The U.S. Coast Guard Academy Must Take Additional Steps to Better Address Allegations of Race-Based Harassment and Prevent Such Harassment on Campus June 3, 2020 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security "hr 10? 4? .Q 3&3 Washington, DC 20528 June 3, 2020 MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable Admiral Karl L. Schultz Commandant State Coa Gu FROM: eph Cuffari, . Inspector General SUBJECT: The US. Coast Guard Academy Must Take Additional Steps to Better Address Allegations of Race-Based Harassment and Prevent Such Harassment on Campus For your information is our ?nal report, The U.S. Coast Guard Academy Must Take Additional Steps to Better Address Allegations of Race-Based Harassment and Prevent Such Harassment on Campus. We incorporated the formal comments provided by Coast Guard. The report contains ?ve recommendations aimed at improving how the Coast Guard Academy addresses incidents of race?based harassment. Coast Guard concurred with the recommendations. Based on information provided in the response to the draft report, we consider one recommendation resolved and closed and four recommendations resolved and open. Once your of?ce has fully implemented the open recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendation. The memorandum should be accompanied by evidence showing completion of the agreed? upon corrective actions. Please send your response or closure request to OIGSREFollowupru oig.dhs. gov. Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will provide copies of our report to congressional committees with oversight and appropriation responsibility over DHS. We also will post the report on our website for public dissemination. Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Jackson Eaton, Acting Assistant Inspector General, Special Reviews and Evaluations, at (202) 981?6000. DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS The U.S. Coast Guard Academy Must Take Additional Steps to Better Address Allegations of Race-Based Harassment and Prevent Such Harassment on Campus June 3, 2020 Why We Did This Evaluation Multiple sources have alleged racial harassment at the Academy. We evaluated Coast Guard’s handling of race-based harassment incidents to determine whether there were issues jeopardizing the Coast Guard’s commitment to broadening its diversity to reflect the population it serves. What We Recommend We made five recommendations to ensure the Academy consistently: investigates allegations; appropriately documents disciplinary decisions; includes civil rights staff; and improves training related to race-based or ethnicity-based harassment or hate incidents. For Further Information: Contact our Office of Public Affairs at (202) 981-6000, or email us at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov www.oig.dhs.gov What We Found We identified 16 allegations of race-based harassment involving cadets between 2013 and 2018 that the Coast Guard Academy (the Academy) was aware of and had sufficient information to investigate and address through internal hate and harassment procedures. We identified issues in how the Academy addressed 11 of them. First, in six incidents, the Academy did not thoroughly investigate the allegations and/or did not discipline cadets. In some instances, cadets committed similar misconduct again. The Academy also did not include civil rights staff as required in six instances (including two of the instances noted previously). Therefore, civil rights staff could not properly track these incidents to proactively identify trends and offer the Academy assistance. In addition, in one incident involving potential hate allegations, the Academy did not follow the Coast Guard process for addressing hate incidents. Finally, our review determined race-based harassment is underreported at the Academy for various reasons, including concerns about negative consequences for reporting allegations. Underreporting is especially concerning because our questionnaire results and interviews indicate harassing behaviors continue at the Academy. Coast Guard Response Coast Guard concurred with all five recommendations and described corrective actions they have taken and plan to take. We consider one recommendation closed, and the remaining four recommendations resolved and open. OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................... 3 Background .................................................................................................... 3 Results of Review ............................................................................................ 7 The Academy Did Not Thoroughly Investigate All Harassment Allegations, and Did Not Always Discipline Cadets for Documented Violations of Cadet Regulations.................................................................................. 8 Headquarters and Academy Civil Rights Professionals Did Not Oversee and Track All Academy Harassment and Hate Investigations ........................................................................................................... 10 Race-Based Harassment Is Underreported at the Academy, in Part Because of Concerns about Negative Consequences ............................. 15 Recommendations......................................................................................... 18 Appendixes Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix A: B: C: D: E: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................. 22 Coast Guard Comments to the Draft Report ..................... 24 DHS OIG’s Previous Whistleblower Retaliation Report ...... 29 Questionnaire Results..................................................... 31 Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major Contributors to This Report ............................................. 42 Appendix F: Report Distribution .......................................................... 43 Abbreviations AHHI CRD CRSP DEOCS OID OIG www.oig.dhs.gov Anti-Harassment and Hate Incident Policy Civil Rights Directorate Civil Rights Service Providers Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Organizational Climate Survey Office of Inclusion and Diversity Office of Inspector General 2 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Introduction The United States Coast Guard Academy (Academy) prepares young men and women to become leaders of the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard). Coast Guard leadership has stated it is committed to broadening the diversity of the Coast Guard workforce to be more reflective of the population it serves.1 In May 2017, then-Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, stated its “core values of honor, respect and devotion to duty demand [its] commitment and dedication to a workplace free of discrimination and harassment” and “harassment is incompatible with [its]…values.”2 However, in recent years, multiple sources, including Congress, news reports, and a whistleblower, have alleged racial harassment and inadequate responses at the Academy. Specifically, cadets alleged racial slurs, ignorant comments, and instances of disrespect were common on campus, and, when reported to leadership, were not taken seriously.3 Furthermore, in December 2018, our office released a whistleblower retaliation report substantiating allegations of reprisal against a Lieutenant Commander stationed at the Academy.4 The complainant alleged she was retaliated against after she complained of discrimination and harassment at the Academy. Appendix C contains further information regarding this whistleblower report. Background The Academy’s 4-year, maritime-oriented program includes academic, military, and athletic training. Upon completion of their degrees, Academy cadets become commissioned officers of the Coast Guard and are required to serve on active duty for at least 5 years. As of September 2019, there were 1,069 cadets enrolled at the Academy, with 34 percent of the cadets identifying as minorities. The Superintendent of the Academy exercises command over the entire Academy, including cadets, faculty, and staff. The Commandant of Cadets oversees the student body (corps of cadets) and employs a staff of Company Officers and Company Chiefs. These officers and chiefs are military personnel Diversity and Inclusion Policy Statement, Admiral Karl Schultz, Commandant, United States Coast Guard, May 30, 2018. 2 Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Statement, Admiral Paul Zukunft, Commandant, United States Coast Guard, May 17, 2017. 3 See Julia Bergman, CGA works to address concerns of minority treatment, retention, THE DAY, Sept. 2, 2017; Coast Guard Academy whistleblower speaks up on discrimination, retaliation, THE DAY, July 27, 2019 (available at https://www.theday.com). For summary of Congressional Interest, see Ltr. from Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Committee on Homeland Security to Admiral Karl Schultz, Commandant, United States Coast Guard, Aug. 19, 2019. 4 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Whistleblower Retaliation Report of Investigation, Case No. W17-USCG-WPU-16018, Dec. 4, 2018 (OIG WB ROI). www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-20-36 1 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security assigned to the Academy who interact closely with the cadets on a daily basis to oversee cadet performance and development. Coast Guard policy, which applies to the Academy, defines prohibited harassment as unwelcome conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment on the basis of an individual’s protected status, including race, color, religion, national origin, political affiliation, or any other basis protected by law.5 Coast Guard policy further states, “the most effective way to limit harassing conduct is to treat it as misconduct.”6 The Academy addresses harassing misconduct through two related processes, the misconduct process and the anti-harassment process: x Misconduct Process. Through the misconduct process, outlined in the Regulations of the Corps of Cadets, the Academy assigns a cadet or staff member to investigate whether an individual committed the alleged harassment. If the investigation substantiates the harassing misconduct, the Academy must initiate appropriate disciplinary action. The Regulations of the Corps of Cadets categorizes misconduct from Class I (most serious) to Class III (least serious) offenses. The Academy uses various Class I offenses to cite cadets for harassing misconduct, including: o 1230 (Discrimination), o 1232 (Conduct: unbecoming Cadet), and o 1233 (Judgment: failure to use good judgment). Cadet disciplinary measures include probation; demerits;7 room restriction; marching tours; loss of leave and privileges; suspension from intercollegiate sports, club sports, or activities; and disenrollment.8 In addition to or in lieu of discipline, the Academy may require cadets to COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C.1.a. COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C.1. 