tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 2, 2016 4:30pm-6:31pm EDT
quote, worth more than 10 battleships or five armored divisions is a sense of american political resolve . i just worry that we haven't sent that sense and on congresses shoulders we had set that sense. general done bark you testified as the commandant in the marine corps for this committee and i asked about an authorization and what it might do and you said, this is almost a direct quote on our men and women need and it's virtually all they need is a sense that what they're doing has meaning, has value and has the support of the american public. i don't think we've given than that. i don't think we sent a message of political resolve as the political leadership, as the decision-makers contemplated in article 1 of the constitution. we cannot the message will result for our troops, not sent that message to our allies, not sent that message to our adversaries continue to believe the domestic legal authorization for this war is highly problematic. going to turn my attention to a second legal issue which i usually haven't talked about
and that's got to be international legal basis war as well. if you are fighting the war on your own soil and are not invading anybody else's sovereignty, you don't need separate legal justification for fighting that war but if you are into the severance space of another nation, they are not only has to be of domestic legal justification, there's got to be an international justification. a common legal justification, one of the most common on the international side is that you have been invited in by the sovereign nation that wants your help. us action against isil in iraq right now is at the invitation of the iraqi government there is clear international legal justification for all activities in iraq, setting aside the domestic question. i'm sorry to say this but there is also international legal justification for russian military activity in syria because russia has been
invited in by the sovereign government of syria. we may like it or we may not. we may think it's a bad idea but in terms of the international legal justification for russian activity in syria they've been invited in by a sovereign government. russia through proxies and even through their own forces is carrying out military operations in ukraine. that's a violation of international law. it's a clear violation of international law because ukraine has not invited them in. they are carrying out military operations in a sovereign nation without the support of that sovereign nation contrary to the affirmation. but what i struggle with is how can we criticize the russian incursion into ukrainian sovereignty when we are carrying out, now escalating military operations in syria without the permission and really even against the will of the sovereign nation?i am correct am i not that syria has not invited us to conduct
military operations within the nation of syria? >> you are correct and just to address a couple of points you've made, first of all i want to hasten to say i'm no lawyer but we do have lawyers and with respect to the au mf authorization for the use of military force, i agree with you. i testified in favor of there being such an au mf red for importantly because it would signify to the troops that the country is behind them. i've they feel like they are behind them and the chairman and i tried to attest to that. your visions of the reason attest to that.that would've been another way of attempting to that. i am told by the lawyers and i believe this set the legal basis for what we are doing exists in both domestic and international law for everything we are doing but again, i'm not the expert on that and couldn't explain to you the ins and outs of it. i also will say that the, if
there's a difference between what we are doing in syria and the russians did in ukraine, we are trying to fight real terrorist. we are not trying to destabilize the stable situation. so we are trying to return order and decency, not the other way around. i don't know what a lawyer would say but the common sense answer is there's a big difference. >>of course there is and i completely agree with you. i completely agree with you . but if i had russian witnesses on the stand they would talk about why they are doing what they are doing in the ukraine. and i'll just conclude with this mister chair. at the end of this administration, as a strong friend and supporter of this president at a and a supporter of everybody around the table i think we've made a complete hash and this data is a diplomatic phrase of the doctrines of war, both domestic and international.
we are engaged in an incursion into the sovereign nation of syria without their permission against their will . we are trying to criticize russia for engaging into an incursion in another nation against their will and we are asserting as the difference that we are doing something good and they are doing something bad. i agree we are doing something good. i agree they are doing something back. but that's not a limiting principle because everybody's going to say what they are doing is good. at the end of this administration, with the complicity of this congress i think we basically come up with a war doctrine that says wherever and whenever as long as the president yells that it's agood idea . without congress even needing to do anything about it. the problem is that is the rule and i think that's become the rule. that's a rule that i think will haunt us domestically under future presidents in congress is that i can see and i think it's a rule that can easily be seized by any other nation to basically justify all kinds of things
that are horrible. and so you know, we are only six months before the end of the administration and the administration that promised years ago in march 2014 that they would work with congress to revise the 2001 authorization that is currently being used as justification for action not only in iraq and syria but yemen and africa and the arabian peninsula. there's been virtually no work done to put any limiting principle on that, certainly not in any kind of negotiation with congress that i'm aware of. so we are going to basically be in a position where we turned the authorization from 2001, a lot of administrative gloss that wasn't in the authorization into an all-purpose wherever, whenever domestic justification and then we've taken common international principles of law and basically we've decided that if our motives are okay, we can incur into the
sovereignty of another nation because we are doing the right thing but then that takes away our ability to effectively criticize other nations that get into the sovereignty of other nations as russia is doing in the ukraine so mister chair, this is not a subject we are going to resolve today as we reach these new milestones of escalation i'm just going to keep putting on the record the deep concern about the president we are setting for this nation but also the example we are setting for other nations. thank you thank you senator kane. let me recognize senator montford. >> thank you mister chairman and i want to thank senator kane for that very powerful and compelling summary of concerns that i share and i will give my own version of them because he said that very well and you've been here long time and i thank you for being here so patiently and so informative
the to this committee. i noted mister secretary that there was a note of pride in your voice when you said you were not a lawyer . for which i forgive you. >> i only met that i was a physicist . >> there are many days i wish i were a physicist and there's no way i could be so thank you both for your service. i want to explore an issue that i think is extremely important, the evolving military cooperation between russia and iran. it may have been mentioned here but not in depth. there have been reports in recent weeks that have highlighted russia's shipments of parts, the s 300 air defense system i believe to iran in addition, russia and iran are supposedly in talks over the soup way fighter jet and possible shipment of that. weapons platform.
