Navy_Pete said:
I totally understand that, but if someone gets a DUI there is usually a certain level of proof required to get to that point.
The admin order includes online activities and microaggressions, along with straight up racist acts, so it's a pretty broad brush. No issue kicking someone out for say, running a neo nazi chat board, but it could also apply to a lot of things that are much less blatant. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but there is always the risk it could go too far. Having said that, haven't seen anything like that with Op Honour, so optimistic that common sense will apply and we won't be doing stupid things like slapping an RW on someone for liking a FB post years ago just because the group is now banned*, but sometimes that is weirdly absent.
I see where you are coming from and apologies if I came across as overly simplistic, have run across too many senior military folks who are fairly clueless on how admin measures work so I try not to make assumptions.
The real problem with racist or sexist or sexualized behaviour is not the big overt acts, we can all easily identify, it is those micro-aggression (believe me I scoffed when I first heard the term) and their effect on people, the org and the culture over time. The key to stamping it out much like Op HONOUR is a strong show by the leadership that these behaviours are unacceptable, hence orders like this one or Op HONOUR.
Jarnhamar said:
I hope this is a legitimate thing and not just fluff. I especially hope it's not just another tired DLN course that people speed-click through to challenge the test and report to higher that it's good to go so someone in brigade can populate a spread sheet and everyone call it mission accomplished.
I hope so too, bystander intervention and Respect in the CAF were great training products and I feel the latter can easily be adapt for racist conduct. Regardless of how the content is delivered there is always resistance to directed training on behavioural matters for a variety of reasons:
1. Loss of status quo - They see change as a net loss for them
2. Intergroup anxiety - The fear of saying or being accused of doing something wrong and being labelled for it
3. Denial of need for change - They associate the issue with overt action and don't associate micro-transgressions to being a problem
4. Identity Threat - Fear of loss of identity or assimilation from both all sides
5. Non-Supportive Corporate/organizational culture - Change not linked to strategic goals, lack of leadership ownership.
If it is to be effective it needs:
1. To almost be voluntary (very hard in the CAF for that condition admittedly) at least in the start. RitCAF IIRC work was/is voluntary ATT for example;
2. When you do the trg, the beginning should be about dispelling myths of what is or isn’t an issue (misinformed, false, or incorrect beliefs concerning motives, behavior, and victims that form a social lens);
3. Ensure that the organization is aligned properly to have a culture that wants to reduce misconduct. This makes intuitive sense because if an org is just paying lip service to the issue then there is no effect on the motivation of a person taking the training; and
4. Initial efforts in training should be done cautiously and should be done in concert with other initiatives within the org like removal of leadership that tolerate such behaviour, introduction or revamping of key policy and bringing in external consultants to deliver the trg or other initiatives.