7 Demerits document a cadet’s failure to abide by applicable regulations and comport himself or herself in the manner expected of a cadet and future officer. See SUPINST M52515.2M, Regulations of the Corps of Cadets at 84. 8 Cadets disenrolled from the Academy may be required to either: 1) serve as enlisted members in the Coast Guard if considered suitable, or 2) pay back the costs incurred by the Academy for their education. For example, a cadet recently recommended for disenrollment during his last semester at the Academy would have been required to either serve 44 months as an enlisted member or reimburse the Coast Guard $223,819. See SUPINST 5340.3A, Obligated Service or Recoupment From Cadets Disenrolled From the Coast Guard Academy at Encl. 1. 5 6 www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security undergo a 10-week process called “respect remediation,” meant to “identify and correct deficient areas of professionalism and prudent decision-making” that resulted in their misconduct.9 The Commandant of Cadets is responsible for the maintenance of good order and discipline within the corps of cadets, and has broad discretion regarding whether, and how severely, to discipline cadets.10 Specifically, the Regulations of the Corps of Cadets states, “Just as the commanding officer of a ship has broad and discretionary powers of discipline, so does the Commandant of Cadets have broad and discretionary powers to discipline Cadets.”11 Coast Guard policy does not require Academy officials to document their basis for disciplinary decisions. x Anti-Harassment Process. The Academy also follows the Coast Guard’s anti-harassment process, outlined in the Anti-Harassment and Hate Incident Policy (AHHI) in the Coast Guard Civil Rights Manual, which includes provisions to ensure complaints are addressed timely, the complainant is aware of the Academy’s actions to resolve allegations, and Coast Guard civil rights staff have a full picture of the racial climate.12 The Civil Rights Directorate (CRD) is responsible for oversight and tracking of harassment complaints in the Coast Guard, including the Academy. Civil Rights Service Providers (CRSP), CRD’s representatives in the field, assist commands and employees in complying with Coast Guard policy and civil rights laws and regulations. At the time of our review, the Academy had two CRSPs responsible for the cadets and staff at the Academy, as well as Coast Guard installations in the rest of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Hate incidents are egregious forms of harassment requiring additional oversight and reporting. The Civil Rights Manual defines a hate incident as any intentional act (conduct or speech) of intolerance committed against a person, a group of individuals, or property which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a protected group and which is intended to or is more likely than not to have the effect of intimidating others or inciting others to similar conduct. Examples include the display, presentation, creation or depiction of a noose, a swastika, or any other symbol widely identified with oppression or hatred.13 9 SUPINST M5215. 2M, Regulations of the Corps of Cadets at 201. The Superintendent is the last internal appeal of the Commandant of Cadets’ disenrollment decisions. See SUPINST M5215. 2M, Regulations of the Corps of Cadets at 267. 11 SUPTINST M5215.2M, Regulations of the Corps of Cadets at 84. 12 COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C. 13 COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C.1.e. 10 www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Although the Civil Rights Manual provides processes to address harassment, it also recognizes a need to address conduct that does not meet the legal threshold of harassment. The Civil Rights Manual states: [A] single utterance of an ethnic, sexual, or racial epithet that offends an employee would not be severe enough to constitute unlawful harassment in violation of federal law; however, it is the Coast Guard’s view that such conduct is inappropriate and must be stopped.14 The Academy does not use one single method to track complaints of harassment. If the Academy addresses the allegation through the misconduct process, the information may be stored in investigative files, internal misconduct tracking spreadsheets, good order and discipline notices,15 or cadet disciplinary records. In addition, as noted earlier, the Academy uses various offense charges to cite cadets for harassing misconduct. If the Academy addresses the allegation through the AHHI process, records of the incident may also be maintained by the local CRSP, and in some cases, CRD. To identify the full universe of allegations, we requested and reviewed the aforementioned documentation from Academy files and data systems related to all Class I misconduct, and from CRD related to harassment, from 2013 to 2018. We also interviewed cadets and staff for their recollection of instances of harassment and related misconduct that may not have been reported in the Academy’s files. We reviewed all incidents to determine whether: x the nature of the action, regardless of intent, was reasonably tied to race or ethnicity; x the alleged transgressor and/or the alleged victim was a cadet; x the allegations were suitable for investigation (i.e., they were specific in time and place and from a credible source such as a witness, a person in a position to know, or official documents); and x the Academy was aware of the alleged incident. Using this methodology, we identified 16 relevant hate or harassment-related misconduct allegations involving cadets from 2013 to 2018.16 COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C.1. Good order and discipline notices are summaries of disciplinary hearings the Academy leadership posts to inform the corps of cadets of the outcome of misconduct proceedings. 16 Despite our efforts to do so, we cannot be certain we captured all harassing misconduct the Academy was aware of because of its decentralized approach to addressing and documenting these types of incidents. We also recognize these cases do not capture the full scope of incidents cadets may have experienced or observed in this time frame, as some may have gone unreported or undocumented. www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-20-36 14 15 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Results of Review We identified issues in how the Academy addressed 11 of 16 allegations of hate or harassment-related misconduct from 2013 to 2018 (see table 1). Table 1: Issues identified in 11 harassment and hate incidents at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy between 2013 and 2018 Source: OIG analysis of Coast Guard data First, in 6 of the 11 incidents, the Academy did not investigate thoroughly the allegations and/or did not address substantiated allegations with disciplinary action. In two instances, the cadets who had engaged in the misconduct were repeat offenders. We also identified six incidents (including two noted previously) in which the Academy did not notify civil rights staff of the allegations, as required. Finally, in one incident involving potential hate allegations, the Academy did not follow the Coast Guard process for addressing hate incidents, such as coordination with civil rights staff. As a result, civil rights staff could not ensure the Academy followed procedures, nor could they properly track these incidents to proactively identify and address trends. Lastly, we determined race-based harassment is underreported at the Academy for various reasons, including concerns about negative consequences for the reporting cadet. www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security The Academy Did Not Thoroughly Investigate All Harassment Allegations, and Did Not Always Discipline Cadets for Documented Violations of Cadet Regulations Per Coast Guard policy, commanders must “immediately conduct an informal investigation, preliminary inquiry or formal investigation as appropriate” when they become aware of an allegation of harassment.17 If an investigation substantiates harassment has occurred, Coast Guard policy requires commanders to initiate appropriate disciplinary action.18 We identified 16 allegations of harassment-related misconduct involving cadets from 2013 to 2018 that the Academy was aware of and had sufficient information to investigate and address through the misconduct or AHHI procedures. We determined the Academy failed to investigate thoroughly the allegations, and/or did not discipline cadets when investigations documented violations of cadet regulations or Coast Guard policy, in 6 of the 16 instances. In two instances, cadets conducted similar race- or ethnicity-based misconduct again. These six incidents include: (1) In April 2016, a third-year cadet (Cadet #1) repeatedly referred to a firstyear cadet (Cadet #2) as a “n****” during a conversation. Cadet #2 tried to remove himself from the situation, but Cadet #1 followed him and continued to repeatedly use the epithet. Cadet #2 reported this incident to a professor and also explained cadets used the racial epithet frequently in the barracks. The Academy launched an investigation into the use of the racial epithet in the barracks, during which it substantiated Cadet #1 used the epithet. However, the Academy did not charge Cadet #1 with any offenses, did not discipline him or require him to take respect remediation, and did not note the incident in his official conduct record. In January 2017, Cadet #1 was eventually disenrolled from the Academy after committing another incident of misconduct (see incident 7 on page 11). Investigative materials from this case contained three additional allegations recent and specific enough for the Academy to investigate at the time. Specifically, cadets alleged the following: (2) A fourth-year cadet (Cadet #3), while at the officer on duty desk19 in the barracks, made a statement that “someone was playing n**** music.” COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C.1.d. COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, Ch. 2, Sec. C.1.d. 19 Officers on duty enforce cadet regulations, track cadets’ whereabouts, enforce study hours, conduct inventory of keys and equipment, and maintain required documentation. www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-20-36 17 18 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security (3) A first-year cadet (Cadet #4) told his roommate he would “hate being black” during a conversation with a prospective cadet they were hosting overnight. (4) Cadets watched and laughed at a blackface video in a recreational common area in the barracks. The investigating officer did not pursue these three allegations further. When we asked why these allegations were not addressed as required, the investigating officer said he followed oral instructions not to go on a “witch hunt.”20 (5) In July 2016, a third-year cadet (Cadet #5) made what he claimed was a joke to an incoming cadet during summer training: “I heard if you go to the Muslim Faith Service, that they teach you how to make bombs.” Several incoming cadets reported the incident to a staff member and the Academy investigated the matter. Cadet #5 was initially charged with two Class I offenses and recommended for disenrollment. He was ultimately retained, however, and did not receive any discipline, though he was made to complete respect remediation.21 The investigator later learned Cadet #5 told another third-year cadet (Cadet #6) about the “joke” the day after making it; Cadet #6 did not report Cadet #5 as required by Academy policy.22 When asked about the comment during the investigation, Cadet #6 said he did not think any of the incoming cadets in that group were Muslim and he did not think the incident needed to be reported. Cadet #6 was not charged, disciplined, or given respect remediation for not reporting the “joke.” (6) In October 2017, Cadet #6 allegedly wrote the word “Kool Aid” on his omelet station order slip. As a result, when the cadet’s order was ready, cafeteria staff were forced to call out the word to identify to whom it belonged. At the same time, another cadet (Cadet #7) with whom he was dining allegedly said, “put that cotton up” to another cadet (Cadet #8), who had pulled cotton out of his pants. Two fourth-year cadets (Cadet #9 and Cadet #10) observed the incident. Cadet #10 indicated to Cadet #9 that he considered the reference to “Kool Aid” to be a racial stereotype and inappropriate, and Cadet #9 raised their mutual concerns regarding Although the Commandant’s written order directed the investigating officer to pursue information regarding any suspected offenses discovered during the investigation, the Assistant Commandant later orally instructed him (using the term “witch hunt”) to not identify individuals. Based on this oral instruction, the investigating officer ended his investigation. 21 The Commandant of Cadets recommended disenrollment. Cadet #5 appealed his disenrollment to the Superintendent, and the Superintendent granted the appeal. 22 All cadets have a military duty to report Class I offenses, including discrimination, they observe or have knowledge of. Failure to do so could result in disciplinary action. See SUPTINST M5215.2M at 231. www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-20-36 20 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security the incident to Academy officials. According to the preliminary inquiry, the investigator was unable to extract complete statements from the accused cadets. Although the investigator believed the cadets were being untruthful and recommended them for further investigative proceedings to extract truthful statements, the Academy did not do so. Instead, the Academy held an informal meeting between the accused cadets and Cadet #9, who reported the behavior. The accused cadets were neither charged nor disciplined. We asked Academy officials why these incidents were not investigated further, and why cadets proven to have violated regulations were not disciplined. With respect to incidents (2) through (4), the Academy “[acknowledged] that multiple instances of inappropriate comments and terms” occurred, but did not explain why no further investigations were conducted into these inappropriate comments and terms. When asked why Cadets #6 through #8 were not disciplined, the Academy stated the Assistant Commandant of Cadets determined informal counseling was appropriate. The Commandant of Cadets has discretion to make cadet disciplinary decisions, and at the time of our review, Academy officials were not required to document their bases for investigative or disciplinary decisions. Therefore, we do not evaluate any specific disciplinary decision. Nevertheless, by not thoroughly investigating or consistently disciplining cadets for this misconduct, the Academy missed opportunities to: (1) demonstrate to cadets their behavior was unacceptable, (2) prevent repeat misconduct, and (3) show cadets reporting harassment that the Academy takes these reports seriously. Headquarters and Academy Civil Rights Professionals Did Not Oversee and Track All Academy Harassment and Hate Investigations The Academy did not consistently notify civil rights staff as required when investigating allegations of misconduct that could involve harassment. The Academy also did not consistently involve civil rights staff in hate investigations. Without being notified, civil rights professionals at the Academy and Coast Guard headquarters could not sufficiently oversee or assist the Academy in addressing harassment. Civil Rights Staff Were Not Informed of the Academy’s Response to Misconduct That Potentially Involved Harassment The AHHI process runs in parallel to the misconduct process and includes additional steps specific to harassment allegations. According to the AHHI policy, upon receiving a harassment complaint, Coast Guard commanders, including those at the Academy, are required to take certain actions, including: www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security x notifying the CRSP; and x reporting the findings and outcomes to the CRSP or Director of CRD within 30 days from the date the incident was reported. These additional steps allow the CRSP to ensure the command is complying with procedures, and allow CRD to track the harassment complaint, as required.23 Such steps also allow the CRSP to advise the command whether a harassment complaint may actually constitute a hate incident. We identified six instances in which the Academy investigated allegations of misconduct involving race- or ethnicity-based hate or harassment, but did not fully involve civil rights staff as required. These cases were not part of CRD’s documentation on harassment incidents at the Academy and the CRSP did not have oversight of these cases. These involved two of the incidents described previously (i.e., (5) and (6)), as well as the following four incidents: (7) In January 2017, Cadet #1 (described on page 7 in incident (1)) and two other fourth-year cadets (Cadets #10 and #11) were having a conversation during which they remarked that many Asian American cadets were moving into rooms near theirs. Cadet #1 then used an ethnic slur, proposing signs at a water fountain near their dorm rooms banning Asian American cadets from using it. A Company Officer overheard the comment and later brought Cadet #1 into his office to discuss the incident. Cadet #1 eventually admitted to making the statement and knowing what the slur meant. The day after the incident, Cadet #10 approached the Company Officer to justify the use of the slur, saying terms like this were acceptable. Cadet #1 was eventually disenrolled from the Academy for this misconduct. Cadets #10 and #11 were each found in violation of a Class II offense — failure to demonstrate proper leadership — for participating in a conversation of a discriminatory nature. They each received 2 weeks of room restriction and 30 demerits. (8) In February 2016, a group of fourth-year engineering students was working on an engineering project. One of the cadets (Cadet #12) emailed a project update document to the project sponsor, a Coast Guard lieutenant not assigned to the Academy. Upon opening the update document, the lieutenant observed “sup n***” written in the progress notes. The lieutenant admonished Cadet #12 by email, and the cadets’ advisors notified the head of the engineering department. The Academic Dean requested a preliminary inquiry during which neither COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual, at 2-C.5 – 2-C.6. www.oig.dhs.gov 11 23 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Cadet #12 nor his teammates admitted to writing the epithet. Cadet #12 suggested someone “played a prank” on him and wrote the epithet in the document while his workstation was unlocked. The investigator outlined multiple concerns, including that the epithet was being used casually. During the inquiry, Cadet #12 tried to distinguish the difference between “the soft ‘a’ and the hard ‘r’” when using the epithet. The investigator stated, “If [the cadet’s] views mirror those of the Corps of Cadets, significant training is required.” The preliminary inquiry was forwarded to the Commandant of Cadets, who ordered a standard investigation. The investigation did not uncover additional information. Cadet #12 was found in violation of a Class I offense (failure to use good judgment); he received 50 demerits and was recommended for disenrollment, but was ultimately retained at the Academy.24 The other cadets were not disciplined. In its explanation to cadets on the outcome of this incident, the Academy stated, “One of the main takeaways from this case is that it is always important to maintain positive control of documents, either electronic or physical. Leaving a workstation unlocked can lead [to] many problems, some with dire consequences. It is also important to note that racism is not acceptable in any form and will be met with severe consequences.”25 (9) In the Fall of 2016, Academy leadership tasked Company Officers and Chiefs with