if these systems are delivered, clearly is in violation of the un security council 2231 area i'm not an international lawyer but it seems pretty clear that would be a violation which requires security council approval for the sale of any major combat systems to iran for the next five years. supplying weapons to iran is particularly dangerous because it's not done in a vacuum, supplying weapons reflects a growing partnership that has far-reaching ramifications for hezbollah because that is iran's proxy. it also benefits at least indirectly from russian arms andmilitary operational experience in syria . so my question to both of you and i begin with general dunford is what are the implications for israel if iran continues to receive military equipment in russia
and what would the united states have to do to counter it? >> senator, thanks and i think clearly there are implications for israel. i visited now couple times over the last few months and the israelis to view the developments in iran with great concern and that has a lot to do with our continued commitment to making sure israel maintains a qualitative military edge in the theater and so the implications are that we will continue to work loosely with your israelis to make sure they have the capabilities and capacities. as you know we talk about you and me to meeting not just the capability but also the capacity to deal with threats in the region so i think our commitment to what the israelis now call q and e2 is really the most appropriate response to the developments in iran but i share your concern and i know the israelis do as well. >> secretary carter, what can be done to stem the flow of arms in this way? obviously there are potential diplomatic steps.
are there also military steps that can be taken? >> first of all let me associate myself with the chairman just said but there are both diplomatic and military steps, i don't mean military stepsin the sense of attacking but posture . the diplomatic ones i can't but there is a body, un security council resolutions are not just one, there are a number of them. i'm not an expert on that but i know they do a five and they should constrain country are supplying them with dangerous arms because of iran's other activities in terms of supporting terrorism , in terms of ballistic missile threat and so forth for which they have been sanctioned and which sanctions were not part of the iran nuclear deal. to the military playlist, i
just say this. this is one of the reasons i was in the gulf and president asked me to go there before him last week is to talk to our partners about fortifying themselves. that wasn't a conversation with israel but i've had conversations with israel as well. also to strengthen their capabilities, we do that missile defense , lots of other areas committed to their qualitative military edge as the chairman indicated and of course they have more concerns than iran but is their principal concern. that's reason, we have a huge posture in the middle east. militaryposture: us military posture.part of that is isil but other one is the other i . isil and then there's iran that's why were there to underscore, deter and support our and allies especially being israel. against iranian aggression and malign influence so
that's very important that i take it that this continuing flow of arms, i would appreciate your views and commitment in this regard would be taken into account in the negotiations on the memorandum of understanding that are ongoing right now as we speak. >> yes. those discussions are conducted by the white house but obviously completely informed the views of myself and the chairman on the military dimensions of it. >> and extensive discussions i had with my colleagues including my good friend the defense minister and the chairman has his counterpart there. >> thanks mister chairman. >> gentleman on behalf of the german let me thank you for your testimony and your service and declare that the hearing is adjourned. thank you very much. >>.
>> dns presidential primaries tomorrow and tonight both donald trump and ted cruz have campaign rallies in the hoosier state.donald trump is in south bend and you can watch that live at 7 pm eastern on c-span two and live on our companion network c-span, ted cruz speaking to reporters in indianapolis. an update on the race for delegates ahead of tomorrow's primary on the gop side, donald trump in the lead with 992 delegates followed by ted cruz at 562 and john kasich with 153. those numbers from the associated press. in the race for the democraticpresidential nomination, clinton leads with 2165 delegates . bernie sanders has 1357.
the graphic sex, violence and profanity so pervasive in today's entertainment media environment. >> you have a new report out called protecting the children or protecting hollywood? what's the nugget in this report? >> we were looking at the tv content rating system. when you turn on the tv and you are watching a show you see in the corner tv pg 14 and so forth. that was created by an order of the fcc almost 20 years ago. it went along with the v-chip that allows parents to block inappropriate content for their children and what we did was we look to see the efficacy of the content rating system itself. is accurately warning parents about inappropriate material. our findings were that it is not. it is systemically weakened and broken, in need of repair. we found that there is a blurring between td 14 and tv pg. there is actually no show on broadcast television, series on broadcast television today that is rated appropriate for anything older than children.
td 14 is the oldest race. even the most explicit content on product type broadcast the is rated as appropriate for children's lot. we learned the tv networks themselves with the shows and we learned the tv advertisers who pay the bills for the networks rely on the ratings just like parents do so there's a conflict of interest in terms of writing content accurately. a lot of those advertisers won't sponsor the audience only content, therefore the tv networks don't rate anything as appropriate for mature audiences and the system is incapable of doing as it was intended. >> so you're saying the ratings the network give their shows are inaccurate? >> not always but a lot of the times. they are inaccurate, they are inconsistent and there's no transparency for parents understand really what those ratings mean. if they are concerned about the accuracy of a rating system, who with a complaint too? actually there's an oversight
monitoring board in washington comprised of the very same tv network executives who write the program programs want to begin with. that doesn't look like oversight to me. >> to bring david shepherdson into this conversation. he's reporter with thomson reuters. what is in the report you mentioned is there hasn't been a g rated program in prime time since 2008, it was the price is right. is that a reflection of sort of where he is today or does it suggest the networks just are not interested in having that kind of programming? >> i think the latter. what's interesting, we are now like you said almost a decade since we had the last regularly scheduled series rated g. in last week's we have a new one. it's called probing child on nbc and it is winning its timeslot every sunday night so it shows there still is a market for family-friendly , as long as it's well produced and good production values. >> there is a huge market for this. i think the networks, i spent
15 years myself at nbc. i don't know anybody who intentionally tries to her children or tries to push the envelope for envelope pushing sake but there is a mentality and when they see something that's out there that's successful they tried to make it a little more edgy, a little more provocative and they gotten away from broadcasting to the word broad, broad market as unfortunately tdd has become a dinosaur except for fortunately this one show recently. >> is that reflected the fact that with cable, co, showtime that consumers have so many options already for explicit shows the networks pressured to maybe compete more directly with the cable shows? >> it's ironic that the networks you'll need to compete with the cable networks that the broadcast networks own . it's the consolidation of media ownership today, you have five or six companies that own only the broadcast networks but most of the most-watched cable networks. but the reality is, you're
still using public airwaves . it's a supposed to be a broadaudience, broadcasting . so certainly they feel pressure to compete, try to find a way to get audiences. they leave the way to get bigger audiences is more like cable.our belief is more like cable you are going to get a cable rating, not broadcast network rating mister winter, what are the restrictions on the networks when it comes to prime time or anytime of their programming? in terms of content? there is still the fcc broadcast indecency law that is now on the books for decades. >> the seven words? >> that was the george carlin case, seven words which the tv networks attempted to throw out as unconstitutional, the broadcast indecency enforcement a few years ago and the supreme court chose not to throw out that statute
and it's still a good law and it was in fourth as recently as a year ago when it tv station in roanoke virginia aired hard-core pornography quit they said by accident but it did air on public airwaves on a time when children are in the viewing audience. it's a good law and still being forced. >> again, what are the restrictions question mark doesn't begin at a certain hour question mark is nudity, violence, where is the line? it is content that depicts or describes in patently offensive terms sexual or exploratory functions. violence is not part of the broadcast indecency law. there are some that would argue that the harm that comes to children from watching pilot media is greater than the sexually explicit content. the research we've seen is that both have an impact on children and right now the law only affects sexual or exploratory contact between 6 am and 10 pm so after 10 pm the broadcasters are free to
air whatever they choose as long as it's not legally obscene. >> what about the argument from the broadcasters that parents have the v-chip and a lot of control over what their children watch what mark isn't that enough to prevent kids from watching things they shouldn't be watching? >> it on important resource. we don't think it's the sum total of all theremedies that should be out there. broadcast indecency is important. if you are violating the law, you are violating the law at certain times of the day. if you want your stuff that would be in decent, wait until 10:00 and you can do so without any consequence . the argumentabout the v-chip solely as a solution is flawed becausethe v-chip requires the content rating system to work , to be accurate . if there was a problem and i know the audience watching this in the audience so if i could use. language, we knew there was a problem. we saw a show that was rated as appropriate for children
at with a sexual intercourse seen rated as appropriate for children and during the scene the woman said to the man, stick your finger in my ass. rated appropriate for children. i don't think that is appropriate for children. we actually took it to the network, we took it to the tv oversight monitoring board which is this board in washington that's supposed to make sure the system is doing its job and they shrugged . they said it's all subjective. the reason you have oversight is to make things as objectified as you possibly can. if the rating system is going to be subjective on each age rating based on the same contact and rated differently house v-chip us job it can't. along with the v-chip what about the argument that parents have more control now because so many parents are using an ipad or using a dvr to basically have much more control with the kids watch because they are putting the shows, recording them as
opposed to letting them turn on the television. >> i'm shipping is a huge issue as relates to the council and trying to serve our members and the public. what used to be on at certain times of day was on and then it was done. now you can record it and play it back anytime with a touch of your thumb on the remote control. that iscertainly a challenge . as it relates to the content on other devices, my friends in hollywood and the tv networks no greater than i do consequence to their business from people going to streaming, the cord cutters and so forth. it is probably the hardest point in time for a parent to be parents when it comes to the media choices for their children right now. there is so much out there that's way more explicit than they will ever see on television. that's why it's so important for the hardware and broken manufacturers to provide tools, parental control vices on these systems so there can
be at least some modicum of security for their children. it's impossible to get all that but it's important for us to try what else to beside the v-chip in your view could work that would help parents? >> we talked to a number of academicians in the united states who are experts in the field of impact of media on children and content ratings. they have recommended a number of different remedies one of which is , i don't personally advocate it because i don't know enough about it but one is interesting is the government has a system whereby every single piece of entertainment content, media content whether his motion pictures, television, video games, music is subject to one single rating system that parents can understand and adopt. it's not for movies, one for tv, one for music and one for video games so the fact that you have one consistent system would be very helpful. this oversight is also very concerning to me. what does an oversight board look like? it shouldn't just be the industry executives running the asylum. >> where does the sec fall into this oversight?
>> the sec has the authority to accept or reject in total the report and order that was created 20 years ago that created the v-chip, the content rating system oversight monitoring board. there is no public accountability for this oversight monitoring board. i think the sec could adopt some changes that shed some light that would allow not just the industry executives to determine what's appropriate or not but bring more voices from the outside, academicians, experts, child psychology experts, experts in the scientific field who can see was harmful, what's not and provide their input. assess a system that some of the oversight required to look and see if the system is working, it has to be independent and right now it's not. >> what about again, back to these cable issues, the argument there so many channels on box now for kids and there's pbs kids or nickelodeon, many good options of family rated programming.
>> what is your role with nbc? weather and that nbc is a did a matter with any awards that they want it even with years past. and if they stayed there with a family friend the company didn't want to be explicit they don't want to associate their brand of 1g rated show what they are demanding that for the
this. >> is there a disconnect with hollywood? with these movies for kids. >> i believe there is a similar mentality on the distribution side. with the blockbuster after blockbuster with those motion pictures every year there is a lot of action but year after year if those letter will produce that the whole bill lee can enjoy together make the most money is pg-13 they make a lot more money than the are
rated movies. why is that? that is what the like to produce. >> there are several different readings that are is available but just focusing on the broadcast network. day you think those are actual ratings? >> they talk about one standard. >> are there more than fewer? >> good question. i seek is the ratings are more clearly defined or more easily understood or the categories are fine. the analogy most of us go to a supermarket we look at the ingredients. the fat content or the
>> we have a digital recording with a number of cable networks. people thank you are watching television? and the centralization of women. and then to use that on our web site. and that is the biggest expense line that we have. >> host: is it more prescriptive for the ratings ? >> it is an interesting question it's based on united states of america of
nobody wants to be censored or for a certain content where you can on certain days cable you can in the internet you can. such talking about what can or cannot be done but there has to be greater attention with those public airwaves which is $1 trillion worth there using those airwaves for free. they will serve the public interest and then that serves the public interest. so please look at the content accurately. >> have they gotten past that?
>> certainly they have. there have been instances on the television and data at night you can view that after 10:00 at night. b.c. episodes of "saturday night live" that continually pushed the content. but the reality is almost any way they could possibly want after 10:00 the advertisers are uncomfortable sponsoring certain types of material. with those cable network shows like broadcast television so those are the most extreme. >> some is advertising pressure not the pressure from the fcc. >>, chief think advertisers
care in general? >> with those varying degrees of relationships with very solid relationships if you want to have a dialogue there always eager to hear the point of view they don't want to support this type of stuff. the agency looks at the demographic. not just looking to see the content just like to you talking about how bad that is but they can advocate the responsibility onto the advertising agency.
, that is how they get paid day get the money than they have to spend it. >> being so concerned of the corporate brand and the corporation that they don't know what they're buying. so then to ask the ceos to their shareholders this is what you stand for and then to say we had no idea that was the case. and they will reconsider the decision. talk a bill seems very interested in the young males even if it is explicit content. few and far between they will be careful that research shows that have the
sponsor's name. but they don't remember what is advertised. that is fully funded programming. >> modern family is that something as well? >> you don't distinguish sexual behavior with gender. it is the sexual behavior that has the impact on children. bed gender is not. >> but your accountability of a closed system how would
you like to see that? the sec has 24 individuals. with the motion picture lobby. there are 18 industry executives and then to identify those five individuals that is the industry executives with the public interest advocates you were on the board there should be more scientist involved in more psychologist who are aware of the impact. it should be a consequence
it to say there is no problem please move along to have that consequence so it is misleading and it is fraudulent. >> and then with that creative freedom of people in hollywood the creators or the motion pictures with the shows on tv but end up to be not as edgy. >> you can produce what everyone to produce. and we have seen evidence of this in motion pictures as well with the hamburg school
two years ago of gun violence on pg-13 with r-rated movies there is a couple of reasons for that because they make more money on pg-13 because they will find any way to get it in their. and second to there is a desensitization of those who rate the content themselves. i that was interesting that pg-13 should be called r 30 but that was traded because there was an effort to fill that gap in there is still with ballroom the answer should be zero of i think it is two or three but no more
of venice ceo of this service action women's network for zero rights of women in the military a member drifted community network advocating for the individuals in need of service women past, present, and future. i will take a moment to take you for being our hosts in this beautiful facility in also especially their wonderful staff. and i am honored to have you join us to discuss this important issue. sexual assault and harassment are increasingly viewed as a public-health issue in and outside of the military. the complexity and the immediacy is apparent by the range of stories in the media.
video game is intended to prevention or testimony before congress. founded in 2007 primarily because of the lack of attention focused on this issue to have the major role to hold sex offenders accountable to eliminate barriers to disability claims to those who have experience military trauma. we hope to expand the discussion to prevention. those who will help us understand to connect a broad range of deeply rooted believes attitudes and behaviors that could lead to sexual violence. our speakers will also explore those organizational approaches taken with the department of defense to
address the problem. and finally how we will look at those cycles of violence through a personal level. this will be a great dialogue and i hope we all lot -- walkout today with new motivation to make a difference. they continue bomb is the institute's seven national yearlong program for the first group of military women designed to provide the tools that they need to reach their professional goals at the top level of local and national levels. it is made possible from generous grants from american express.
i want to thank you for joining us and encouraging you to participate actively everything said today is on the record so we encourage you to participate in person and online. we can discuss today's event on twitter. >> the ledger do is our first speaker this stock dale. a professor of psychology and the chair of the department of psychology at indiana university or perdue university at indianapolis. co-author and co-editor of five books including the psychology and management of workplace diversity and sex discrimination in though workplace. also published widely in
research journals and books ranging from sexual harassment -- harassment and public-health initiatives. serving as an expert witness in the sex discrimination cases. into teach courses of industrial organizational psychology in research methods. and finally a fellow at these psychological association the society for industrial psychology so let's take rabblement to welcome dr. salk bail to talk about its application to the military. [applause]
and to speak about military sexual assaults with a broad understanding of a continuation of sexual violence the first-aid disclaimer i am not an expert nor are my are my family members ever served in the branch of any military. and andrews air force base in i have tremendous respect for military institution for the women and men who have served our country.
for the first time in 30 years it has been a humbling experience. with industrial psychology focusing on gender issues and though workplace because of lions share focusing on sexual-harassment. on how targets of harassment to perceive and label their experience how others define sexual harassment with the various coping strategies to be harassed and other issues. several years ago a colleague at the university of kentucky -- kentucky receive grants of women who had received a domestic violence protection order
with a comprehensive baseline assessment of other forms of violence as well as a follow-up survey after receiving a protection order. into understand as it began. as women who have been abused as children was related to their experience of sexual harassment on the job. it can be one of the ways another colleague of mine
with other forms of personal violence to recently do the release of the sexual prevention assault of this. it outlines a specific focus on sexual harassment and it is based of the my talking what i hope to accomplish is to familiarize you with the research done primarily with examples but with that the radical perspective and to
who was i ever tenures older and before adulthood with the penetrative and non penetrative is all. of the psychological harm to and of what the partner has felt among heterosexual and same-sex couples and adult sexual assault is more broad with partner violence and that includes rape and sexual assault. the legal definition will vary by state especially if nonsexual contact -- conduct
or threat of bodily harm or if they are not able to provide consent. military assault occurs in the context of military service. sexual harassment is a verbal behavior to of sexual corroboration and unwanted sexual attention or the extortion of the return of job-related consideration. also to distinguish between a fraction it also varies by
be up sexually harassed by his superiors with a history have sexual assault is more likely to experience sexual assault they and others. with id service sexual-harassment and assault is significant for women and men. there are different clusters and experience multiple forms of sexual violence to experience both sentiment partner violence. additional data and active-duty servicemen and women are also likely to
experience sexual-harassment and it predicts sexual harassment during a career. with their most recent thank comprehensive survey. with these other findings to have a of framework this framework distinguishes between the differences that is separated significantly across time such as sexual assault for a child or adult or sexual harassment. also the framework
distinguishes between those relationships of targeting family members or co-workers or strangers. longitudinal these separated experiences is the prior form of assault are different from the current assault this is commonly referred to in another form later in life. they are more likely than others and a study that might be completed with interpersonal violence that is more likely than others
the traders are the same group of people as the gateway to more extreme forms of assault? they could be a sexual assault impersonator but the location may create jurisdictions. however of dissolved workplace romance the experience that occurs outside of the workplace may be considered partner violence but in the workplace it may be considered sexual-harassment. it also may involve multiple forms of of you abuse for save more different individuals of the overarching organizational
culture of related behavior's. research of the organizational climate its its, light penalties for perpetrating harassment or of lax policy and violence is generally accepted in women that are treading on jobs historically with the province of men. but to understand multiple victimization but has been afforded an organized with various factors to blame the of victim mentality or stereotype and you can
understand that victimization. with those other experiences those that are at risk for substance abuse and ptsd that can impact long-term coping skills. that it increased the exposure to victimize those experiences in the future. referring to the situation such as working in a work environment such as factory environments or maybe the
military. the probability of perpetrators is increased in the major abusive behavior. with a broader context of victimization of the social structures for example, they may be less likely than others to have educational resources or other forms of social power it reflects that cultural contact and cultural attitudes such as blame the victim attitude which allow people to understand that has happened for a purpose.
