the Navy. This plan was also to address the problems of culture which create room for sexual harassment.
Discrimination of gays in military
The following is the revision of a statement that was passed before the United States army implemented its Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy in 1993, which signified a softening of the armed forces attitude. It perpetuated the hiding of a military identity- operation modes and secrecy requirement that are barely favorable to an emotional functioning that is healthy. Moreover, this policy is discriminatory because it imposes requirements to lesbians and gays, which are not functional to heterosexuals.
There is prevalence of anti-homosexual bias among military ranks of enlisted personnel and leadership. According to ILGA (2009) anecdotal reports, incidences of violence and harassment against lesbians and gays are still common. With continuation of anti-homosexual bias in the military, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry believes in reissuing a call to stop discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed forces. With regards to the Age-Discrimination on Employment Act (1967) Position Statement that was passed in parliament by delegates, there is no connection between work performance and sexual orientation, and that the armed forces of other countries that freely permit gays and lesbians into their ranks are not affected by intragroup conflicts.
Nevertheless, a hindrance or a ban to the United States armed forces military basing on ones sexual orientation is being opposed by the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, which is an organization that contains professional psychiatrists who are dedicated to the psychiatric treatment of young adults and adolescents and the study of adolescents. The psychiatrists work gives them a helpful and intimate understanding most of the issues involved in review of current policy that openly bans lesbian and gay from serving in the armed forces.
The armed forces main responsibility is to be able to defend or provide security to the interests of a nation and in this mission other conditions ought to remain constant. But it has come to realization by our society that the militarys primary mission is not incompatible with social justice considerations. From the past argument, military preparedness and armed services morale could be undermined by racial integration. Instead, the armed forces had achieved a racially desegregating experience during the Truman administration and these evidently facilitated equal opportunities for all Americans that were envisioned by our finding fathers. President Trumans farsighted decision enhanced rather than hindered the national defense. We believe that the same truth will apply on lifting the ban on bisexual individual, lesbians and gay men that are open on their sexuality.
The policies of Dont Ask, Dont Tell as well as discontinuation in the ban on gays or lesbians individual on the on the armed forces with no delay, are recommended by the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry. This position can be based on several factors like lesbians and gays being capable of performing their duties in comparison to heterosexual individuals sexual orientation, whether its origins are readily amenable to change or not a matter of choice homosexuals being discriminated is major factor that interferes with the psychological adjustment and development. It can therefore lead to subsequent complications that are emotional and stress that is not of best interests to a countrys nation sexual orientation should clearly be differentiated from private behaviour in that it is an exploitative behaviour or unacceptable public harassing on one side while it is a heterosexual or homosexual nature on the other hand and if superior officers handle it with a policy statement that is clear (as was performed in racial integration issue) proper efforts that are educational and privacy of all support whenever possible, then there is no need for an undue distress that is caused individuals in the armed forces that are homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. The experience of many allied countries as well as numerous studies in United States shows that the armed forces will not compromise the legitimate mission.
Gay rights in the military
Gays in the armed forces are stung by criticism over the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy. The US administration is quietly implementing steps that will reduce sexual orientation of the federal government other parts. The changes deviate from Bush and Reagan administration policies, that is, federal employees that are either gay or lesbians have formal procedures that may assist them to challenge what they see as unfair treatment. Some gay leaders prefer an approach that is step-by-step which focus on revisions of non- discrimination guidelines of each federal department. They argue that the president, by not signing an executive order that was of a high-profile on the issue missed an opportunity to deliver a message to private and public employers that such discrimination is not accepted.
Most executive branches like Department of justice and the interior Health and Human Services Agriculture and transportation have revised policies on non-discrimination in hiring and employment not to exclude sexual orientation. The White House as well as most agencies that are independent has done the same. Both the department of State and Defense and the Department of justice have decided not to subject a lesbian or a gay individual to a scrutiny that is special while attempting to get their eligibility for safety clearances. After Frank Buttino, a San Francisco FBI agent, was fired because he was gay, the issue came up at justice when the state settled his case.
A recent letter to Frank Barney, a gay Representative and head of Office of Personnel Management in D-mass where government personnel policies are set, insisted that federal employees (gays and lesbians) who feel they are being discriminated should take advantage of grievance procedures and internal remedies that are available to all workers. The states administration is determined to do more to vigorously oppose employee discrimination basing on hisher sexual orientation. Ways are being looked to make the gay issue in the armed forces successful. Thats why more gay people voted for Clinton rather than George Bush. A group called Federal Bisexual, Lesbian, Gay Employees that has affiliates in various places in the nation and some agencies, is organizing efforts to much of the force for the changes.
