Bias in Battledress: Fixing the Hidden Problems of Military Prejudice
Gender bias in the U.S. Marine Corps saps its effectiveness as a war-fighting organization. It is time to recognize the problem, bring men and women into the conversation, and demand more from military leadership.
For the month of August, we have chosen to feature two original contributions in Strategic Outpost from our next generation of national security thinkers. We hope you enjoy these thoughtful pieces from young men and women already rising to be the future leaders in this field. We’ll return to our regular Barno & Bensahel columns in September. Meanwhile, best wishes for some great summertime reading!
The military services have until October 1 to recommend if any of their occupational specialties should remain closed to women. Most services have hinted that they will open all opportunities to the most qualified candidate while others are expected to maintain the status quo. This is a historic moment that represents an opportunity for the military services to break through the institutional biases that have hindered optimal development of the next generation of warfighters. This juncture echoes others in history, where institutions have been pushed to examine their assumptions about their members’ capabilities and to discard unhelpful biases in order to maximize their organizational effectiveness. Today, it is especially critical for the U.S. military to get this right as it strives to create a future fighting force with fewer resources.
We often do not recognize our own biases without someone else pointing them out to us. Institutional biases prevent organizations from achieving their full potential because they encourage those in positions of authority to maintain the status quo rather than unlock the potential of all members. This is also where a quick look at history can help illuminate a way ahead as women increasingly earn their positions in historically male-only units.
1851: The Irish Cop
In 1851, Barney McGinniskin was the first Irish immigrant to become a police officer in the Boston Police Department. At the time, Irish immigrants and their families constituted 40 percent of Boston’s population, but city leaders believed that the Irish were inherently too irresponsible to be police officers. The city marshal claimed that hiring McGinniskin came at the “expense of an American.” Anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic fervor grew as “nativists” stoked the fear of these “immigrants.”
Three years into his tenure, McGinniskin’s anti-Irish boss relieved the 6’2” Boston police officer without cause. No protest was made because the leadership in the city silently consented to this malignant bigotry. Officer McGinniskin’s abilities, merits, and dedication to his duties were not questioned. Instead, socially accepted stereotypes of his nationality ultimately determined his fate.
1942: The Black Soldier
During World War II, intelligence testing of military recruits divided new joins into grades that determined their suitability for serving in various roles. Nearly all black recruits at the time scored in the two lowest grades, identifying them as suited for labor and precluding them from serving in technical and leadership positions. This testing process served to reinforce the military’s institutional bias toward maintaining segregated units under the assumption that the “negro soldier” was naturally less intelligent than his white counterparts. However, what the testing actually identified was the abysmal effect of a Jim Crow education system. Black recruits had not received the same education and preparation as that white recruits had.
These same assumptions about intelligence were also used in aviation to justify keeping black officers out of the cockpit. Despite being college-educated, black officers were expected to fail in flight training. They were provided low-performing white instructors who themselves had low expectations of their black students. Instead of capitalizing on the patriotism and talent of a large population of capable servicemen by integrating them into regular squadrons, those black pilots who succeeded were placed in segregated units where they were overworked due to limited manpower.
2015: The Female Marine
The Crucible is the culminating event of the Marine Corps’ recruit training, where recruits officially earn the title of U.S. Marine after enduring the infamous rigors of boot camp. Unlike the other services, the Marine Corps recruit training is gender segregated; women and men receive the same training, but do so in single-sex formations. Until August 2014, a row of chairs was placed behind the female platoon at the end of every Crucible, in the words of the commanding officer, “for recruits who were too ‘exhausted’ or sore to stand. Conversely, there were no chairs staged behind the male formation.” This type of behavior has a name: “benevolent sexism.” Unlike the previous examples of outward intolerance based on prejudice, benevolent sexism is often well intentioned. Leaders are often acting on a deep-seated bias that women are weaker and less capable, and constantly require assistance. This results in “gender norming,” the watering down of performance standards for all, and ultimately a less capable warfighting organization.
The actions motivated by benevolent sexism perpetuate the underlying assumption of female inferiority by demonstrating to the entire institution on a daily basis that there are lower expectations for female performance. In the case of female Marine Corps recruits, the institution visually demonstrated this low expectation for them even though they had just completed the Crucible under the same conditions and requirements as their male peers. As a result, the Marine Corps continues to produce less-qualified Marines and accepts this status quo without challenging the underlying assumptions that sap its overall effectiveness.
Recommendations
While instructors at The Basic School, the Marine Corps’ leadership school for all new officers, we both personally observed biases — in subordinates, peers, and ourselves. Through discussion and the intent to better ourselves as instructors, we looked into the science of bias and how we could shape officers early on to be better leaders. The following recommendations are based on both our practical experience and academic research.
Recognize and Address Biases: Set one standard for individuals to compete for a position and judge each individual on his or her ability — not on stereotypes. As staff platoon commanders at The Basic School, we were both in charge of training a platoon of lieutenants for six months at a time. As much as we could control it, at no point were Marines given a pass to enforce biases. For example, women had to learn to change amongst their male peers after a hike, and their male peers learned quickly to accept this as normal, so no one really gave it a second thought. As a leader, forcing individuals to recognize and address innate biases often merely requires putting them in a new situation and allowing them to come to quiet terms with it. They then usually see that their fears did not amount to much once they actually experienced the situation.
Good communication with subordinates is required to get them to that goal, followed by tough expectations to keep to a rigorous training schedule. Whether it is a physical or technical skill, leadership or mentorship, your stronger subordinates will succeed if they believe you are giving them a fair shot. Addressing biases is often a delicate dynamic, particularly if the “guilty” individual is unaware or well intentioned. There are times where blatant disrespect requires bureaucratic action, but more often opportunities arise that allow us to point out our biases to each other in a constructive manner. At times, the subordinate plays the mentor. Fostering this environment as a leader is important.
Bring Both Men and Women into the Discussion: Leaders must ensure both men and women are part of the solution. Through education, the military can combat bias within its ranks. A project at Harvard University has studied the effect of bias and established an implicit association test to help expose individuals to their personal biases. This is a simple test that compares how an individual buckets words in different categories (specific to race, sex, or other factors). Although the test may not be a perfect indicator of one’s exact bias, the result of the test is immaterial. Both authors have used the test with student lieutenants. No one has to share the results of their test, but the ensuing conversation afterward addresses the effect of an underlying bias on leadership. It is ideal to set ground rules, primarily dealing with civility and emphasizing intelligent debate instead of heated argument. If it is possible, having a mix of experiences (such as first-generation military, first-generation American, men, women, and people from different demographic backgrounds) provides great stimulus to the conversation. This type of discussion often enables people to relate to each other when they might not otherwise do so. The true impact of the implicit association test is the conversation it creates among military leaders. Through discussion, solutions are born.
Furthermore, it is important that the training incorporates a study of history. Lessons such as those of the Boston Police Department and black service members in World War II are a great way to start, but the conversation needs to lead to how to improve the current military outlook. This requires maturity, honest reflection, and boldness to speak the truth. These traits should come naturally, as they are exactly what the military requires of its leaders. From entry-level training to top-level schools, the military should incorporate bias education into its professional military education series.
Demand More from Military Leadership: Military leaders must actively do more to set the example and enforce uniform expectations. Adjusting to a change in a previously homogenous environment can be challenging, particularly when a new team member is more obviously “different.” The importance is emphasizing task cohesion and setting a firm line that any bigotry will not be tolerated. Simply set the example of “This is our new team member. (S)he will be responsible for this. I expect you to show her/him the ropes.” Period. If you follow up with anything that emphasizes that individual’s “otherness” you are only deepening the chasm the person must cross to connect with peers. Those who have experience with a minority come to realize their biases and adjust sooner than those who have no prior exposure. The example set by those in charge can either further ostracize a minority group and cause discontent among the ranks or create a cohesive fighting force that is more capable than others because of its ability to capitalize on all the talents of its members.
As leaders in the military, it is our responsibility to ensure a more lethal fighting force in the future. Last week, two women graduated from the Army’s grueling Ranger School for the first time. Before this milestone event, institutional bias in the U.S. Army reinforced an assumption that women would simply never be capable of completing its most challenging small unit leadership course. Captain Griest and Lieutenant Haver’s graduation not only repudiates this assumption, it also demonstrates that there is still much talent within the ranks that remains to be harnessed.
Continuing to propagate biases only further stigmatizes minorities that succeed, creating a “unicorn” effect of the initial few that succeed instead of an example of an individual’s potential. The U.S. military will eventually reach a point where those in uniform are judged on their individual skill and not by the average abilities of their sex, race, or other distinguishable group. This is when our services will truly optimize their ability for mission accomplishment because they seek the best for the toughest jobs — regardless of gender.
Bryan Coughlin is a former Marine infantry officer that served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom as a member of 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines. He also twice served as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School. Currently, he is a first year MBA student and Military Veteran Scholar at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Katey van Dam is a former Marine attack helicopter pilot and combat veteran. She also served as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School. She is currently a first year Strategic Studies MA student at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. She is a co-director of the non-partisan initiative No Exceptions.
Photo credit: Cpl Monica Erickson, U.S. Marine Corps
Editor’s note: To ensure the authors’ argument is received in constructive the spirit it is offered, we have chosen to allow capitalization of the term, “Marines” – an exception to the WOTR house style.
David Mattingly 
Colonel Davenport (USMC - Ret.) 
Jay Reardon 
Zach N 
Duane Tobert 
Xenophon 
Michael 
Richard Browne 
C Morris 
RCRANIUM 
Nick C 
James B. 
Jack 
Great insight! Coming from a Navy background the assignment of non-white Sailors to duties such as stewards took years to get past. Today the Navy has a black female as the Vice CNO. The service has come a long way but has more to go.
Yet another article that has absolutely nothing to do with the USMC winning wars or being successful in combat. “Institutional bias”, “Benevolent Sexism” and “Gender Norming” – Are these the terms and ideas that we need to be discussing in order to make our 2015 USMC a better fighting unit? Do we really need to be discussing this issue in 2015 when we have a belligerent Russia, a rising Iran and a potential Korean war? Set a standard – meet it and drive on. The success of the two women at Ranger school is commendable but so what? Since when do we in the USMC make policy concerning exceptional individuals? We are spending way too much time trying to make the military services (including the USMC) bend to the culture. I for one was attracted to the USMC and served proudly for 30 years BECAUSE it was different! None of this makes the Corps any more effective on the battlefields of 2015 and beyond. Publicly stating that the USMC is a strict war fighting force dedicated to the defense of the United States will only enhance its standing and its recruiting efforts.
Colonel Davenport (USMC – Ret)
100% agree with Colonel D’s comments. Terrible article based on faulty reasoning, i.e., comparing ethnicity and race to the differences in physical capabilities between men and women. Looks like the authors are just making the effort to add to their resumes. A male infantry officer should be particularly embarrassed to attach his name to this tripe. he will be well trained to take his place as a yes man in the corporate world./Lt.Col./USMC (ret.)
They have everything to do with the Marines being successful in combat. I’m sure that in the forties, integrating the military was considered “irrelevant” to the Marines winning wars or being successful in combat. Blacks were considered less intelligent, and the military did everything it could to pump out studies purporting that to be true. Fortunately, the military took a very unpopular stand and forced it it through.
The Kurds are locked in a struggle to the death with ISIS, and they let women fight. Israel lets women fight. Our allies let women fight.
Allowing women in doubles the recruiting pool for frontline Marines. That’s a tangible advantage.
