Army Equal Opportunity Program

The U.S. Army's first step toward diversity training and appreciation came via the Army Language Program (ALP) in 1946, shortly after the institution's involvement in World War II. The U.S. Army advocated for the expansion of spoken languages other than English among its armed forces personnel in order to attain a strategic military advantage.[5] The ALP marks the first step toward the inclusion philosophy that permeates the current Army EO Program.

The proposal set the groundwork for the U.S. Army's EO Program first introduced in 1973 via the Civil Service Commission.[2] The U.S. government acknowledged a disconnect that existed between anti-discrimination philosophy and the day-to-day functions of its federal institutions and employees. In 1973, the Civil Service Commission first authorized the use of goals and timetables to counter and eventually eliminate rising discrimination in U.S. federal government work.

The goals created centered on strengthening one minority group at a time. These groups included African Americans, religious denominations other than Christianity, mentally and physically disabled individuals, and women. Composing a timetable was difficult for the Civil Service Commission because they were skeptical about whether the changes would impact the efficiency of federal work. Even though the fundamentals of the Army EO Program were authorized, a plan to fully implement it had yet to be devised.[2]

The U.S. Army began to experience a negative stigma in the 1970s and 1980s due to rampant sexual, racial, and gender discrimination. The U.S. government was then motivated to institute the anti-discrimination agenda they formulated in the early 1970s. The first governmental action to eliminate the progression of discrimination in the armed forces was to correct the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ are the written laws of the United States Military. The UCMJ was made more responsive to all forms of discrimination by writing into law that the punitive measure for any military personnel engaging in that line of behavior to be an Article 15. An Article 15 is the official form of punitive discrimination for violation of the UCMJ that can result in company level punishment or a criminal charge.[6]

As a result of the changes the U.S. Army made to its legal system regarding discrimination, it was clear that a program that protected victims of discrimination, and helped prevent soldiers from becoming perpetrators of discrimination was needed. The U.S. Army first sought to develop a program that created a specific course of action for victims of discrimination to report acts committed against them. EO offices were established on military bases to conduct the discrimination reporting and investigation processes. The U.S. Army also felt they needed to promote mandatory training that informed soldiers about what is considered a discriminatory action and how they could prevent it.[7]

Starting in the late 20th century, and continuing into the 21st century, U.S. Army senior officers and congressional officials developed a process for teaching soldiers to competently approach diversity. The method consisted of annual training for all soldiers about how to avoid racial, sexual, and gender discrimination as well as the consequences for UCMJ violations. In addition, soldiers were to be educated about the formal process for reporting any violations of the Army EO policy under UCMJ protocol.[8]

The program began to gain military-wide traction at the beginning of the 21st century as formal training took place annually regarding micro-aggressions, and victimized soldiers began reporting violations. The number of cases pertaining to EO violations were too many for senior officers to handle efficiently. An amendment was made to the Army EO Program consisting of enlisted Army EO representatives that would be more accessible to soldiers.[9]

Despite the recent dramatic decrease of social hostility and discrimination in the U.S. Army as a result of the EO Program, many individuals still find ways to criticize it. The primary argument consists of the possible side effects of "over-sensitizing" the armed forces. The U.S. Army operates in a male-dominant environment where extreme aggression is praised. Teaching soldiers to be compassionate of others feelings and insecurities can appear to some soldiers as counterproductive. The current popularity of the Army EO Program hinges on its ability to effectively blend combat aggression and toughness with cultural sensitivity. The most prominent modern example of this dilemma for armed forces officials is the ambivalence that exists toward women operating in combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). The Army EO program protects the fair treatment of women in combat-related positions under the UCMJ; however, military culture often characterizes female combat soldiers as inferior and counter-productive.[10]