communicating major takeaways to cadets regarding the April 2016 investigation into the use of the racial epithet “n****” (incident (1) described previously). Academy leadership wanted to provide guidance that using the epithet, even when not meant to be hateful or when used between friends, created an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment and was a violation of Academy policy. However, one Company Officer used the epithet in the very briefing intended to communicate to cadets that they should not use that word. The Assistant Commandant of Cadets learned about the incident and during the inquiry into this incident, the Company Officer said he used the epithet as part of a “shock and awe” approach. The Company Officer was counseled and given training. (10) In October 2017, a second-year cadet (Cadet #13) was providing a tour of the Academy to prospective students and their families. At one point during the tour, Cadet #13 referred to the USCG EAGLE, a ship used for training, as a “slave ship.” One family was offended and reported the incident to the staff member who had invited them. The Academy investigated the incident; Cadet #13 was ultimately found in violation of An Academy official subsequently asked the Superintendent not to disenroll Cadet #12. Good Order and Discipline Notice at 4 (Dates of coverage: April 1-30, 2016). www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-20-36 24 25 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security a Class II offense (Conduct: unbecoming a cadet), and received 30 demerits and room restriction for 2 weeks. Our review of documentation indicated only one of these incidents — all of which involved potential race- or ethnicity-based harassment — had been referred to the CRSP, as required.26 In no instance did the command notify the CRD within 30 days of finalized findings and outcomes. We asked Academy officials why civil rights staff were not made aware of these incidents; the Academy provided no answer and instead forwarded our question to CRD. We reviewed these cases with CRD staff, who confirmed the six cases should have been reported to them. A CRD official further explained that their inability to see the full range of incidents at the Academy would prevent them from identifying “red flags” and proactively assisting commands with their racial climate. Because CRD was not aware of these cases, none of these incidents was included in CRD’s data. We only found these cases through interviews and by reviewing internal conduct trackers, investigative documents, and good order and discipline notices. Civil Rights Staff Were Not Fully Involved in Addressing Potential Hate Incidents Hate incidents are egregious forms of harassment and have the potential not only to intimidate, but to incite others to behave similarly. The Civil Rights Manual describes specific actions Coast Guard officials must take when encountering a hate incident, which are in addition to the harassment procedures described in the previous section. They include, among others: x Upon becoming aware of any potential hate incidents in their respective areas of responsibility, Commanders or CRSPs must immediately notify the Director, CRD via their chain of command, and be prepared to provide sufficient information to describe the incident, e.g., photographs, informal statements, etc. x A commander who becomes aware of a hate incident will electronically report the incident within 48 hours to a CSRP…. x CRSPs will assist unit commanders in determining if a harassment complaint constitutes a hate incident. Additionally, they shall notify During the preliminary inquiry for incident (8), the head of the engineering department stated he contacted the CRSP to discuss the incident. However, the CRSP stated the Academy did not notify him of any of these incidents. www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-20-36 26 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security unit commanders if they determine that a harassment complaint constitutes a hate incident but has not been reported as such. x …Commanders shall continue to follow up via their CRSP as the situation continues to develop.27 Of the two potential hate incidents the Academy addressed during the time period we reviewed, one did not involve civil rights staff as fully as required. Specifically: (11) In April 2017, the Academy investigated an incident when two secondyear cadets (Cadet #14 and Cadet #15) posed in front of a confederate flag and posted the picture on Cadet #14’s social media. In his profile picture, Cadet #14 is wearing a Coast Guard uniform. Later in the evening, a classmate approached Cadet #14 and advised him to take down the post because it could be offensive; the cadet did so. By then, other cadets had already seen the post and ultimately reported the incident. During the Academy’s investigation of the incident, Cadet #14 said he intended to “make a joke” by taking the picture with the confederate flag in the background. The Academy investigated the social media posting under AHHI as a hate incident. However, the command did not report it to the Director of CRD immediately; did not report the incident to the CRSP within 48 hours; and did not follow up with the CRSP as it developed further information, as required by procedures for hate incidents. Furthermore, per harassment procedures, the command was required to provide the findings and outcomes of the investigation to the Director of CRD through the CRSP within 30 days, which it did not do. Therefore, this incident was not part of the CRD tracking database for AHHI hate incidents. In addition, because the CRSP was not fully involved, the command proceeded without the benefit of the CRSP’s expertise in the harassment process. Ultimately, the command found hate to be unsubstantiated. However, the command made no finding on whether the posting constituted harassment, which is required even if the allegation of hate is not substantiated.28 In his report, the investigator stated the cadet should have been aware the photo he posted could have the effect of “intimidating or offending people” who followed his Instagram activity — this language mirrors the Coast Guard’s own language for the definition of prohibited harassment. The investigator concluded the cadet should COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual at 2-C.6. COMDTINST M5350.4C, Civil Rights Manual at 2-C.5. www.oig.dhs.gov 14 27 28 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security be disciplined; however, the Academy did not discipline any of the cadets involved. In May 2019, the Coast Guard updated its Civil Rights Manual to require commands to articulate, in writing, the basis for the determination of whether harassment or hate occurred, and the evidence reviewed to reach the determination, in its reports of findings and outcomes to the CRSP.29 The updated Civil Rights Manual also emphasizes that, when hate is not substantiated, the command must consider whether the incident could be considered harassment and whether it should be investigated as such. The Civil Rights Manual further emphasizes that, while commands retain decision authority on whether a hate incident occurred and the appropriate response, they must consult the CRSP as well as legal counsel.30 Given the issues we identified with the Academy’s handling of several harassment and hate incidents, as well as these recent updates and clarifications to Coast Guard policy, additional training for Academy staff and cadets on how to respond to these types of allegations could ensure the new policies are known and enhance the Academy’s ability to better address such incidents in the future. Race-Based Harassment Is Underreported at the Academy, in Part Because of Concerns about Negative Consequences In December 2018, we sent a questionnaire to 1,072 cadets; 122 cadets responded.31 Respondents indicated they were aware of certain harassing behaviors occurring at the Academy. Although cadets indicated in the questionnaire that they are aware of how to report race-based harassment, they may not do so for various reasons, the most troubling of which is fear of negative consequences. Cadets Responding to Our Questionnaire Indicated They Understand How to Report Harassment, But May Not Do So Out of Fear of Negative Consequences All cadets have a military duty to report Class I offenses, including discrimination, they observe or have knowledge of.32 To understand cadets’ experiences with racial or ethnicity-based harassment, including their comfort with reporting such behavior, we sent a questionnaire to the entire corps of cadets. COMDTINST M5350.4D, Civil Rights Manual at 3-12.i (harassment incidents); and COMDTINST M5350.4D, Civil Rights Manual at 3-15.b (hate incidents). 30 COMDTINST M5350.4D, Civil Rights Manual at 3-15.c. 31 The full results of our questionnaire are included as appendix D to this report. The survey results included in the report represent the experiences and observations of those who responded only, and not of the entire student body. 32 SUPTINST M5215.2M at 231. www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-20-36 29 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security More than 80 percent of the 122 respondents stated they understood how to report race-based harassment at the Academy. However, of the cadets who provided details on their likelihood to report harassing behavior, only 59 percent said they would report it through designated channels. The main influences listed by cadets as affecting whether they would report include: x the seriousness of the action, as well as the offender’s intent or overall character; x their ability to address the problem on their own; and x their assessment of whether they would be negatively affected by the reporting. Academy policy encourages cadets to try resolving issues themselves, and this policy may result in the reporting influences described in the first two bullets. However, one-third (36 of 108)33 of the cadets who responded to a question about reporting said their decision to report harassment would be influenced by whether they believed they would be negatively affected by reporting. Similarly, our interviews with cadets and former cadets identified concerns about negative consequences. For example, two individuals we interviewed told us they experienced negative consequences