the routine activity theory or lifestyle very comes from criminal-justice literature that's all the abuse of experience. with the victimization occurs with motivated offenders situated in the environment that can protect those targets that motivated offenders but not always to hold misogynist attitudes. those as well as harassment are motivated to be engendered social dominance.
in addition personalities such as insecure attachment for a high a need for control often paid with insecure attachment issues ended is not only risk factor but also to become a perpetrator of sexual assault. targeting sexual abuse can be anyone but as i described earlier there at a higher risk than others for future abuse and assault one explanation to avoid a coping strategy to one person is vulnerable to victimization and then to
make them a target working environments where alcohol or drug czar used the threat and presumed privileged are all risky situations for women with lack of capable guardians with the protective forces with the of leadership and organizational cultures that fail to protect those targets from harm. conceivably with those routine activity theory because of the military and all volunteer force their so selected it is male-dominated and more
educated it is hierarchical end of the structure is likely to appeal to individuals of strong social dominance orientation also likely to be men who will protect their dominance of the military career there also yonder as women to be no -- were like a divorce to lower economic status. that increases the victimization and. also high rates of analysts and sexual assault occurring prior to military service 15% for female recruits for civilian populations research on sexual harassment for women who are numerically outnumbered but
the military structure right now has a weak capacity for vulnerable targets from harm and where alcohol is available means sexual assault can spill over from one locale to another to be adjudicated differently with intimate partner violence or with sexual harassment or sexual assault. and these rules of the investigation to address the full-scale victimization. the value of military attribute can also create an environment for speaking out against a superior.
strong obedience to the chain of command encourages protection that those will not understand. these are elements of a military culture. the individuation achieved is a powerful element with the socialization to of sexual and gender read these. in addition with the military law such as the court martial rule with the assault as well as the character of military service.
these have far more knowledge inexperience as a cover may continue of sexual violence and the policies responsible for investigating in responding to those in gendered victimization should be highly coordinated or under a unified system. on paper is one of the most comprehensive approaches to violence in the efficacy will be discussed in the upcoming panel. it is fallen under the purview of the office of the secretary of the first - - equal opportunity and diversity management.
with crimes against children and family members with the only advocacy program how well to be integrated and coordinated with those procedures and services. second with the victimization is warranted and third, one thing i do know about the military is a strong focus of leadership development. leaders need to be trained and held accountable to recognize signs of the victimization. and with risky behavior. santry for those do services
to also take appropriate measures to modify those conditions that exacerbate as well as 3p victimization. to monitor the environment and monitor stimuli including graffiti that mock the vulnerable population such as these divider. to also clarify the path to resources to receive appropriate relief for those of sexual harassment. they should also be trained to understand or harassment have occurred or are more likely to occur. with the bystander programs
to proactively be part of the solution instead of the problem all i am pleased to see the full scale of continuum of gender related victimization from the military and the advocacy groups such as a service women action network. hearing from those forthcoming panels of the individual initiatives with the specter of interpersonal violence in the military. thank you very match. [applause] >> first of all, i want to say in your materials there was a comprehensive bibliography including an article of what we just
sexual assault and to make the point theoretically that it should be integrated but do not have more of a fundamental societal problem that extends beyond the military? if you would take this report with sexual-harassment. we have problems with campus sexual assault and sexual harassment and we have an office for equal opportunity that really handles the harassment,
whether it's against students or dent employees and then another office of student affairs that deals with sexual assault that coordinates the police. but they talk to each >> -- and that might be something but hopefully our experts can talk more about. >> hi. so there's been a lot of talk about screening, and i was actually on a panel a few years being discussing whether should blow screening for adverse childhood effects. and the consensus of the panel in the end was that we did not think that there should be routine assessment of the thing
because of the potential that information could be used in adverse way, and somebody was proposing a study where they would in basic training, screen people for adverse childhood speaker e experiences and intervene weapon thought that would be victimizing to people at a time they didn't want to be pull apart. so i wanted to know your thoughts. >> that's an interesting and good point. so, the issue was, does revictimmization harm that person u person further, ethrough heightening maybe the revictimmizing experiences or maybe discrimination perhaps. so off the top of my head my response would be to think of it more like we do with the americans with disabilities act, whichs -- have a disable you're not required to disclose that when you are interviewing for a
job or being screened for a job, but afterwards, if you would desire an accommodation 0 of some sort, you can talk about it with your employer and find a reasonable accommodation. so the employment decision isn't based on knowledge of the disability. and so maybe that could be a way. you're in -- you're not screening to get into the -- into a military service but post -- but beyond in the career . [inaudible question] i came here because i was connected from a resource center in pennsylvania. my daughter was victimized in
recent month biz an rotc early admission program. they never expelled -- my daughter is graduating next month along with the perpetrator. my reason in coming here is to let everybody know here the rpc program in the united states are not screened. they're not screening their candidates properly in my opinion. i spent 30 years at the department of justice, up until two years ago, and when my daughter called me, i was up in really most of it -- her own advocate. without an attorney, was making a lot of phone calls and making a visit to valley forge military academy in wayne, pennsylvania. until now, the perpetrator is still there, on campus, receiving federal benefits, my
daughter still being harassed, and keeping her life there on normal basis and i believe that there should be prescreenings, i believe the perpetrator in this case has had a history of child abuse, only because that's just my feeling inside as a mother, that maybe the upbringing of that perpetrator -- i'm not an expert, but the upbringing of that individual maybe was not adequate enough and now is using the campus environment to abuse other students. how is this being addressed? the r.o.t.c. program and they're