Hirsch Leonard, who is an international liaison, with Smithsonian Institution and the groups president, argues that some gays and lesbians refuse promotions or be harassed by co-workers due to their sexual orientation. He further said that, Our announcement about meetings have defaced and gotten torn down. The gays issue in the workplace got its first attention in 1950s during the McCarthy era, gays were seen by virtually all politicians as a security risk and a federal worker could loose hisher job the moment their superior, learned of their sexual orientation (homosexuality). A civil service reform in 1978 barred discrimination not basing on ones job performance, but on characteristic. The law was interpreted as banning discrimination basing on sexual orientation but this was ignored in the Bush and Reagan administrations. Recent victories have been bittersweet and insisted that a presidents strong policy could have a effect on the status of lesbians and gays in American community. Gabriel Rotello, a gay and a New York Newsday columnist accused the president of interfering with gay rights and capitulating to vastly overblown backlash fears. The real (and symbolic) damage in the armed forces has a chance to be reversed.
The Age Discrimination Problem in the Workplace
Age discrimination as Ridley (2008) puts it, is based on the grounds of age this discrimination can be against a certain age group which can usually occur in one of the three forms discrimination against elderly people discrimination against those at least 40 years old and discrimination against youth (adultism). In many nations, organizations refuse to hire individuals of a certain age despite populations average age and increasing lifespan. Younger people are dynamic and have a positive image for an organization to concrete concerns about regulations that gives older workers other benefits or high salaries that are justified by greater experience of older workers. Teenagers and youths are seen as adultism victims. To seek social justice, youth feel the possibility of removing false moral agenda so as to achieve empowerment and agency.
Adults should not treat youths as second class individuals but with more respect. Incorrect stereotype and generalization of the group is caused by social stratification. For example, all adolescents are seen as rebellious or violent addicted on drugs equally immature and listen to rock tunes. Groups have been organized by some employers to discriminate against age.
There are many individuals who are ousted by either their credit agencies or employers because of their age (young or old). Age discrimination occurs all the time and is against the law, so a creditor or an employer may not use your age against you. There are a number of laws pertaining age discrimination and they include
The Age Discrimination Employment Act It was developed in 1967 it is known as ADEA. This act protects persons that are over 40 years to be discriminated in the work place, that is, being promoted or fired. It protects the already employed persons and those that are applying for a position. The act states that nobody can be discriminated against age when it comes to privilege, condition or term of employment. Furthermore, the act protects those individual who are for large or medium organizations and those employed by the state (whether federal or local).
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 It was implemented in 1975 and was designed to give protection to those persons that are applying for assistance from the federal finance. This act allows any individual, despite hisher age, to apply and have opportunity of getting any available federal assistance. This Act works in relation to the 1967 Act (enforced by the commission of Equal Employment Opportunity) and is enforced by the Civil Rights Centre.
Workforce Investment Act (Section 188) This act was implemented in 1998. Applicants of WIA Title-1 are protected by this act. Financially assisted programs are applied to prevent employees from discrimination against age this act protects applicants from discrimination against age as well as according to their belief disabilities, race, national origin, religion and color. The Civil Right Centre enforces this Act.
Discrimination against age is a real-life problem for many people and it is of their good that they understand their rights when it is matter of protecting themselves. Age discrimination has a few more facts. An individual cannot be discriminated against their age by apprenticeship programs with the exception of set minimum age requirements by the EEOC or ADEA. Advertising with age discriminatory marketing is unlawful. Advertisements that need applicants with a certain age group to qualify cannot be distributed by a program or company this is according to ADEA. But they are some exceptions like, during application process, a company or an organization cannot discriminate against age. Though an employer can ask for current age and birthdates, an applicant cannot be discriminated against using this information. An organization cannot deny older employees their benefits. As per the argument of Blacks are Hit Hardest by Incarceration Policy (1998), benefits to deserving older workers cannot be denied by their employers.
In recent years, companies, organizations or employers have skyrocketed claims against age discrimination. But the United States has made it harder as per their Supreme Court ruling in June for workers to win such cases. According to the ILGA (2009), age discriminations have hit high (29) against prospective, former and current employers. As ILGA (2009) assert, the American labor force is experiencing graying and recession behind the trend. Almost 20 percent of the work force was at least 55 years old as of June, and was a 13 percent increase as from 1999. A larger number of older individuals are being discriminated against when combined with wide-spread layoffs EEOC (2008). Moreover, older employees advocates insist that a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 made it harder for prevalence of plaintiffs. The court ruled that workers, in financial services, who accuse under a law that is federal, which bans discrimination against those that are at least 40 years old ought to prove that the sole cause for an employers actions was age rather than the motivating factors.