after participating in investigations into potential harassing misconduct. One of the individuals said, after taking part in the investigation of a fellow cadet of the same race, an officer at the Academy counseled the cadet to “support” others of the same race. This cadet also reported facing repercussions and being ostracized for reporting harassment, even after graduation from the Academy. Other cadets we interviewed said cadets know how to report, but will not because of the potential for backlash from the cadet community. At the Time of Our Review, Race-Based Harassing Behaviors Were Still Occurring at the Academy Underreporting is especially concerning because, based on our questionnaire results and interviews with cadets and Academy officials, harassing behaviors continue. During our interviews with cadets, they described offensive comments of which they were aware. They explained that, at least on some occasions, they understood the comments were not intended to be offensive. Cadets provided the following examples of behavior or language they had experienced or witnessed: x cadets called African American cadets “sensitive” because they called out a white cadet for addressing them by saying “what’s up my n***”; Cadets were not required to answer all questions. Furthermore, some questions were not presented to cadets depending on their prior responses. www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-20-36 33 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security x cadets asked an African American cadet, “Why do you talk so white for a black person”; x cadets asked Hispanic cadets about drugs and Pablo Escobar; x cadets heard Company Officers calling each other by slurs in a “friendly” way, such as “chapo”; and x an African American cadet said a white cadet was feeling “extra white” that day because he was listening to sea shanties.34 Questionnaire responses provide further evidence that these types of behavior continue to occur at the Academy. In the survey, we provided cadets with a list of harassing behaviors and asked whether they were directly or indirectly aware of these behaviors while attending the Academy. Of the 84 cadets who chose to respond to this question, 68 cadets (81 percent of respondents) stated they were aware of the harassing behaviors, including: x jokes; x stereotyping; x microaggressions; x demeaning comments; x derogatory epithets or slurs; and x retaliation for reporting or complaining about derogatory behaviors. Other surveys also indicate potentially harassing behavior occurs at the Academy. The Academy participates in the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS), a survey used across the Department of Defense to assess organizational effectiveness, equal opportunity, and sexual assault response and prevention.35 We compared cadet DEOCS results from 2017 and 2018 and observed worsening results in race/ethnicity climate-related topics. For example, the percent of cadets who said racial slurs, comments, or jokes were not used on campus decreased more than 35 percent between 2017 and 2018. Similarly, an increased percentage of respondents, regardless of race, reported experiencing disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity. Moreover, both the 2017 and 2018 survey results indicate that more than 70 percent of perceived disparate treatment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion goes unreported at the Academy. A sea shanty is a type of work song once commonly sung to accompany labor on board large merchant sailing vessels from at least the 15th century through the first half of the 20th century (such as “Blow the Man Down” and “Drunken Sailor”). 35 At the Academy, DEOCS is administered within 180 days of a new Superintendent assuming command and annually thereafter. www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-20-36 34 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Although cadets do receive basic equal opportunity training, they do not receive mandatory training on recognizing when they commit harassing behaviors themselves. Those limited number of cadets who receive this type of training receive respect remediation, which is meant to challenge cadets to reflect on their own backgrounds and perceptions. However, respect remediation is not administered proactively to cadets; instead, it is used as a corrective tool after a cadet commits an offense that is reported and investigated. Recommendations We recommend the Superintendent of the Coast Guard Academy: Recommendation 1: To the extent feasible, investigate all incidents involving race- or ethnicity-based harassment, documenting investigative actions taken in response to such incidents, including the basis for decisions not to investigate a particular incident. Recommendation 2: Require the reasons for disciplinary decisions be documented in writing, including the decision not to take disciplinary action, after each investigation of a race- or ethnicity-based harassment incident. Recommendation 3: Ensure appropriate notification is given to civil rights staff of all alleged misconduct when the nature of the misconduct, regardless of intent, could reasonably relate to race or ethnicity. Recommendation 4: Provide mandatory training for Academy personnel and cadets involved in investigating incidents of harassment or hate on applicable policies and procedures regarding how to properly handle these incidents. Recommendation 5: Provide mandatory training to cadets on how to recognize and avoid harassing behaviors. Management Comments and OIG Analysis Appendix B contains a copy of Coast Guard’s management response in its entirety. We also received technical comments and incorporated them in the report where appropriate. We consider one recommendation closed, and the remaining four recommendations resolved and open. A summary of Coast Guard’s responses and our analysis follows. Coast Guard concurred with all five recommendations, but expressed four specific concerns with the report. The Coast Guard’s concerns, as well as our response, are described below. www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security 1. First, Coast Guard disputed the characterization of the CRSP as having oversight of harassment complaints, and stated the CRSP’s role regarding AHHI claims is “limited to civil rights policy guidance and tracking timeliness of command actions.” This description minimizes the importance of the CRSP in the Coast Guard’s own written policies in ensuring the Academy complies with harassment procedures. The Civil Rights Manual states “CRD is responsible for coordinating Coast Guard harassment policy and general oversight of the harassment complaint process….” The CRSP provides this guidance and oversight in the field. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Manual states “Civil Rights Detachments are required [emphasis added] to assist commands, employees, and military members in complying with the[se] procedures…CRSPs are process experts and act as facilitators to ensure that all harassment complaints are handled in a timely manner.” These excerpts from Coast Guard’s own policy establish the clear role the CRSP and CRD play in providing oversight and ensuring policy compliance. 2. Second, Coast Guard was concerned the draft report did not discuss the role the Office of Inclusion and Diversity (OID) plays in advising the Superintendent on disciplinary issues. Specifically, Coast Guard said the office provides oversight of diversity and inclusion programs at the Academy, recommendations regarding potential disciplinary action against cadets, and advice to the Superintendent on racial climate issues. While accurate, OID’s role is not relevant to the Academy’s compliance with its policies on addressing harassment incidents. The applicable Coast Guard policy does not include OID as part of the required AHHI process. 3. Third, Coast Guard stated the report was not explicit about the questionnaire’s response rate, and infers corps-wide conclusions based on responses from a small number of cadets. This is not accurate; the report specifically describes feedback as coming from those who chose to participate only. For example, the report states “Cadets responding to our questionnaire indicated they understand how to report harassment, but may not so do out of fear of negative consequences.” The report also includes the number of respondents throughout this section and in appendix D, which contains the full results and specific response rates for each question. The report does not extrapolate any result to the entire student body. However, we added clarifying language in the body of the report to reinforce this. 4. Finally, Coast Guard raised questions about the criteria underlying conclusions the draft report purportedly reaches regarding the thoroughness of some investigations and the appropriateness of www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security particular disciplinary actions. In assessing whether an investigation was sufficiently thorough, we relied on the following criteria: 1) whether an investigation occurred at all, and 2) whether investigators were permitted to explore all relevant topics and leads in conducting their investigations. These criteria were not met in the instances where we call into question the thoroughness of the investigation. Regarding disciplinary action, contrary to Coast Guard’s assertion, the report does not pass judgment on the appropriateness of particular disciplinary actions; it simply points out whether cadets were disciplined, and if so, what the disciplinary actions were. A summary of Coast Guard’s responses to the recommendations and our analysis follows. Coast Guard Response to Recommendation 1: Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation. Coast Guard requires commanding officers to investigate all incidents involving race- or ethnicity-based harassment. A May 2019 update to the Civil Rights Manual now also requires commanding officers to “articulate, in writing, the basis for the determination of whether harassment and/or bullying occurred, and the evidence reviewed to reach the determination.” OIG Analysis: We consider this action responsive to the intent of the recommendation, which is resolved and closed. We note that although commanding officers have always been required to investigate all incidents involving race- or