Katey and Bryan,
Thanks for an insightful and honest look into how bias permeates our Corps. For a long time I held many of the biases you listed above. However, those were constantly reinforced at an organizational level. Reinforcement happens when we have different standards for different groups of people. It would have been harder for me to caution against the integration of women into combat roles if every female Marine had been judged the same on our physical fitness tests (PFT) or an integrated boot camp (I trained in MCRD San Diego). These differences in standards provide ‘evidence’ that female Marines are somehow less capable or that somehow male Marines are incapable of a level of professional conduct that would be required of combat arms integration.
The example given beneath Task Cohesion is absolutely perfect. As a Sgt of Marines I made every effort to impart the idea of how the language we use impacts mindset and may ‘deepens the chasm.’ As I know you’re both aware it’s regularly said by leaders to, “act like an adult.” This comment and its derivatives serve only to get in the way of our expectations and communicate the opposite. What we truly expect from our fellow Marine goes without being said. Period.
Semper fidelis,
Zach Norris
Note to the Editor: Marines should always be capitalized. (That should go without saying)
This article, like many others I have read, doesn’t address the main difference between men and women. That is their reduced upper body strength and their lighter bone structure. Infantry activities requires a lot of weight carrying requirements. From what I have read, many of the female volunteers in Marine Corps testing battalion have dropped out due to stress fractures. This seems to be a result of their lighter bone structure. Can women do many things well? Absolutely. Can a small minority of women perform in the infantry? Possibly, but I suspect that they will be a small minority.
I have to laugh at this article.
The authors want uniform standards for both genders and complain about “low expectations,” giving the example of chairs set up for women and not men at a Marine training exercise. Yet they make no mention of the service PT tests which set lower standards across the board for women. Is that another example of “low expectations?” Is is an example of perverse “benevolent sexism?”
Why focus on the minor chair anecdote when the PT issue is at the heart of the gender standards question across the military? But then, perhaps this is the reason that it is omitted from the discussion.
I hope mom and dad is prepared to help their 17 year old daughter fill out the required Selective Service cards.
Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)
Case Summary
In 1980, Robert Goldberg challenged the U.S. draft registration policy by bringing suit against Bernard Rostker, the director of the Selective Service System. When Goldberg won in federal court, Rostker appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Decision
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that it was constitutional to register only men for the draft. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. He noted that “the question of registering women for the draft not only received considerable national attention and was the subject of wide-ranging public debate, but also was extensively considered by Congress in hearings, floor debate, and in committee. Hearings held by both Houses of Congress in response to the President’s request for authorization to register women adduced extensive testimony and evidence concerning the issue.”
Congress specifically determined that in wartime, the primary purpose of a draft would be to provide combat troops. “Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.” He went on to say: “Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.”
No where does this address the sexual dynamic, other than to assume that familiarity will make it disappear. I suspect that is the 500-pound gorilla in the room that nobody, but nobody, really wants to address. It is not about abilities or capabilities, it is about human nature and how the sexual dynamic can be disruptive in small unit environments.
In the Swedish Navy, the sub force is integrated. Since they have diesel-electric subs, and it gets hot as hell, they usually just walk around in underwear.
Other countries have left us way behind on this issue.
I agree about the abilities and capabilities or the human nature of sexual dynamic are a concern for the small unit environments
This all sounds great – but, if we are truly going to establish equality in the services, it has to be true equality across the board in all facets of service. For example, if we are really acknowledging and accepting that men and women can perform the same physical feats, then why are the USMC PFT standards different for men and women? Why do the women get an extra 3 minutes to achieve 100 points on the 3-mile run? It should no longer be 21 minutes for 100 points for the women, but should be 18 minutes for 100 points just like men.
On a different – but related – level, if all “ground combat” roles are to be opened to both genders, should women now have to register for the draft, as most men are still required to do under U.S. law? Never mind the fact that the Selective Service Systems may never call up any numbers ever again…but most men still have to register under penalty of law at age 18. If not, then an unequal double-standard will still exist.
These are not unreasonable questions to be asked regarding this debate – and people concerned about this issue are looking for honest and straight answers.
Real equality is uniform standards across the board for all in that particular service – anything less than that is just more hypocrisy and exception-making.
Semper Fi. USMC 1998-2002.