passed on -- the reason for them to be the is to give opportunities for individuals who want to pursue valid career in the military, give them a chance to better their lives,. >> you said. some people are coming from low income backgrounds. obviously my daughter is not from that. she wants to make herself a better life, give herself a better life. gave here that foundation, but the other individual, you don't know the background, so as far as the police cooperation, like you mentioned, unless my daughter pressed charges there would not be an active police investigation to investigate the background of the perpetrator. so this is what i'm saying. there's a lot of psychological effects, like i totally agree with you present, but on the other hand, there's not enough support yet for the victims, and
sometimes the victims, like my daughter, they're going to use other avenues to handle their situation, and seeking help from the professors, they have been very outstanding with her, but again, being the complainant on a title ix investigation, it's very -- it's frowned upon, and so this is why i'm here. to hopefully let our government, our legislators, give us a second look to the r.o.t.c. programs and that sometimes people are using that, not to benefit themselves but to maybe harm others, and we don't need that. and so this is why i came. to be an advocate for my daughter and myself. >> thank you for sharing that with us. i'm very sorry to hear.your daughter's experience.
you did mention title ix, which is for student-based assault and harassment, is the legislative approach to that, and there's a growing consensus that title ix related procedures and processes have really got to become more prom presentsive and there's been some recent improvements to law in that area of procedures. part of this lies in the university. i assume this is a university environment. and their response and handling of the claim of abuse, victimization, but i would -- because it's an r.o.t.c. program i would think the military would need to have a role in that,
too. i know some research that -- [inaudible] -- >> they refused. did not allow my daughter to file a complaint through their system because they told her she was a civilian, and i did my research, and i told my daughter, so is the perpetrator. she is still a civilian. she has not been commissioned officially. jurassic thank you -- >> thank you again for bringing us that information. helps raise awareness. the. [inaudible question] -- army retired. my question to you is you were talking about the general
environment, and setting the tone for how these things happen or how men feel empowered in certain environments to take advantage of the situation. we have been at war now for almost 15 years in countries where women north educated. they don't drive. they don't spend money unless they have permission. what impact do you think that environment has had on the current situation that we're in? >> that's a really good question. don't have an answer to it. on the one hand i would hope that by being in environments where women have far fewer rights than we have here, that may open their eyes a little bit. on the other hand it may have the opposite effect, saying you're not in country where women are allowed to drive, for example.
so i can see it going both ways. i don't have a basis to speculate on what that might be, but that's an intriguing question. maybe some of the other panelists might -- not going to step in and help me on this, can see. [inaudible] >> okay. well, thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> thank you again. right now we're going to turn to a discussion on organizational approaches within the department of defense, and i'd like to start by introducing your moderator, ellen herring. helen is a senior fellow at the women and international security and a member of the board of the service women's action network. he rear search and work focuses on women and gender in the military. she is a west point graduate, a retired army colonel and a distinguished visiting professor at the u.s. army war college. she is currently completing a ph.d at george mason university school for conflict analysis and resolution. has been a guest speaker on foreign and domestic news shows, including cnn, pbs news hour, national public radio, and frequently guest-lectures at universities and colleges.
[applause] >> good afternoon. i'd like to introduce the next panel. the next speaker will be dr. an dry moreel, a senior behavioral scientist at rand corporation where he has served since 1997. 'er yes of examiner start include performance measurements, program evaluation, survey research, risk management. he recently completed the largest ever survey of the sexual assault and sexual harassment experiences in the u.s. service members members and major national and international multiservice evaluation asks published dozens of peer reviewed reports and leading scientific and policy journals and has served as a science adviser to the national institute of occupational safety and health to the department of homeland securitier in for risk and economic analysis, and
department of homeland security chemical facility. today he is here to present his team's research finding from rand's 2014 military workplace study on sexual assault and sexual harass harassment -- harassment in the u.s. military. doctor? [applause] >> thank you very much, ellen, and thank you to the service women's action network for inviting me to this forum. i'm pleased to be here and hope i what i have to say will be useful. do we have my slides up? and the lights down. what i thought i'd do is talk about just four findings. we had a lot of findings, but highlight four because they bear on the continuum of harm, and i real tell you about the
recommendations we made when we found these results. first just briefly about the study. it was large. we went out to over half a million service members. that included -- this was a survey. that included 100% of active women, and 25% of active component men. a pretty good response rate for this kind of thing, got 170,000 responses. the reason i mention that, it's the first time there have been enough respondents to be able to look at some events. for instance, the first time that such a survey has had enough male sexual assault victims that we can characterize their experiences. we'll talk briefly about that. what we found is there are some generalizable differences between the experiences of women sexual assault victims and the
male sexual assault victims. in particular, men are much more likely than experience to experience multiple incidents in the past year. more likely to be assaulted be multiple offenders during each instance, and to be assaulted at work and during their duty hours. there are far more likely to describe the assault as hazing or as intended to debase or humiliate them as opposed to being a sexual event. they're more likely to experience physical injuries during penetratetive assaults. women are less likely to experience a sexual assault that involves alcohol use by the victim or the perpetrator. or to tell anyone about the event or file a report. so, what you see is a pattern
for men -- it's not to say that this pattern doesn't occur with some women as well. just that far more common with men. for instance, men are six times as likely to describe the sexual assault as an act of hazing or occurring during a hazing ritual than women are. so what this suggests is that there's a pattern that looks a lot like hazing, bullying, harassment, picking on, a particular member of a unit or at an installation and doing it repeatedly over the course of the year. furthermore, it may be -- the findings that men are so much less likely to describe the event as a sexual assault as opposed to an assault designed to debase, humiliate them may have implications for prevention program and the reporting programs at the department of defense.