ethnicity-based harassment, this was not always done. It is our expectation that a written explanation of investigative actions taken in response to harassing misconduct will improve accountability in this area. Coast Guard Response to Recommendation 2: Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation. Coast Guard referenced the May 2019 updated policy requiring documentation of investigative actions taken in response to harassment, as well as a subsequent update requiring the memorandum documenting these actions be provided to the next level in the chain of command. Coast Guard is in the process of updating its policies to require written documentation of the reasons for no administrative or disciplinary action in cases where harassment is substantiated. Coast Guard anticipates completion by December 31, 2020. OIG Analysis: We consider this action responsive to the intent of the recommendation, which is resolved and open. We anticipate closing this recommendation when we receive the updated policy requiring written documentation of the reasons for no administrative or disciplinary action in cases where harassment is substantiated. www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard Response to Recommendation 3: Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation. Coast Guard policy already requires commanding officers to notify the local CRSP upon notification of a complaint of prohibited harassment. Coast Guard is also updating training courses for antiharassment and hate incident investigations for Commanding Officers, Officers in Charge, and individuals assigned as Investigating Officers. Coast Guard asked for the recommendation to be considered resolved and closed. OIG Analysis: We consider this action partially responsive to our recommendation, which is resolved and open. Our concern remains that commands are incorrectly identifying which cases should prompt antiharassment and hate procedures. We anticipate closing the recommendation when the Academy has a process to inform the CRSP of alleged misconduct that could reasonably relate to race or ethnicity early enough so cases are properly identified and the anti-harassment and hate processes are implemented consistently. Coast Guard Response to Recommendation 4: Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation. Coast Guard is considering ways to improve and update investigator training, and to provide investigators the necessary tools to ensure they appropriately investigate incidents. Coast Guard anticipates completion by December 31, 2020. OIG Analysis: We consider this action responsive to our recommendation, which is resolved and open. We anticipate closing this recommendation when we receive documentation of the updated training and the process by which this training will be provided to individuals involved in investigating harassment or hate incidents. Coast Guard Response to Recommendation 5: Coast Guard concurred with the recommendation. Coast Guard provides civil rights awareness training; sexual assault awareness and prevention training; initial core values training; and, if needed, core values remediation training. Cadets also receive Bystander Intervention training at various points during the 200-week training program, which empowers cadets to intervene if they see, among other problematic behaviors, sexual harassment. OIG Analysis: We consider this action responsive to our recommendation, which is resolved and open. The intent of the recommendation is to increase cadets’ awareness of offensive and inappropriate behavior regarding race and ethnicity. The documentation provided does not show training material that is preventative in nature. We will close this recommendation when we receive documentation of mandatory training for cadets that teaches them to recognize when they or their peers commit harassing behaviors. www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix A Objective, Scope, and Methodology The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107ï296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. We reviewed whether the Academy has effective processes for reporting, investigating, and taking corrective action in response to allegations of race- or ethnicity-based harassment. Review of Harassment Allegations As described in the body of the report, the Academy uses two channels to address potential misconduct that could involve discrimination or harassment. We requested information from several sources to identify possible incidents of harassment or discrimination at the Academy from 2013 to 2018. Specifically we requested and reviewed: x documentation for all harassment and discrimination cases; x a list of all harassment and discrimination complaints; x the Academy’s conduct tracker, which catalogs all Class I investigations, for all years in our scope; and x Good Order and Discipline Notices published by the Academy. We interviewed past and present Academy leadership, including the Superintendent, the Commandant of Cadets, the Assistant Commandant of Cadets, the Regimental Officer, legal counsel, and staff, including Company Officers and Chiefs. We also spoke with cadets involved in diversity and inclusion efforts on campus. We asked most of these interviewees if they were aware of any possible harassment incidents. Cadet Survey We administered a questionnaire to all 1,072 cadets at the Academy, providing them an opportunity to describe: x their knowledge of and adherence to procedures and processes in place to respond to harassment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity; x the Academy’s climate, i.e., the prevailing effect of conditions relating to race and ethnicity on cadet life, activities, and education at the Academy; and x their experiences with racial or ethnicity-based harassment and discrimination. www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security We asked cadets to focus on incidents during their time as a cadet at the Academy, including both on and off campus. The full results of our questionnaire are included as appendix D. We conducted this review under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix B Coast Guard Comments to the Draft Report www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix C DHS OIG’s Previous Whistleblower Retaliation Report In December 2018, our office released a whistleblower retaliation report regarding alleged reprisal against a Lieutenant Commander stationed at the Academy.36 Our office’s investigation substantiated the Lieutenant Commander’s claim that she was retaliated against after making discrimination and harassment complaints against her superiors. While this report and the whistleblower retaliation report generally address two different discrimination processes (the Coast Guard Academy’s internal discrimination process and the Military Equal Opportunity discrimination process, respectively), we found similar issues in both, as described in the following paragraphs. Lack of Thorough Investigations Pages 8–10 of this report contain examples of harassment allegations that were not investigated thoroughly. For example, the report describes one allegation in which a cadet used a racially insensitive term for his breakfast order. After a preliminary inquiry, the investigator recommended further investigative proceedings to obtain complete statements from the subjects, but the Academy did not do so. The whistleblower retaliation report describes a similar example in which, after a preliminary inquiry, an Academy official recommended a full administrative investigation of the complainant’s allegation. Instead, the Academy conducted a general climate and culture investigation, which was relatively superficial and did not address the complainant’s particular situation. Lack of Documentation Pages 8–10 of this report describes incidents in which cadets were not disciplined, including cases when the investigator recommended further action, but we could not determine why because Academy policy does not require Coast Guard officials to document their basis for disciplinary decisions. The whistleblower retaliation report found similar issues, in that while the Civil Rights Manual requires commanders to report “findings and outcomes” to CRD for harassment complaints, it does not specify any level of detail for the reasons for these findings and outcomes. The report stated, “[There] should be some written record explaining the basis for a commanding officer’s conclusion, particularly where it appears inconsistent with an investigator’s findings,” and recommended the Secretary direct the Coast Guard require commanding officers document in writing the reasons for their determinations, both when substantiating and unsubstantiating allegations. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, “Whistleblower Retaliation Report of Investigation,” Case Number: W17-USCG-WPU-16018, December 4, 2018 www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-20-36 36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Retaliation Page 16 of this report describes how one-third of questionnaire respondents reported their decision to report harassing behaviors would be influenced by their assessment of whether they would be negatively affected by the reporting. The report also describes how individuals at the Academy told us they experienced negative consequences after participating in the harassment process. Similarly, the whistleblower retaliation report substantiated the complainant’s claim that she was retaliated against on the basis of her discrimination and harassment complaints, and that the Coast Guard subjected the complainant to additional harassment and retaliatory actions after she filed the complaints. www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix D Questionnaire Results Of the 1,072 cadets who received the questionnaire, 122 cadets responded.37 In some instances, we directed individuals to different questions based on their responses. In other instances, cadets may have chosen not to respond to certain questions. We indicate, where possible, when the total number of respondents was less than 122. Due to rounding, the sum of percents included in the following tables may not total 100 percent for all questions. Policies and Processes In this part of the questionnaire, we asked cadets about their knowledge of processes to respond to, and remedy, discriminatory