Double V: A Modern Interpretation of Ethical Challenges in the United States Military

A Study of Racial Discrimination and Ethical Lapses in the Armed Forces

by

David Francis Chang

MIDN 1/C USMCR

NROTC UC Berkeley

Spring 2016

Naval Science 412: Leadership and Ethics Seminar

Captain William S. Koyama

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the requirements of the Department of (identify department or organization that requires the paper;

e.g., Joint Military Operations).

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.

Signature: D. F. Chang

(1 April 2016)

If distribution of paper is limited in accordance with the DON ISPR, show Distribution Statement here.

Contents

Table of Contents: page ii.

Introduction: page 3-5.

“Suicide of Private Danny Chen: Could It Have Been Prevented?”

Racial Slur or Military Banter: page 5-8.

“What’s the Difference?”

Recommendation & Conclusion: page 8-10.

Selected Bibliography page 11.

This is page ii.

Suicide of Private Danny Chen: Could It Have Been Prevented?

It was just another normal day in Afghanistan where the darkness encompassed the vast countryside of Kandahar and the only movements were the interior guards patrolling the military compound. Private Danny Chen, of C Company, 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division had just taken a position at the guard tower at an Army combat outpost around 7:30AM. Danny’s parents never wanted him to join the Army, but in a community of Chinese immigrants and faced with racial discrimination, Danny wanted to do something different and to prove people wrong about the stigma of Chinese Americans living in America. At 11:13AM, a single shot was heard within the guard tower and Private Danny Chen was found with a gunshot wound to his head.1

Racial prejudice in the United States Armed Forces have been a major issue throughout the

past decades and the more recent destructive cases have proved to be fatal to unit morale

and integration. In this study, we will be focusing on the ongoing racial discrimination of

service members and personnel whether intentionally or indirectly to one another and detail

possible solutions to the issue at hand and how it correlates to the Double V terminology

used in 1942. The Double V campaign term originated during World War II where the

African American community in the United States resolved to gain victory over fascism

abroad as well as victory over the ongoing racial discrimination at home.2 While the term

Double V was more used during WWII and more associated with African Americans fighting

racial discrimination specifically, the current amelioration of the Double V campaign has

evolved more into a broader spectrum of racial prejudice for all minorities and ethnic

cultures in the United States Armed Forces. With this case analysis of the study of current

ethical challenges in our military, we can use Double V as an example to determine the

obstacles that the United States military branches and their personnel currently are facing.

One of the hard debated issues that the United States military currently is addressing is with

its new junior officers entering into the Armed Forces and the hard task to educate them to

instill trust with their enlisted personnel and to care for their subordinates at all times. After

careful analysis of the suicide of Danny Chen, the real ethical leadership challenges facing

This is page 3.

junior officers in the United States military to date is on how to prevent ethical lapses or be

aware of such issues that lead to demoralization and possible death of its personnel from

the decisions or lack thereof of an officer in charge. 1st Lt. Daniel Schwartz was Danny’s

platoon commander and failed to promote a climate in which everyone was treated with

dignity and respect, regardless of race and did nothing to uphold the rules of preventing his

subordinates from engaging in racially abusive language to one another when he could

have. David Wood, a senior military correspondent revealed that a tragic milestone in

military affairs was reached in 2012 when 185 active-duty Army soldiers died by suicide

compared to the 176 soldiers actually killed in battle in Afghanistan.3

Another instance of when racial discrimination played a part in fatal injuries or deaths in the

United States Armed Forces personnel was of Nidal Hassan, a Major in the United States

Army who admitted to Jihadist motives for his killing of thirteen people and the injuring of

thirty-two others by opening fire in Fort Hood, a Texas Army Facility in 2009. One of the

primary reasons behind Nidal Hassan’s motive to kill his fellow service-members was due to

racial discrimination of him being Muslim and because he was an Arab. Mohammad Munif

Abdallah Hasan, Major Nidal Hassan’s cousin implied that the Army major wanted to leave

the military and avoid the war in the Middle East because he felt as if he was disrespected

due to his religion and did not want to harm Muslims in Afghanistan when he received his

deployment orders. “Yes, you are a major in the U.S. Army, but you are still an Arab, a

Muslim, you have your own traditions and values and we have ours. He was bothered by

that a lot. He wasn't respected as he should have been."4 Major Nidal Hassan also believed

and felt that because of his religion and of his race, he was also prevented from being

promoted further in the United States Army and chastised and mocked constantly by his

peers.

