You Can Meet Your Heroes: Inclusion Edition

 Last night, I had the privilege of attending the Vimy Gala to watch a truly outstanding person be recognized for a lifetime of making a difference.  Michelle Douglas has spent her life fighting for the inclusion and dignity of LGBTQ2S+ people after being kicked out of the Canadian Armed Forces for being a lesbian back when such folks were purged.  Her lawsuit ended the purge.  I want to share how this all happened and how Michelle did a great job of using her platform as Vimy Award winner to continue her fight.

The Conference on Defence Associations Institute is an interesting organization as the CDA part of it is essentially a combination of all of the veterans associations of Canada, with each one tied to a specifc speciality.  The Institute does some research, much engagement, and public education (and perhaps a smidge of lobbying?) on defence issues.  The CDAI is a partner of the CDSN, and I have been meeting up with its leaders long before the CDSN got going.  The gala is timed to coincide with the days leading up to Remembrance Day, and Vimy is a big hunk of Canadian history/nationalism/identity that someone else can explain better than I.  At each Vimy Gala they give a lifetime achievement award to someone who made a difference in Canadian defence.  Awardees have mostly been generals and admirals with some senior public servants and politicians.  Michelle very much is exceptional in every way including not being any of those folks.  

Gaëlle Rivard Piché is
in her first year as Executive
Director of CDAI and 
a NPSIA PhD!

I was asked to nominate someone as they were looking to get as broad a pool of candidates as possible.  I nominated Michelle with the help of several people: Artur Wilczynski (who did most of the writing of the nomination letter), Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, Luke Schleusener, Stéfanie von Hlatkly, and Jean-Christophe Boucher.  I was asked last night why I nominated her, and the answer was simply: I know of no one else who made such a big difference on the Canadian Armed Forces and beyond.  Her lawsuit and subsequent activism reshaped one's imagination of who can serve in the CAF: anyone, no matter their background, their sexuality, whatever.  As a civ-mil scholar, I can't help but note that militaries are more effective if they reflect the country they seek to defend and if those soldiers/sailors/aviators are included and treated well.  Michelle played a major role in making that happen in Canada.  

 

 

The biggest benefit for me in this process was getting to know Michelle better.  We had several conversations since she learned of the award, so I learned more about her, her history, and, most impressively, her positive attitude towards Canada and the CAF.  You will see below, where I transcribe some of her speech, that she has not turned to hate or resentment for her poor treatment, the upending of her career and her life.  Instead, she has dedicated her life to making things better, and she's still hard at work doing so.  So, yes, you can meet your heroes.

Hanging out with terrific people 
is a key part of the Gala

Michelle's award comes at a key moment in time. The backlash against culture change (efforts to make the CAF more inclusive, especially for women) is on, and, indeed, a previous gala was used by a Vimy Award winner as the platform for an attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Candidates for office in the US and Canada (and elsewhere) have attacked the military as being too woke and have sought to exclude trans people from not just bathrooms but also from the military, from other careers, and, yes, from existence.  So, Michelle's fight is not over, and this speech gave her the chance to not just tell her story but to remind us of the cruelty of the past and the need to fight to keep those policies in the past.

Enough of me, what did Michelle say?  I will just list some of the highlights with some of my reactions:

•  She graduated at the top of her military courses, "my merit was obvious."  Note that those who argue against diversity, equity, and inclusion always falsely suggest there is a tradeoff between merit and efforts to improve diversity and inclusion.  By excluding her and others like her, the CAF was actually not promoting people by merit but discriminating against many qualified people for something that had nothing to do with their ability to shoot a gun, to fly a plane, to steer a ship, or to be an effective leader.
• Her discussion of her time in the Special Investigations Military Police unit which sought to root out espionage, sabotage, and ... homosexuals.  And, yes, this did remind me of Jack Reacher--Michelle is much smaller but also much mightier.
• The purge was not just about the CAF but also the RCMP and the federal public service: "the purge was cruel and traumatizing, was designed to harass us, sometimes criminalize us, institutionalize us, and always diminish us."
• The Canadian Museum for Human Rights: "the LGBT purge was Canada's longest running, largest scale violation of human rights of any workforce in Canadian history."  
• "The losses of the victims and survivors are tragic, the losses to Canada incalculable."
• "These were people who put up their hands to serve."
• "Never was one LGBT spy found. Not one.  The purge must surely be the most costly, least effective police investigation in Canadian history."
• She invoked Frederick Hardy, a gay soldier who died in World War I.  There have always been gays and lesbians and bisexuals and trans people in the armed forces (and in the world)--we just didn't know how many because these people were forced to hide their identities.  It is not that there are more LGBTQ people these days, just that they are freer to be their true selves ... for now.
• Re formal apology by PM Justin Trudeau: "Some say that Canada gives too many apologies, that they are empty gestures, signs of frailty.*  I can say that for those who experienced egregious injustice, having their pain acknowledged and hearing the commitment to change is deeply meaningful and is essential to reconciliation and healing. That formal apology helped many of us move on."
• "For thousands of survivors, justice delayed is still meaningful justice."
• "Ending discrimination by policy does not mean the end of discrimination in practice...."
• "Currently, in Canada and around the world, we see attempts to weaponize and politicize gender not unlike we saw in the past.  The purge should be seen as a cautionary tale."  She cited an international LGBT association: "that the purge should serve as a universal warning ... fear disguised as national security can become a tool to persecute minorities."
• "Supporting diversity isn't about wokeness or weakness, it is about dignity, fairness, respect, and strength."
• "As someone who worked for Canada, served Canada, sometimes criticized Canada, sometimes sued Canada, I have always loved Canada.  Canada is worth fighting for, our values, our democracy are treasured, special. ... So many have sacrificed everything in protection of these values and our democracy."
• "Quitting was not something I learned in the CAF."
• "We are better when we place respect, dignity, justice, and equality at the heart of all we do."
• "As I look around, I know I am not alone.  You think I am dreamer, I am not on the only one."

 Her conclusion with Imagine really hit home.  Michelle is more than a dreamer, she is a doer.  She made a huge difference.  I knew her speech would be terrific (she did talk to me about it ahead of time), and she delivered it so very well. I am guessing the tape will go online at the CDAI website.  It is worth a watch and a listen, as my list here does not do her speech justice.

I didn't do much besides organize a group of people to put her name forward, but still this is and will be one of things I have done that I am proudest of.  Her recognition, like the justice she poke of, is delayed, but very, very much earned.  And the timing is great given the forces at work to unravel what she and others have done.  

 

*  I had to explain to Michelle what subtweeting is.   

 

Opening The Canadian Armed Forces to Permanent Residents

 Yesterday, news broke that the Canadian Armed Forces will be open to permanent residents.  I had heard rumors of this at the recent Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society-Canada conference which had a bunch of people from CAF Personnel, the Culture and Professional Conduct Command, the Director General for Military Personnel Research and Analysis and more.  

This is such a no-brainer I have been advocating for it and more (see below) for the past few years.  It would make sense even if the military was not down at least 10,000 and facing a real personnel/recruiting/retention crisis.  How so?  Let me listicle:

1. One of the basics of any kind of recruiting is you want as deep and as wide a pool as possible so that you can then get picky and be selective.
2. New immigrants will have language skills that the CAF will need as it engages in expeditions around the world.
3. Diversity, yes, is a good unto its own.  Having diverse perspectives facilitates greater creativity, more constructive criticism, less adherence to outdated ideas. There is actually a good bit of social science behind this.  
4. The CAF needs change to its culture as the sexual misconduct and abuse of power crisis has amply demonstrated.  One way to change a culture is to stop depending on the same groups for one's recruits.  A key scandal illustrates this nice.  Several years ago, some of the cadets at the Royal Military College verbally harassed visiting youngesters who were in cadet programs that could have led them to the RMC.  When an officer called out the harassment and punished the offending cadets, they called their parents who apparently included senior officers who then got the officer punished instead of the cadets.  So, the CAF (and other militaries) have long depended on military families, which has its benefits, but also create a sense of entitlement which then breeds the abuse of power.  Is it an accident that Jon Vance who abused his power long before he became Chief of Defence Staff is the son of a Lieutenant General and former Vice Chief?  Hmmm.

And then there is the current personnel shortage.  Which makes the obvious more obvious.  Why resist the obvious?  Some will argue that there is a risk that the permanent residents are not real citizens and are not as loyal to their country than actual citizens.  Um, have you taken a look at the greatest threat to Canadian security these days?  That would be far right extremists/white supremacists.  They are citizens, but their loyalty is not to democracy, good governance, and all that stuff.  Including more permanent residents, who are more likely to have non-European backgrounds than the traditional recruiting pools, will have the added benefits of bringing in people who are less likely to be white supremacists and are more likely to antagonize those far right extremists who are in the CAF--making them easier to identify and also perhaps driving them out.  

Why else resist the obvious?  I always heard that security clearances were a hurdle--that it is hard to get the info needed about those who lived elsewhere.  Hard is not a good enough reason to deny access to a huge pool of potential recruits.  How risky is it to have less than completely vetted people in the first few jobs in the military?  How much of a threat do they pose to secrets as new recruits?  It is also the case that the vetting can continue (and should continue) as they serve.  And as a general told me recently, there is always risk--you just have to figure out ways to mitigate it.

Oh, and some folks in the CAF and in the political system may not want to include these "others" because they are "others"--that they want to keep the CAF an old boys network and they want to keep it the very white institution it has been.  The less satisfied these folks are, the better.

I have been arguing that the CAF should go further, and this would require legislation: make service in the CAF a pathway to citizenship. Encourage folks from other countries to come to Canada and then get permanent residency and then citizenship faster/easier if they serve in the military.  There are some criticisms one can lodge here

• that the CAF isn't special and we should do the same kind of thing for other needed professions (such as medical ones)
• that this is exploitative of other places and somewhat colonial/imperial
• that the security clearance thing would be harder still

The first objection is the kind of "hey, you can't do one good thing unless you do other good things" which drives me crazy.  If we can't improve on all dimensions, how about we improve on one?  Plus the medical thing is mostly a provincial problem--that other professions require certification from whichever province the person wants to work.  This is not a problem for the CAF, of course. The second is fair, and I don't have a good response other than to shrug. The third is again a risk but we have to take risks to offset other risks.  

 

Yes, the CAF may have to get smaller before it gets larger, as the CDS has acknowledged.  But it is both good for the numbers and good for the health of the CAF and of civil-military relations to have a military that looks like the society.  Given that something like 25% of Canadians were born abroad, it is time we make the military a more welcoming place for the newer Canadians.

The CAF Learns that Poor Optics is Bad Policy and Vice Versa

 Today was a learning experience for the new Chief of Defence Staff.  He sent out this tweet with a picture that was, well, problematic.

 Conversations on diversity, inclusion, and culture change are not incompatible with our thirst for operational excellence. I count on my senior leaders to champion culture change. Diversity makes us stronger, inclusion improves our institution. We are #StrongerTogether - ArtMcD pic.twitter.com/y4piRhtW3N

— Admiral/Amiral Art McDonald (@CDS_Canada_CEMD) February 11, 2021

 The group of officers are the Canadian Armed Forces [CAF] command team--the CDS, the Vice Chief, the heads of the Navy, Air Force, Army, etc.  All white dudes.  So, not really a diverse group.  So, what is the message that they are trying to convey and what is the message they are actually conveying?

The attempt: that the senior leadership is serious about fostering diversity and inclusion.  That they are champions.  One thing that they have been doing is assigning senior leaders (white dudes) to be champions of different less-well represented groups with the idea in mind that white men have to be part of the solution, that the work of improving diversity and inclusion and dismantling racism is not a job for only Black Canadians, for Indigenous Canadians, for Women, for LGBTQ2S+.  

The message they are actually conveying: the CAF is an institution that seem to only promote white dudes to the highest levels.  Yes, there have been and are a few women who have gotten to the rank of Lieutenant General and Vice Admiral, but not in that picture.  I don't know if there have been any people from racialized communities that have served near the top of the CAF--this picture suggests not so much.  The picture illustrates much that the CDS may not have intended but is there for all to see.  It is a picture that does not look like Canada but does look like Canadian power structures but perhaps more so.

The CDS could have taken this picture and admitted the reality: "The current command group is committed to making sure that this is one of the last pictures that looks like this."  A little self-awareness would have been handy.

The picture/tweet combo was awful, but it gets to a thorny problem that I have been facing with the CDSN.  Some say the best way to improve diversity and inclusion is to do the hard work silently and let the results speak for themselves.  Others say that in order to attract people from less well represented communities to one's efforts, one should show how such people are included.  That doing good is not sufficient, that one should show that one is doing good.  I am struggling to figure out which way to proceed.  I will, of course, focus on the substance--how to do better.  But the comms side of things is important, and it is not straightforward.  So, I am consulting folks to get a broader set of perspectives to figure out the way ahead.  

While there are far more eyes on the CAF, the CAF also has far more resources to get this right.  Do better on the substance and maybe the optics will follow. 

 

 

 

 

 

Falling Short, Aiming to Do Better

Last month, I posted the CDSN's response to the George Floyd murder and protests.  Those events reminded me that the CDSN was formed in part to foster a more diverse and inclusive defence and security community and that we have not done enough.  This week's post at Duck of Minerva by Carla Norrlöf and Cheng Xu reminded me that I had been meaning to post about what I have been doing and what the CDSN has been doing to do better.