or harassing behaviors, as well as their potential responses if faced with these behaviors. Question I understand what constitutes race and/or ethnicity-based discrimination according to Academy policy I understand what constitutes race and/or ethnicity-based harassment according to Academy policy I understand what actions and speech are permissible while on campus I understand what actions and speech are permissible while off campus I understand how to report race and/or ethnicity-based discrimination at the Academy I understand how to report race and/or ethnicity-based harassment at the Academy Agree Strongly Agree Prefer not to answer 4 3% 67 55% 46 38% 1 1% 7 6% 9 7% 61 50% 44 36% 1 1% 3 2% 6 5% 4 3% 59 48% 49 40% 1 1% 4 3% 6 5% 6 5% 60 49% 45 37% 1 1% 3 2% 9 7% 12 10% 55 45% 42 34% 1 1% 3 2% 8 7% 10 8% 59 48% 41 34% 1 1% Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree 0 4 3% 0 Strongly Disagree We collected demographic information from respondents, including class year, race, and ethnicity. We do not publish these results because the small number of responses reduces the anonymity of minority respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-20-36 37 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security I would most likely report the disparate treatment on the basis of race and/or ethnicity to:38 Reporting channel (120 respondents) Office of Superintendent Commandant of Cadets Company Officers or Company Chiefs Cadet Training Academy Office of Civil Rights Academy Staff Judge Advocate or other Coast Guard Attorney Coast Guard Civil Rights Directorate Office of Diversity and Inclusion Inclusive Excellence Council (IEC) Leadership and Diversity Advisory Council (LDAC) Diversity Peer Educators Diversity Council presidents and staff advisors Professors Company leaders Fellow cadets Another person/entity not listed: x Family x Close friends x Chaplains x Mentors x Media Question (116 respondents) Strongly Disagree 9 8% If I feel I am being subjected to treatment different from other cadets on the basis of my race/ethnicity, I would report it through designated channels Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree 19 16% 18 16% # of respondents 8 12 66 9 46 7 24 61 8 13 54 36 32 67 62 % of respondents 7 10 55 8 38 6 20 51 7 11 45 30 27 56 52 5 4 Agree Strongly Agree Prefer not to answer 45 39% 23 20% 2 2% If I experienced this treatment, the primary influences on my decision whether to report it would be:39 Primary influence (108 respondents) My uncertainty over how to report The amount of effort it takes to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The offender’s overall character # of respondents 10 23 31 37 % of respondents 9 21 29 34 Cadets were asked to select all that apply; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-20-36 38 39 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Primary influence (108 respondents) The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own My assessment of whether I will be negatively affected by using the process My assessment of whether my leadership will support my decision The likelihood that someone else will report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knows about the action Other factor(s) not listed above: x Lack of diversity in staff and faculty x No representation in the individuals to report misconduct to x The Academy’s past leniency in discipline in response to racebased misconduct Question (112 respondents) Strongly Disagree 1 1% If I witnessed a cadet being treated differently from other cadets on the basis of their race/ethnicity, I would report it through designated channels Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 6% 16 14% # of respondents 76 69 31 58 36 % of respondents 70 64 29 54 33 11 7 9 11 2 10 6 8 10 2 Agree Strongly Agree Prefer not to answer 52 46% 35 31% 1 1% If I witnessed this treatment, the primary influences on my decision whether to report it would be:40 Primary influence (109 respondents) My uncertainty over how to report The amount of effort it takes to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The offender’s overall character The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own My assessment of whether I will be negatively affected by using the process My assessment of whether my leadership will support my decision The likelihood that someone else will report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knows about the action # of respondents 9 14 25 31 79 60 31 58 18 16 22 8 9 % of respondents 8 13 23 28 72 55 28 53 17 15 20 7 8 Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-20-36 40 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Primary influence (109 respondents) Other factor(s) not listed above: x The desire of the victim to report the incident x My own understanding of what constitutes disparate treatment x My own lack of understanding from a cultural aspect why the victim believed they were treated differently Question (107 respondents) Strongly Disagree 1 1% If I became aware of a cadet being treated differently from other cadets on the basis of their race/ethnicity, I would report it through designated channels Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 9% 19 18% # of respondents 5 % of respondents 5 Agree Strongly Agree Prefer not to answer 43 40% 32 30% 2 2% If I became aware of this treatment, the primary influences on my decision whether to report it would be:41 Primary influence (100 respondents) My uncertainty over how to report The amount of effort it takes to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The offender’s overall character The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own My assessment of whether I will be negatively affected by using the process My assessment of whether my leadership will support my decision The likelihood that someone else will report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knows about the action Other factor(s) not listed above # of respondents 3 16 21 35 71 53 22 49 12 14 23 7 18 1 % of respondents 3 16 21 35 71 53 22 49 12 14 23 7 18 1 Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-20-36 41 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security General Climate In this part of the questionnaire, we asked cadets to answer using a broad perspective regarding the Academy’s climate, i.e., the prevailing effect of conditions relating to race and ethnicity in cadet life, activities, and education at the Academy. Question (106 respondents) Positively Not at all Negatively Prefer not to answer 25 24% 67 63% 9 8% 5 5% 48 45% 39 37% 15 14% 4 4% 31 29% 35 33% 62 58% 32 30% 10 9% 29 27% 3 3% 10 9% The Academy’s climate relating to race and ethnicity impacts my academic work The Academy’s climate relating to race and ethnicity impacts my preparation to become an officer in the United States Coast Guard The Academy’s climate relating to race and ethnicity impacts my extracurricular or social activities The Academy’s climate relating to race and ethnicity impacts my opinion about the Academy Question (102 respondents) My fellow cadets help maintain an inclusive racial and ethnic climate The faculty and staff help maintain an inclusive racial and ethnic climate The company command structure helps maintain an inclusive racial and ethnic climate The Academy’s overall climate relating to race and ethnicity has improved since I arrived on campus I do not see any issues with the climate at the Academy I believe the media has accurately represented these issues at the Academy I believe I can engage my fellow cadets in conversations on issues related to race or ethnicity without suffering consequences My fellow cadets are culturally sensitive I believe all cadets have the same experience at the Academy regardless of their race or ethnicity www.oig.dhs.gov Agree Strongly Agree Prefer not to answer 15 15% 43 42% 31 30% 2 2% 3 3% 18 18% 40 39% 38 37% 2 2% 4 4% 7 7% 19 19% 36 35% 34 33% 2 2% 6 6% 17 17% 46 45% 17 17% 13 13% 3 3% 15 15% 25 25% 14 14% 26 25% 20 20% 2 2% 36 35% 26 25% 20 20% 11 11% 6 6% 3 3% 11 11% 13 13% 17 17% 35 34% 25 25% 1 1% 6 6% 15 15% 21 21% 35 34% 24 24% 1 1% 22 22% 30 29% 20 20% 12 12% 16 16% 2 2% Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 3% 8 8% 1 1% Strongly Disagree 35 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security We presented a list of behaviors that, if present, may affect the climate at the Academy. We asked cadets to select any behavior they were directly or indirectly aware of while attending the Academy, regardless of whether the communication or activity was directed at them personally.42 We further explained selecting a behavior means they have seen it happen or are aware of it happening to a cadet they knew personally. Not selecting a behavior does not mean they believe it never happens. We also asked them not to include behaviors they only know about through media reports. Behavior (78 respondents selected at least one choice) Jokes about a certain race/ethnicity Demeaning comments about a certain race/ethnicity Stereotyping based on race/ethnicity Microaggressions toward people of a certain race or ethnicity (i.e., everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate negative messages about people of a certain race or ethnicity) Derogatory epithets or slurs used to describe an individual or group of individuals belonging to a certain race/ethnicity Derogatory epithets or slurs related to a certain race/ethnicity used in the context of reciting or describing popular media, e.g., music or film Excluding a cadet from a beneficial action/activity because of his or her race/ethnicity43 Targeting a cadet for a detrimental action/activity because of his or her race/ethnicity Retaliation for reporting or complaining about derogatory behaviors toward a race/ethnicity Pressure, including threats, to not report derogatory behaviors toward a race/ethnicity Other type of communication or activity that is not listed above: x Being questioned why they would report a classmate Question (98 respondents) # of respondents 57 31 48 % of respondents 73 40 62 37 47 13 17 17 22 6 8 9 12 16 21 5 6 3 4 Never – I am not aware of these types of behaviors Once or twice per year Three or four times per year Five or six times per year More than six times per year Prefer not to answer 16 16% 28 29% 19 19% 9 9% 12 12% 14 14% How often have you been aware of the behaviors described in the previous question while attending the Academy? Cadets were asked to select all that apply; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. One respondent stated white cadets, especially males, have fewer opportunities than minority cadets. The respondent stated the Academy has implemented programs to support minority students that creates inequality to the detriment of white cadets, such as mentorship and the ability to form affinity councils. www.oig.dhs.gov 36 OIG-20-36 42 43 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Experiences and Observations In this part of the questionnaire, we asked cadets about discriminatory behaviors they personally experienced or may have been aware of as a cadet while at the Academy. Question (98 respondents) Agree Disagree 16 16% 72 74% Since I arrived on campus, I believe I have been discriminated against on the basis of my race or ethnicity Prefer not to answer 10 10% Those who agreed were directed to the following questions: Question (16 respondents) Once or twice per year Three or four times per year Five or six times per year More than six times per year Prefer not to answer How often do you believe you have been discriminated against on the basis of your race or ethnicity? 