I was a Battalion CO at Parris Island three years ago. Male battalion. I ensured chairs (camp stools) were placed behind the end-of-Crucible formation for the injured Marines that finished the hike (barely). Prior to that, they had taken the injured Marines to sit in the ambulance with the Corpsman and miss the emblem ceremony. Overall, decent article, but by quoting the recently relieved LtCol’s hyperbole about the double standard, you’ve unintentionally misled the reader. She, however, intended to mislead many. It wasn’t for “recruits/Marines too exhausted to stand”. It was for individuals with possible femoral neck fractures that were able to limp through the last two miles of the hike but needed to sit before they did any permanent damage.
As an Infantry Officer who led troops in combat during some of the more tumultuous months in Afghanistan I am of the opinion that the argument to open and or force integrate the sexes into all combat MOS roles originates from a purely selfish motivation and not from a patriotic sense of duty. I will in no way justify bad and intolerable behavior on behalf of young men amongst the ranks and indeed believe that any alcohol -drug-sexual or marital misconduct should be grounds for immediate dismissal from the military, I full heartedly agree that integrating all male combat units would only invite disaster by allowing sexual misconduct to sky rocket and take precious time away from already condensed training/deployment cycles. People are people and will do what people will do. The military draws recruits from the same barrel as the rest of society. Forcing all male units to allow female participation will precipitate youthful sexual deviancy. Commander have the ability to control their personal by confining them to barracks, keeping them in the field for training purposes, ext… but put females in the barracks right along side young 17-20 year olds and problems will arise. The country does not need women in the Infantry / SOF / Armor corps, we are not verging on defeat against insurmountable odds, where a desperate ploy to add women to bolster the ranks is our last resort for survival as a nation. If the priority is to make the military accept your personal version of social justice or change, than shame on you. If your priority is the defense of this nation, then you would not make an argument for forced integration into ground combat roles. And don’t bother to retort with the “OEF / OIF” argument. The only reason women were so close to the battlefield is because of politics and unforced consequences of forced integration of any frontline or second echelon formations, who inevitably would serve in a war without front lines.
Nick C.
Arguing for combat MOS roles to be forced into gender integration, originates from a purely selfish motivation that does not at all employ reason, common sense or concern for the safety of the country.
There is no doubt that a few women can meet the physical standards that men are held to in ground combat roles. But what does adding a few capable women to a previously all male organization accomplish?
As an Infantry Captain in he US Army, who has led men in combat, I can think of a few things gender integration will accomplish.
(As a preface, I in no way condone miscreant behavior. Drug-alcohal-sexual-marital-criminal deviancy of any kind should never be tolerated amongst the ranks and I believe crimes of this nature should result in immediate dismissal from military service)
1. Increase in sexual assault / deviancy within the barracks. People are people, and will do what people do. Young people in the military are no different then young people in civilian occupations. They are recruited from the same barrel that the rest of society recruits from. Some will be stellar, some will be average and a few will be down right deviants. That being said, the barracks are no place for cohabitation, which is an almost requirement to help build comradery and kinship needed for ground combat units to function. Integrating ground combat units can only result in higher instances sexual assault cases, higher instances of false accusations of sexual assault, unforeseen pregnancies, and an all around denigration of unit proficiency, moral and reediness.