This is page 4.

A recent report of the distribution of active-duty enlisted women and men in the United

States military in 2010 based on race and ethnicity showed that almost fifty-three percent of

active-duty servicewomen and seventy-one percent of active-duty servicemen were white.

While the United States Armed Forces is known throughout the world for having a

supplemental amount of diversity in its organization, people of African American, Asian

American, Native American or Hispanic or Latino origin, all fall in the minority realm. 5

In 2008, News Blaze, a multiplatform news network organization published a 1999 Pentagon

survey in efforts to promote good race relations in the Armed Forces found that forty-seven

percent of Hispanic personnel and forty-eight percent of black personnel experienced

incidents that caused them to lose trust in their colleagues, how minority service personnel

felt they received poor evaluations more often than their white counterparts because of their

race or ethnicity, and that thirty-eight percent of Hispanics and sixty-percent of blacks felt

that the military did not pay enough attention to racial discrimination. 6 Lt. Col. Hoffler served

in the military for twenty-two years and was the first black squadron commander assigned to

the U.S. Air Force Academy and reveals that he was the victim of a racially motivated “witch-

hunt” and subsequently was denied a promotion due to his race. In an expected result found

from the United States Department of Defense statistics, it was shown that the number of

black, active-duty, enlisted personnel has declined fourteen percent in five years.

Our servicemen and women took an oath to defend and support our Constitution and our

country and yet the discord between our own military service members is potentially causing

more blue-on-blue suicides and emotional turmoil in our own ranks. With the plenty of

cumbersome and arduous tasks already assigned to each military personnel, the U.S Armed

Forces cannot afford to have racial discrimination as another obstacle that lowers morale

and the commitment that our personnel has for each other and for their institution.

This is page ii.

Racial Slur or Military Banter? What’s the Difference?

It is often very difficult to differentiate or distinguish between playful banter or actually

malicious slurs directed by military personnel to each other. What may be perceived as a

norm in the military might be something characterized as spiteful in the eyes of those who

aren’t quite sure of the jargon and the casual play of it. The United States Armed Forces has

gone through many changes over the past few decades in hopes of creating a more efficient

and effective work environment for its personnel. Phrases, events and activities conducted

in the past that were considered to be normal will no longer be accepted and can now be

classified as hazing or active racism and will not be tolerated. A recent report from Michelle

Tan who is currently a staff writer for Army Times found that a platoon of soldiers was given

a free pass to use racial slurs against each other during what was known as “Racial

Thursdays” by their platoon commander, who neglected to uphold the standards to prevent

such a thing from happening in the first place. 7

Soldiers had a tough time speaking out against what was going on; as for the

minorities, they did not want to be looked down or cast as traitors or “Blue Falcons”. These

types of actions demoralize our country’s combat effectiveness from our military personnel.

Diversity encompasses more than just race and gender, and with the United States Armed

Forces coming from a very diverse populous background, the young Americans who

voluntarily join the military serve will only do better they know that their country and their

fellow servicemen and servicewomen from different races, gender and religion, are able to

work alongside each other without any issues. Hazing back in the day was considered by

many as a rite of passage, something that every servicemen and women goes through and

experiences as a way to create closer bonds. This is not the case anymore in our modern

military with the reasoning that there are other approaches and better ways to instill

This is page ii.

comradery and devotion to peers other than hazing. Just like how hazing was once a

military norm, it has since been eradicated as it proved to serve no benefit whatsoever and

the same could be said for racial slurs and discriminations. Military banter can serve as a

positive and supportive approach to our servicemen and servicewomen in our Armed

Forces, but when it evolves into racial discrimination and racial slurs with the intent of

creating emotional or physical harm to an individual, it destroys the esprit de corps that our

military embodies. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey

said in a statement in 2012 that all service members have a personal responsibility to

intervene in and stop any occurrences of hazing or bullying and that this type of behavior

directly undermines the United States Armed Force’s values and tarnished the

professionalism and reputation and erodes the trust that bonds its personnel. 8

Anthony E. Hartle in “Ethics and the Military Profession: The Moral Foundations of Military

