U.S. Military Bias Challenges Present

U.S. Military Bias

Challenges Present in Overcoming Biases in the United States Military: Past, Present, and Future

"The few. The Proud." "Be all that you can be." "See the world." These hiring slogans for various branches of the United States military (Marines, Army, and Navy, respectively; the Air Force has never officially adopted a slogan) suggest a great amount of pride, and offer opportunities of service and of personal fulfillment and achievement. These are some of the traditional sources for honor through military service, and it makes perfect sense to invoke them in trying to encourage enlistment -- the military is putting its best foot forward, and offering a kind of training and experience that no one else can. But though these slogans are wholly democratic in their language, and though they stem are issued by the oldest democracy in existence, the actual institutions behind these slogans might not be so equitable.

The various branches of the United States military have long been marked by severe biases, where opportunities provided to some -- i.e. white heterosexual males -- have been entirely denied to others quite explicitly for reasons of gender, race, and more recently, sexuality. From the segregation of troops through every major war until the Korean War to the very apparent dearth of female officers that persists to this day to the failed and discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the military has not shown a true and concerted attempt to match their actions to the equality promised -- or at least suggested by -- their statements. Instead, the dominant power structure -- again, white heterosexual males -- has perpetuated itself by the consistent oppression of anyone different from themselves. This pattern was seen first in the segregation of African-Americans, then the barriers and degradations that women have been subjected to, and finally in the ongoing treatment of homosexuals.

Perhaps the most well-known case of widespread bias in the United States military is the segregation of African-American and white troops throughout most of the country's history. Most of this occurred over periods of time when the concept of a woman serving in the military would have been simply unthinkable, and issues of sexuality -- especially homosexuality -- were simply not discussed in a sort of "don't ask, tell, or do" policy that extended to and from society at large. This does not excuse such thought or action, but the fact that the military remained a highly biased organization in terms of race even when the issue was under heated contention -- as gender and sexuality issues were not -- provides some necessary context when observing any bias in the military. Though the specific groups affected by the military's bias might change, the problem is a persistent one, and reflects the hierarchy's refusal to approve of anyone who does not meeting their conception of the "right stuff."

If being an African-American meant you didn't have the right stuff until after World War II (and disparities have been noted even now), being a woman has become the new indicator of hampered success in the United States military. Not only is there a drastically lower rate of females achieving positions as officers and being promoted in general, but incidents of sexual harassment are also incredibly rampant in the military -- and it is very likely that far less than half of all sexual harassment incidents are even reported (Ernst & Gilbeau 1993). There is a definite and obvious bias towards men that still exists in the military, not just in the numbers who choose it as a career but in the way they are treated during their service. Women, however, are at least allowed to joining the armed services without hiding their gender.

Homosexuals of either gender don't really have that option. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been rendered impotent if not downright illegal by various Supreme Court rulings, and yet the military's stance on the subject remains ambiguous. Before the institution of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, under which individuals were not to be asked about their homosexual desires or activities nor to discuss them with anyone, the number of people who had been discharged from the military for engaging in homosexual acts -- which is still grounds for a discharge -- had been steadily decreasing. After the policy was officially implemented, discharges for homosexuality became more regular, and were on the increase until just recently (Burelli & Feder 2009). Though the Supreme Court has rendered discrimination based on sexual orientation a violation of basic civil rights, such discrimination continues.

The various branches of the United States military claim that there are special issues at work in the military that make the issue more complicated and necessitate keeping homosexuals away from heterosexual servicemen and women. These are the same basic arguments that were used to perpetuate the segregation of African-Americans in the armed forces, and that are still often invoked in order to bar women from certain types of service (Ernst & Gilbeau 1993). These other minority groups, however, have already been fully enfranchised in society at large, and enjoy the rights of marriage and family without a second thought. Homosexuals are not truly allowed to be open or free in public even as civilians, and this has made the struggle within the military much harder. The rest of the nation appears poised to slowly move towards granting full citizenship to homosexuals, yet the military lags behind.