Army's emphasis

The Army's getting more serious about sexual harassment and sexual assault. As the Army Times reported on October 26th, "substantiated findings" of someone committing sexual harrassment/assault, failing to report it, failing to respond to a report, or retaliation against a person who reports will result in a negative comments on the person's evaluation report. Unlike a company grade Article 15 proceeding, these negative comments are effectively a permanent mark on one's record.

This has me a concerned because, as I look forward to my command time, I would like to know what's expected of me as a commander. As the article states, in the future an officer's OER must explain how they handled any substantiated incidents. I hope the Army explains how to handle these kinds of situations before I take command, because right now I don't have any idea.

Though I'm happy to see the Army coming to grips with the problem, some of its methods seem a bit ham-fisted. For example, this past week I took a survey on the climate within my unit. It asked if I agreed or disagreed with statements like "My leadership promotes a climate that is free of sexual assault," and "My leadership would respond appropriately in the event a sexual assault was reported."

The strangest was this scenario: "Imagine you go temporary duty for some training. The first night you go to a restaurant/bar with a large group of colleagues whom you just met. At what point would you intervene in the following escalating situation?"

I don't remember what all of the choices were, but to me the best point to intervene was before this scenario even started. It was unrealistic before I even got halfway through the second sentence, making "A" the obvious, if not least ridiculous choice.