specifically, if men are not recognizing that some of these events are in fact sexual assaults, they don't report, as theslide points out. they don't report at nearly the rates women do. so, suggested at a minimum -- and our recommendations to the department was that the prevention programming should be reviewed to ensure that the kind experiences that men are having, plus the experiences women are having, are well-represented in the training programs and leadership programs, and to see reporting system available to men and women be reviewed to see if there are ways of taking advantage of this information that some of this sexual assaults again men may not be perceived as sexual assault us but with the recognize, designing procedures that would
increase reporting. that's the first thing. the second findings concerned differences between the services. with the slide show -- what the slide shows is the rate of sexual assault experience by men, the lavender color, and women, the purple color in each service, and the thing i want to point out is there are striking service differences in sexual assault rates, particularly the men and women in the air force are exposed to lower risks. by significant margins, by factors of two to four in this raw data. it could be that this is just a matter of demographic differences between the services. we know that the marines and the nave are much younger services. the personnel are young people,
and a much larger proportion are large and sexual assault is age -- youth is a risk factor for sexual assault. so maybe the differences are due to demographic factors. so we look at that carefully, and did some statistical modeling to make sure that when we were comparing rates for the people of the same age -- what's going on here -- the slides are cut off. oh, okay. well, i tell you what it says. what we did is we redid that comparison between the services, trolling for a bunch of differences that exist between the personnel and experiences of the receives. so controlled for the age of the service members and their race, marital status, education, afqt
scores, a test of skills, how many dependents they had. we had many factors and then all these military experience factors we controlled for, including pay grade, entry age, and things like that. then we also controlled for things like the environment they were working in the military. so, factors like the percentage of men in the unit and installation, as dr. stockdale mentioned, the proportion of men in your environment contributes to risk. when we controlled all these factors so we were sure we were comparing services on a completely apples to apples basis. what we found is -- they're all cut off -- what we found is that the difference between the army
and the navy and the marines were -- there were no longer differences between them. the fact that air force had so much lower rates was not explained at all. in fact after controlling for all the factors, women in other services had 1.7 times the risk of sexual assault as women in the air force, and men in other services hads four to five times the risk of sexual assault as men in the air force. so, what this suggests is there's something that explains quite large differences, four to five times is a big difference in social science research. going on -- there's something that explains the difference between services and we haven't been able to identify what that is. sometimes people ask, well, wouldn't -- if you went to a college campus, wouldn't you find that there was similar rates of sexual assault at a college campus?
is this really a military thing? i think evidence of this is one of the best points of data we have that suggests there may be something to look at that causes big differences in risk of sexual assault. you don't need to go out and look at a college campus to recognize that there's something big going on that differs by service. and that could be understood better, and so one of our recommendations was to try to understand what are the factors, to do more research, to understand what are the differences between the air force and the other services. could be that they attract different people and the differences are just thinks we don't have -- we can't statistically control. but also could have to do with differences in the way the services are structured, or the -- how they're organized. or how the physical
organization, like where people sleep, maybe quite different in the services. so we think it would be valuable and useful for additional research on why there are these large differences in sexual assault across the services. that's the second finding. the third one is -- is that working? the third point is about the differences between the verve component members and the active component members. what what can see on the slide is both men and women in reserve component are exposed to lower risk of sexual assault than men and women in the active component. this is any sexual assault. we didn't just ask about experiences with someone the n the military sexually sauling you. any sexual assault in the past year.
so, what -- this is another very good comparison. these are all service members. one group of whom spends more time in the civilian world, socializing with other civilians and their civilian workplace, and the other spends most of their time in a military environment and there's different risks. we did the same statistical analysis and don't find the variables we tried to adjust for explain this difference. so there's another surprising finding that we had here, which is the high rate at which the sexual assaults experienced by reserve component members omuir military settings or with a military perpetrator. we reduce the size of the verve component same just to those people who are part-timers, working 38 or 39 days a year for
the military, and what we find is that 85% of the assaults they experienced were military related, which is a much higher portion than might expect. that doesn't prove that there is a -- that being in the military is the risk factor, and in fact, we have heard speculation that there may be something specific about being in the verve component and what it's like to leave your family once a month and go off to drill training and some of the risk factors associated with that lifestyle. that may be part of the explanation here. we don't know but strongly recommended that this is another signal or clue about what is going on with risk in the military. that could be further pursued and understood to better drive
down risks. the last thing i want to talk about concerns sexual harassment. sexual harassment is quite common in the military, we except 116,000 active duty members were sexually harass fed the past year and 44,000 experienced gender discrimination. it's so common that when we ask women of all ranks how common it is, more than 75% say common or very common, and men do agree. they don't agree at quite that rate but close to 50% of the men say it's common, very common, in the military. we know that sexual harassment is a lot of negative workplace outcomes involving productivity,
retention, morale, and other bad outcomes. but as the doctor stockdale mentioned there's also evidence that sexual harass harassment is -- women who were sexually assaulted were -- sexually harassed in the past year -- were 14 times more lookly to also have been sexually assaulted in the past year. so very, very strong association there, and men who were sexually harassed were 49 times as likely to be sexually assaulted in the past year as well. that doesn't prove there's a correlation. -- there's a correlation, but doesn't proof there's a causal association between sexual harassment and sexual assault. certainly could be. didn't privilege it but suggests -- doesn't prove it but suggests that sexual harassment may be a good indicator for where there's a problem. one recommendation was that if
the military could identify differences in rape and sexual harassment across unit or commands, across installations, that might be a way that they could identify those places where wilkes is highest, and look at what are the differences occurring in those places. what are the features of the places that could explain this difference, and if there's the correlation stands, differences in rates of sexual assault. so those were the four points i wanted to make and look forward to our discussion in just -- after the next speaker. [applause] >> your next guest is miss
brenda mooreell, appointed to serve as the director of the government accountability office of the defense camabilities management team in to us where she is responsible for military and dod personnel issues -- civilian personnel issues, including medical readiness, unmanned aerial system issues, clearance processes and work force issues. -miles-an-hour farrell is the recipient of the distinguished service award, congressional service award and two gao meritorious awards for sustained performance, leading multiple highly complex reviews. today she is presenting the identifyings of two ga ooh reports, the 2015 report on sexual assault in the military and the 2016 report on hazing incidents involving service members. >> thank you, ellen.