2. Increase in the time commanders spend dealing with number 1, all the while taking away from the units actual mission. Commanders inqueries, investigations, courts marshal proceedings, JAG involvement, CID involvement, conference calls, jury duty, ext… all require leaders to take time away from their normal duties to ensure that all the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed. The saying that 10% of your unit will give you 90% of the trouble is a true statement. Forcing a commander to take on a situation that could be pre-emptivly avoided by simply keeping his men (few bad apples, not the whole unit) away from a potential temptation. (Again, I am not minimizing bad behavior) Infantry units are no exception when it comes to Soldiers acting up. And in case you thinking that I am coming from left field with my argument, during my tenure at the company level, I had a Soldier murder another Soldier within our unit, I had a Soldier ward off an attempted rape (of himself) by another male Soldier from a different unit, I had Soldiers involved in drug dealing, I had Soldiers involved in domestic violence, I had Soldiers go to jail outside the military’s jurisdiction for sexual deviancy off base, but I never had a Soldier involved in a male Soldier on female Soldier sexual assault case. (not to say that other units did not experience that) The units within my brigade that had constant problems with Soldiers engaging in sexual deviancy, pregnancy resulting in non-deployment and infidelity were the integrated support and combat support units. (IE: gender integrated)
3. Increase in health related compensation claims from female Soldiers who will depart the military early on in their career due to life altering injuries derived from strenuous combat related duties. This will drive the cost of veteran healthcare up in an already strained veteran healthcare system, all the while realizing stunted careers and less pay back the military will realize out of its training investments. Basic training statistics do not lie. Female recruits are much more likely to sustain stress injuries to their hips/legs/feet/back from carrying heavy loads on prolonged ruck marches and other strenuous activity then male recruits.
Infantry / SOF / Armor Corps, are not lacking in voluntary male recruitment. In fact the military is downsizing and the brunt of the downsize (in the Army at least) has been in the Infantry (Four brigade combate teams per division to three). We are not in a dire situation, where flooding ground combat units with females in order to shore up the lines as our last desperate option to ward off defeat by an enemy with superior numbers. We don’t even utilize a draft. So in a day and age were the military is being forced to cut back, the military should become even more discriminating in its selection process for new recruits then it has been due to military necesity.
We should only be interested in recruiting the individuals who will most assuredly be a combat multiplayer and not a mission detractor. The military only exists to defend our nation and ground combat units (IN, SF, AR) only exist to execute our nation’s foreign policy, for the last 300 meters. Its nothing personal, its not an issue of equality, its not an issue of social experimentation or justice, is purely an issue of winning on the battlefield and ensuring our sovereignty.
Ground combat units should remain a male only occupation, and for many more reasons than I have disucsed here. In a day and age where our enemies are more and more likely to ignore internatilal warfare law and treaty, we as a nation can ill afford to inadvertently handicap our forces and dull the tip of the spear.
Any argument to the contrary is purely of a selfish nature and not one stemming from pride in the nation or concern for the safety of US citizens.
Nick C.
Army, IN
As the studies I’ve seen indicate, all women are carrying around an average of ten pounds of extra weight (reproductive organs) than men. That doesn’t mean that women can’t be infantry, but it means that that women in the best shape of their lives are starting out even with guys still carrying a bit of a gut. That alone is no reason to bar them from infantry roles, but we must accept that the numbers of those who pass will be very small.
Bone density and muscle growth hormones are other issues that require a lot more study and science to measure, but those will also reduce the long-term effectiveness of female infantry. At a certain point the military will need to decide what the desired measures of performance will be, and at what career point they are most desired, and then adjust selection standards to maximize performance.
Long story short, the number of women who make it in infantry will be extremely small, such that female infantry generals will be a once-in-a-generation occurrence, if that often.
Why should the military be required to “adjust selections standards to maximize performance”? Why not maintain the highest / hardest / worst case senerio standard and expect all recruits to attain them or be transferred to a different, less strenuous skill set?
I may have misunderstood your point, but it sounds like you are advocating for a set of standards that will ensure female service members are made to be successful, as opposed to having higher failure rates because so many cannot attain the current mandated standard.
(IE: holding both male and female service members to a lower standard then that which is currently expected in say Infantry, Ranger or Special Forces units or holding female service members to a different standard which more reflects the physicality and ability of a larger (average) population of female service members. Either way the military’s capabilities are decreased in this scenario. Also, time tested standards established from years of experience have been lowered.)
Lower standards and you might as well lower expectations.
“For example, women had to learn to change amongst their male peers after a hike, and their male peers learned quickly to accept this as normal, so no one really gave it a second thought. ” ….. Can anyone really believe that 18 and 19 year old males can “learn quickly” to stop finding the sight of naked young women sexually arousing?