7 44% 5 31% 1 6% 1 6% 2 13% Question (16 respondents) I reported them all I reported only some of them I did not report any of them Prefer not to answer 0 0% 2 13% 13 81% 1 6% Which best describes your reporting of the discriminatory incident(s)? Those who reported some of the incidents were directed to the following series of questions: When I chose to report the discriminatory incident(s), I reported it to:44 Reporting channel (2 respondents) Office of Superintendent Commandant of Cadets Company Officers or Company Chiefs Cadet Training Academy Office of Civil Rights Academy Staff Judge Advocate or other Coast Guard Attorney Coast Guard Civil Rights Directorate Office of Diversity and Inclusion Inclusive Excellence Council (IEC) Leadership and Diversity Advisory Council (LDAC) Diversity Peer Educators Diversity Council presidents and staff advisors Professors # of respondents % of respondents 1 50 Cadets were asked to select all that apply; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 37 OIG-20-36 44 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Reporting channel (2 respondents) Company leaders Fellow cadets Another person/entity not listed # of respondents 1 1 % of respondents 50 50 What was the outcome of your report? x Allegation was taken forward and addressed; individuals were disciplined x Individual collecting the report questioned why the individual was reporting; delayed feedback on any responsive actions The primary reason(s) that I did not report all the discriminatory incidents at that time were:45 Primary influence (2 respondents) I did not realize I was being discriminated against at that time My uncertainty over how to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The amount of effort it would have taken to report The offender’s overall character The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own I was concerned about confidentiality I believed reporting would negatively affect my studies at the Academy I believed reporting would negatively affect my career in the Coast Guard I did not believe leadership would support my decision The likelihood that someone else would report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knew about the action Other factor(s) not listed above [Drop Down] I do not know how to answer this question # of respondents 1 % of respondents 50 2 1 100 50 1 50 1 50 1 1 50 50 Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 38 OIG-20-36 45 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Those who reported none of the incidents were directed to the following question: The primary reason(s) I did not report being discriminated against at that time were:46 Primary influence (13 respondents) I did not realize I was being discriminated against at that time My uncertainty over how to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The amount of effort it would have taken to report The offender’s overall character The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own I was concerned about confidentiality I believed reporting would negatively affect my studies at the Academy I believed reporting would negatively affect my career in the Coast Guard I did not believe leadership would support my decision The likelihood that someone else would report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knew about the action Other factor(s) not listed above: x I did not think the media or command would consider the behavior discrimination because it was toward a white cadet x It was not a big deal; I had tough skin and moved on # of respondents 2 1 7 3 2 3 2 1 1 4 4 6 6 % of respondents 15 8 54 23 15 23 15 8 8 31 31 46 46 2 15 In this part of the questionnaire, we asked cadets about discriminatory or harassing behaviors they personally experienced or may have been aware of as a cadet while at the Academy. Question (98 respondents) Since I arrived on campus, I believe that I have been harassed on the basis of my race or ethnicity Agree Disagree 8 8% 84 86% Prefer not to answer 6 6% Those who agreed were directed to the following questions: Question (8 respondents) How often do you believe you have been harassed on the basis of your race or ethnicity? Once or twice per year Three or four times per year Five or six times per year More than six times per year Prefer not to answer 5 63% 2 25% 0 0 1 13% Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 39 OIG-20-36 46 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Question Which best describes your reporting of the harassment incident(s)? I reported them all 0 I reported only some of them I did not report any of them Prefer not to answer 1 13% 5 63% 2 25% Those who reported some of the incidents were directed to the following series of questions: When I chose to report the harassment, I reported it to:47 Reporting channel (1 respondent) Office of Superintendent Commandant of Cadets Company Officers or Company Chiefs Cadet Training Academy Office of Civil Rights Academy Staff Judge Advocate or other Coast Guard Attorney Coast Guard Civil Rights Directorate Office of Diversity and Inclusion Inclusive Excellence Council (IEC) Leadership and Diversity Advisory Council (LDAC) Diversity Peer Educators Diversity Council presidents and staff advisors Professors Company leaders Fellow cadets Another person/entity not listed # of respondents % of respondents 1 100 What was the outcome of your report? x Allegation was elevated and addressed; individuals were disciplined The primary reason(s) at that time that I did not report all the harassment incidents were:48 Primary influence I did not realize I was being harassed at that time My uncertainty over how to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The amount of effort it would have taken to report The offender’s overall character The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent # of respondents 1 % of respondents 100 1 1 100 100 Cadets were asked to select all that apply; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 40 OIG-20-36 47 48 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Primary influence The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own I was concerned about confidentiality I believed reporting would negatively affect my studies at the Academy I believed reporting would negatively affect my career in the Coast Guard I did not believe leadership would support my decision The likelihood that someone else would report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knew about the action Other factor(s) not listed above [Drop Down] I do not know how to answer this question # of respondents % of respondents 1 1 100 100 Those who reported none of the incidents were directed to the following question: The primary reason(s) I did not report being harassed at that time were:49 Primary influence (5 respondents) I did not realize I was being harassed at that time My uncertainty over how to report The likelihood my complaint would be taken seriously The amount of effort it would have taken to report The offender’s overall character The seriousness of the action The offender’s intent The fairness of the potential punishment in comparison to the action My ability to address the problem on my own I was concerned about confidentiality I believed reporting would negatively affect my studies at the Academy I believed reporting would negatively affect my career in the Coast Guard I did not believe leadership would support my decision The likelihood that someone else would report Whether the action took place off campus and/or off-duty The likelihood that a person in authority already knew about the action Other factor(s) not listed above I do not know how to answer this question # of respondents 2 % of respondents 40 2 1 1 2 1 40 20 20 40 20 2 1 1 2 40 20 20 40 Cadets were asked to select up to five choices; totals may exceed 100 percent of respondents. www.oig.dhs.gov 41 OIG-20-36 49 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix E Office of Special Reviews and Evaluations Major Contributors to This Report Erika Lang, Chief Inspector Kimberley Lake de Pulla, Lead Inspector Brendan Bacon, Senior Inspector John Miller, Inspector Stephen Farrell, Independent Reference Reviewer www.oig.dhs.gov 42 OIG-20-36 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security Appendix F Report Distribution Department of Homeland Security Secretary Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff Deputy Chiefs of Staff General Counsel Executive Secretary Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs Superintendent, United States Coast Guard Academy United States Coast Guard Liaison Office of Management and Budget Chief, Homeland Security Branch DHS OIG Budget Examiner Congress Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees www.oig.dhs.gov 43 OIG-20-36 Additional Information and Copies To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov. For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. OIG Hotline To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at (800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 Attention: Hotline 245 Murray Drive, SW Washington, DC 20528-0305