Service” wrote that men and women in uniform sometimes fail to recognize that being a

member of a profession also imposes high moral obligations. He goes on to state that the

qualities necessary to lead men and women in carrying out missions impose great

responsibility on what it means to be a leader of character and of an officer in the United

States Armed Forces. He continues that duty incorporates concepts of obedience and self-

discipline and that honor for American military officers connotes integrity, not military glory or

prestige. In doing so, we have to understand the relationship between the enlisted and the

officer, and that a decision such as having “Racial Thursdays” impacts a company or a unit

as a whole. 9

After “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the United States Armed Forces was pushed to be repealed in

2011 by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of

Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, Congress eliminated the law against gay men and

lesbians from serving openly in the military. While this was a huge step to bringing equality

This is page ii.

and acceptance into the Armed Forces, a report conducted in May of 2014 showed that as

many as fifteen-thousand service-members must still lie about themselves in order to serve

their country without any risk of backlash or prejudice towards them from their fellow service-

members. In an interview with ABC, Mr. Chuck Hagel stated that, “There is no compelling

medical rationale for banning transgender military service,” and “eliminating the ban would

advance numerous military interests, including enabling commanders to better care for their

service members.” 10

While the ban did help many service-members come out and still work and serve their

country, there was a lot of backlash from officers and enlisted personnel alike on the

decision made for “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and many gay and lesbian service-members still

received if not more, threats, hazing, racist remarks and opposition that affected their

working environment, their ability to perform the duties asked of them and their morale.

Public outcry was still resounding with mixed opinions as a report from the Pew Research

Center in 2010 that fifty-eight percent of the U.S public favored allowing gays and lesbians

to serve openly in the military while about twenty-seven percent were opposed and the rest

were undecided.11 During the presidential election for the 2012 campaign, On September 22,

2011, the audience at a Republican candidates' debate booed a U.S. soldier posted in Iraq

who asked a question via video about the repeal of DADT (Don’t ask, don’t tell), and none of

the candidates noticed or responded to the crowd's behavior. Two days later, Obama

commented on the incident while addressing a dinner of the Human Rights Campaign: "You

want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who

wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient.”12 With racial

slurs becoming more degrading and aggressive with repeal of DADT, junior officers who are

about to enter into service especially must set the tone and example for their men and

women and allow a good working environment where there is no discrimination for anyone.

This is page ii.

Recommendation

With close to around 1.3 million active duty personnel and around 800,000 reserve

personnel, the extreme size of the United States Armed Forces makes it very difficult to

enforce high standards through all their personnel without seeing any ethical lapses or

negligence to duty. So the question that comes to mind is, do we address these issues at

the lowest level possible or give officers the freedom to regulate and dictate how their

command will be ran? Willie Harris, an editor for Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, stated

that the United States military, in particular the U. S Army, believed that they were

somewhat successful in quelling and reducing racial discrimination and racial slurs by

implanting policies that support full commitment to nondiscrimination and to uphold the

standards of performance that is vital to achieving its goals. 13

An important element in this reasoning is through the support that by having a strong and

rigid hierarchical institution like the United States Armed Forces, it can offer additional

principles and moral guidelines and rules that their employees and personnel must follow.

With this analysis, it goes to show that future junior officers entering into the service must be

mindful of their duties and of their commitment to their subordinates and fellow service

members. The death of Danny Chen would have been prevented if his platoon commander

decided to take a stand against racism and hazing and acted like how a good leader should

be.

Countless suicides and physical, mental and emotional injuries could have been prevented if

stricter guidelines and the quick thinking and steadfast leadership of officers were employed.

As a result of prolonged wars that the United States has been involved in, lieutenants and

captains often have more combat experience than to the generals that command them.

When the U.S Army is experiencing more suicides in their active duty personnel compared

This is page ii.

to actual deaths in combat related missions in Afghanistan, that itself shows that something

needs to be changed. Being successful under such conditions often requires upholding

some old rules of leadership for young officers, which also consists of adhering to the high

standards and instilling leadership and a sense of responsibility to their subordinates and

officer peers.