Unfair treatment against age discrimination at work place due to religion, sex or race is more difficult to prove, as it may be devastating by the strict standard for even very strong claims against age discrimination. The Supreme Court decision could be overridden by the legislation that was introduced in October in Congress. Plaintiffs are required to prove that a major factor behind a decision in employment was age. One can lodge a clam with the agency (fair employment practices) that enforces a local government or local laws on age-discrimination. If a charge is filed under federal law, EEOC will typically be notified by these agencies. Reinforcement in Peer can also assist. One should encourage his workers to speak up when they see a witness someone being discriminated against age. They should be emphasis of Individual responsibility.
Handicap Discrimination in Work Place
Handicap is a type of disability, and discrimination of individuals who are handicapped in favor of those individuals who are not handicapped is referred to as disablism (or ableism). This discrimination favors people who are not disabled as capable of producing standard results in both private and public sectors thus excluding those that are disabled. The Americans with Disability Act in US issues guidelines while providing wheel chairs for those institutions that are public. Unfavorable discharges from the armed forces include any National Guard unit or their (military) Reserve components. Those with unfavorable discharged from the armed forces as well as other protected classes, who are handicapped should not be discriminated against.
Discrimination against disability is based on disabled veteran (or veteran of the Vietnam era) status, unfavorable discharge and they include Fostering a hostile or an unwelcoming environment basing on veteran status of an individual an individual being denied access to any educational program basing on an individuals veteran status retaliating or helping an employee for helping another individual complaint or filing a complaint that is against a discrimination basing on the veteran status of that person denying benefits performance raises or promotion evaluation basing on the individuals veteran status and preventing any individual from acing services or facilities of the University because of hisher veteran status.
Conclusion
Some of discriminatory employment practices in the United States workplace have been eliminated through enforcement of an antidiscrimination laws and Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, enforcement of existing laws has had strong resistance that may be politicized. Practices that discriminate employment have become more difficult and more subtle to correct and identify, while there is continuous reflection of unlawful and unfair reflection in the American workplace. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was implemented to stop employment discrimination patterns that are deeply entrenched against individuals because of their sexual orientation, sex, age and disability.
Employment discrimination based on age was prohibited by the Congress in 1967 and that based on disability was prohibited in 1990. After the lead of federal government, laws that prohibited employment discrimination basing on sexual orientation, sex, age and disability were enacted, though some local governments and states undermine employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Civil Rights Act was enacted primarily to protect discrimination against African Americans, but it faces strong opposition in their attempt to obtain nondiscriminatory and fair treatment in the American workplace. Subconscious bias, reliance on negative and false stereotypes and overt discrimination limits African Americans ability to get fair treatment in their other aspects of employment such as promotions, evaluations and hiring. Other national and racial origin group members that are identifiable by features like face, or skin color face similar persistent discrimination like African Americans. Discrimination against women has progressed, but most women do work in female stereotyped jobs and they do receive less pay than their male counterparts in all job categories. Women are rarely promoted because of subconscious and conscious sex bias, and will always experience sexual harassment on their job despite increased awareness of the employer to take corrective and preventive action. Pregnant women suffer discrimination in their promotion, job performance evaluation and hiring because of incorrect assumptions about their work ability, those with responsibilities of family care are disadvantaged by insensitiveness of their employer to family-responsibilities of their employees. Women of color are discriminated against a combination of gender and racial barriers.
Despite state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in the work place basing on age, older employees are evaluated basing on negative and false stereotypes and this makes them to suffer when employers lay off employees. When an older employee looses his job, heshe has difficulty in obtaining a comparable employee and forces himher to accept new employment low pay and responsibility. Current employees face persistent employment discrimination basing on their disability and sexual orientation. State and federal laws protect an individual from discrimination basing on disability, but false assumptions and overt bias about a disabled individual employments ability will lead to job denial to disabled persons that are fully qualified. Most employers resist their duty by not providing a reasonable accommodation to a disabled person needs thus limiting an acceptance to fair treatment, in the workplace.
Employment discrimination basing on sexual orientation is not prohibited by any federal state, but some states have provided some level of protection against this discrimination. Most lesbian and gay employees dont have a legal protection from harassment and vicious forms of discrimination against discrimination basing on their sexual orientation, in the work place. Therefore, one can conclude that fairness in the workplace eliminates unlawful and unfair employment discrimination. American workplace has to achieve this goal in order to reflect American values of equal opportunity and fairness
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment