But discrimination and bias are not the same thing. In fact, the legal definition of gender discrimination is “any action that specifically denies opportunities, privileges, or rewards to a person (or a group) because of gender.”4 If gender bias is having different expectations for a group of people based on gender, it seemed to me that the decades of substandard performance by female recruits clearly indicated gender bias existed at Parris Island. Despite being provided the same slide deck laying out the differences between the male and female recruit graduation scores that I had provided to the battalion, the equal-opportunity investigator did not refer to the data in her findings.
And while she did note that there was evidence that the relationship between me and Colonel Haas was a bad one, she did not find that it met the definition of a hostile work environment.
In reading the equal-opportunity investigation on the New York Times website, I found that the investigating officer did make several recommendations based on my complaint. But the really odd thing is that the commanding general of Training and Education Command, Major General Lukeman, didn't concur with any of her recommendations. In his endorsement to the investigation, he basically said that there was no gender bias and that Colonel Haas was not the problem, I was, and that I wouldn't admit it. Because he overturned the investigating officer's findings, which, legally, he was permitted to do, he was able to say in his endorsement that the investigators found nothing to substantiate my claims.
In other words, the Marine Corps was an equal-opportunity employer.
Until I saw the statement Haas gave to the investigating officer, I never knew how many things I had done wrong, in his eyes, as a commander. I never knew that he was angry with me for the recruiting emails. I knew that we had disagreed, but by the end of the conversation, all he said, was, “Okay, I got it, just make sure you cc me on the emails.”
Going off of that, I was thinking, “Okay. Minor victory,” and then I was moving forward (copying him on those emails, as he requested).
In his statement, he said that that was when our relationship started to go downhill. He also claimed that I fired the November Company CO in December expressly against his guidance. That's not true.
The complaints made me sound like a horrible officer, but not one worthy of being fired. And I could easily connect most of the complaints to the person whose name had been blacked out based on what he or she said. Digging in, the people who had gotten in trouble had the most to say.
Papa Company's commander alleged that she was losing weight because of the stress of dealing with me and that I blamed her when her recruits fell behind on an integrated hike with the male recruits. Guilty. She said I lectured her and her Marines for not taking responsibility, for being afraid of adversity, and for blaming me for being mean when I held them accountable for poor performance. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
One Marine said in her statement that I yelled at my XO when she was “openly defiant” with me.
Yup.
The company commander I fired after a month's worth of morning mentoring sessions? She said in her statement that she didn't enjoy that. I imagine anyone required to meet with her boss every morning because her performance had been so poor would feel the same way.
Another company commander said that, even though she was proud of the progress her recruits had made, I was upset because they had performed below average on the rifle range and in physical fitness.
Seriously?
In statements, several Marines wrote that I had said that sexual assault is “100 percent preventable” and that “by drinking, you are putting yourself in a position to be sexually assaulted.” I did not. I told them not to put themselves in a position where they could be hurt, and that although the rapist is always wrong, you never want to have to deal with that after the fact.
My XO complained that I isolated her from the other officers after she decided to survey them about whether I was a good commander.
I stand by that decision.
It gets “worse”: The XO said that I said only “congratulations” to one drill instructor after good results at the rifle range, while going out of my way to say nice things about everyone else. Sometimes, she said, I hugged one person but not another. And she said in her statement that I used extreme language with her, such as saying she was “allowing [the staff] to run amok!”
Clearly some of these “offenses” seem silly now, but if I can see that, why didn't anyone else question it?
The operations officer who gave me the hand and walked out on me to do pull-ups after I admonished her for not setting up an all-hands meeting when I requested it? She talks about it in her statement, but no one questioned that this lower-ranking officer walked out of my office while I was talking to her. Anywhere else in the Marine Corps, that kind of disrespect would be considered unbecoming of any Marine, much less an officer.
In their statements, the Marines said I was moody; that, in front of recruits, I corrected drill instructors who had behaved badly; and that I treated Marines who performed their jobs well in a more friendly manner than I treated Marines who were not performing well.
In the investigation, the whole problem was me. Full stop. Kate is the only problem.
I'm sure I was bawling by the time I got to Sergeant Major's statement from the investigation into my leadership. While she didn't say anything bad, she