Racial discrimination and prejudice impacts not only the service-member’s capability to

complete their work and task in a supportive working environment, it negatively reduces

morale and combat effectiveness to the command around it. With the notion of gay and

lesbian servicemen and servicewomen allowed for service of their country, junior officers

must also acknowledge their beliefs and provide an environment where no race or religion

or belief is belittled or condemned upon. Events such as the suicide of Danny Chen or the

mass murdering of Fort Hood by Major Nadal Hassan both based on feeling discriminated

by their race or religion, could have been prevented. Our servicemen and servicewomen do

not need the additional burden of dealing with blue-on-blue attacks whether through

physical, mental, or emotional turmoil while serving their country. For future junior officers, it

is our job to prevent these mishaps from happening and to take a strong stand on providing

a healthy environment for all military personnel to work in.

Preventing any ethical lapses for racial discrimination and prejudice must be enforced from

the top down through the chain of command. Especially as future junior officers, how we set

the example and guidelines impacts our command structure and working environment. The

United States Armed Forces will continue to be the world’s most effective military force not

solely based on its equipment, engineering and innovation alone, but also on the brave,

committed and selfless men and women who sign up and volunteer to serve their country

regardless of their race, their ethnic background, religion or belief.

This is page ii.

Selected Bibliography[1] Gonnerman, Jennifer. "Pvt. Danny Chen, 19922011." NYMag.com. January 6, 2012. Accessed February 13, 2016.

http://nymag.com/news/features/danny-chen-2012-1/.

[2] Jr., Henry Louis Gates. "Double V Campaign During World War II: What Was It? “The Roots” May 24, 2013. Accessed February 22, 2016.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/05/double_v_campaign_during_world_war_ii_what_was_it.html.

[3] Wood, David. "Army Chief Ray Odierno Warns Military Suicides 'Not Going to End' After War Is Over." The Huffington Post. September 25, 2013. Accessed February 18, 2016.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/ray-odierno-military-suicides_n_3984359.html.

[4] Special Investigation Report. "Fort Hood Suspect's Religion Was an Issue, Family Says"" CNN. November 07, 2009. Accessed March 30, 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.suspect.muslim/.

[5] Distribution of Race and Ethnicity Among the U.S. Military 2010; Statista. December 2011. Accessed March 30, 2016.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/214869/share-of-active-duty-enlisted-women-and-men-in-the-us-military/.

[6] External Writer. "Is The U.S Military Addressing Racial Discrimination?" News Blaze News. November 26, 2008. Accessed March 31, 2016.

http://newsblaze.com/usnews/military/is-us-military-addressing-racial-discrimination_7333/.

[7] Tan, Michelle. "Army Investigates Alleged 'Racial Thursdays' at Unit." Army Times. March 19, 2015. Accessed February 22, 2016.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/03/18/army-race-investigation-unit/24994093/.

[8] Vergun, David. "ARMY.MIL, The Official Homepage of the United States Army." Zero Tolerance in Army for Bullying, Hazing. August 13, 2012. Accessed March 31, 2016.

http://www.army.mil/article/85308.

[9] Lucas, George R., Rick Rubel, and Anthony E. Hartle. Ethics and the Military Profession: The Moral Foundations of Leadership. P.63. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2006.

[10] Editorial Board. "Discrimination in the Military." The New York Times. May 14, 2014. Accessed March 31, 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/discrimination-in-the-military.html.

[11] Pew Research Center: "Most Continue to Favor Gays Serving Openly in Military", Nov 29, 2010. Retrieved February 14, 2012.

http://www.people-press.org/2010/11/29/most-continue-to-favor-gays-serving-openly-in-military/

[12] "Obama: Don't stand silent when soldier is booed", MSNBC: October 1, 2011. Retrieved February 13, 2012. Accessed March 31, 2016.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44744458/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-dont-stand-silent-when-soldier-booed/

[13] Curtis, Willie. "A Military Strategy for Combatting Institutional Racism." Diverse. July 04, 2007. Accessed February 23, 2016.

http://diverseeducation.com/article/8055/.

This is page ii.