Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MILITARY: PC run amok on ‘sexual assault’

Letter by David L. Warnick, DuPont on May 23, 2013 at 11:17 am with No Comments »
May 23, 2013 12:42 pm

With all the brouhaha about sexual assaults in the military, and the ugly irony of a couple of anti-assault program managers being charged with sexual assault, it might be profitable to actually look at what this arose from.

The number of 26,000 assaults is being touted from the Senate on down. What too many people seem to have missed is that the Pentagon itself says that this is an estimate and is primarily based on an anonymous survey.

The Pentagon also estimates that only 10 percent of all sexual assaults get reported. One wonders at how they arrived at this figure. What if all sexual assaults are being reported?

Another problem is the term “sexual assault” itself and what it consists of. The Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial are available online. For those who might actually want fact, look up Article 120 (a).

The UCMJ is legalese; the MCM is very much clear text. The definition of sexual assault is so far-reaching that one hand brushing another reaching for the salt in the dining facility could be called sexual assault if the person not wanting the contact perceived it as such. The MCM says it is “any touching, however slight.”

This vagueness creates a culture of victimology, and barracks bull sessions become a source of aggrievance: “That was a sexual assault, girl, and you ought to report it.”

All this information is readily available, but PC run amok wants sensation, not information.

Leave a comment Comments
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0