thank you for that elevation. thank you to swan for having gao represented here today. we appreciate the opportunity to discuss our recent report on dod's updated prevention strategy. sexual assault is a heinous crime that devastates victims and has a far reaching negative effect for dod because it undermines the department's core values, degradeses mission readiness and esprit de corps, raises financial costs. and importantly, reported sexual assaults represent a fraction of the sexual assault incidents actually occurring in dod. dod data shows that reported incidents involving service members more than doubled from about 28en in fiscal year 2007 to 6100 in physical year 2014. however, based on a 2014 survey
done by my colleagues as rand, 20,300 active duty service members were actually assaulted in the prior year. in 2008, gao has issued multiple products and made newman are you representations to prevent and respond to incident's sexual assault. for example, relevant to today's discussion is our march 2015 report on military male victims of sexual assault. we reported that dod has taken steps to address sexual assault of service members generally, and they like to refer to it as their policies are gender neutral to address the sexual assaults of service members generally but it is not used all of the data, such as analysis that shows significantly few are male service members than females reporting when they are certification allly assaulted, conform their decisionmaking, such as tailoring training or incorporating activities to
prevent sexual assault. the analysis of sexual assault prevention estimates using the results of this rand study conducted for dod, shows that at most 13% of males reported their sauls, whereas at least 40% of females reported their incident. today i will primarily discuss our report issued in november 2015 on dod's updateed prevention strategy. let me start with background information. for a over a decade, congress and dod have taken a variety of steps to prevent and respond to sexual assault in the military. in 2004, following a series of high profile sexual assault cases involving service members, congress required the secretary of defense to develop among other things a comprehensive policy for dod on the prevention of and response to sexual assaults involving service members, and response to
statutory requirements in 2005, dod established its sexual assault prevention and response program, to promote the prevention of sexual assault, to encourage increased reporting of such incidents, and to improve victim responsibility capable, and in 2008, dods published its first sexual assault prevention strategy. in april 2014, dod updated its prevention strategy, and that updated strategy is the focus of my discussion. i will discuss two objectives from the november 2015 report that addresses the extent to which dod has, one, developed an effective prevention strategy, and, two, implemented activities departmentwide and at military installations related to the department's effort to prevent sexual assault in the military. for the first objective, we found that dod developed its strategy to prevent sexual assault using the centers for
disease control and prevention framework for the sexual violence strategy, but dod does not link activities to desired outcomes or fully identify risk and protective factors. specifically dod's strategy identifies 18 prevention-related activities but they're not linked with the desired outcomes of the department's overall prevention expert. a step is necessary to determine whether efforts are producing the intended effect. dod'sing extra includes activities such as conducting spermized leader sexual assault training training and establishing core collaboration forums to compare practices. in a different section of dod strategy it lists five general outcomes of its prevention efforts such as acceptance and endorse. of the values that seek to prevent sexual assault and an environment in which service
members network, support a culture of sexual assault prevention. although activities and outcomes are identified in the strategy, dod does not discuss what, if any, connection exists between the 18 prevention relate activities and outcomes in the department's efforts to prevent sexual assault. without a defined link between activities and key sired outcomes dod may not be able to determine which activities are have thing desired effect or when necessary to make timely and informed adjustments to its efforts to hope to paroling toward a desired outcome. also, dod may lack the information needed to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of its efforts inch adapting cdcs a framework to address the unique nature of the military victim, dod did not identify risk and protective factors, i.e. factors that may
put a person at risk for committing sexual assault for that, alternatively, may prevent harm. in its updated strategy. dod adapted cdcs approach by guying five domines environments in -- domains or environment's in which it would -- includes risk factors for three: individuals, relationships and society. for example, within the individual domain, dod identified risk factors such as alcohol and drug abuse and hostility toward women as risks that may influence sexual violence. however, dod does not specify risk factors for the two domains over which it has the greatest influence. leaders at all levels of dod and the military community. for example, the strategy does not identify potential risk factors associated with these domains such as recognizing that the inherit nature of certain types of commands or units may cultivate an environment in
which there is an increased risk of sexual assault. one such risk factor may be hazing in our february 2016 report on dod's policies address and track hazing, we reported that initiations and rights of passage can be effective tools to instill esprit decore and loyalty and are included in many traditions throughout dod. however such traditional activities as well as more ad hoc activities have ad at times includes cruel or abusesive behavior and has not always been easy for service members to draw a clear distinction between legitimate traditions and patterns of misconduct. also, we reported that hazing incident maize cross the line into sexual assault. we noted that service officials and male service members at several military installations gave us examples of recent incidents in involving both hazing and sexual assault.