UPDATED: More from the Virtual Hill -- Fidell, Cave, Hillman, and VanLandingham on "Pink Courts"

6/19/2021

Military justice reform, 'pink courts,' and unit cohesion

"Creating “pink courts” will destroy unit cohesion. It is difficult to imagine a surer way of turning back the clock on all the progress our country has made in integrating women in uniform, including opening occupational specialties, admission to the service academies, qualification as pilots of warplanes and commanders of naval ships and Coast Guard cutters, and promotion to flag and general officer ranks."

Editors note 6/19: The Two Men Blocking Military Sexual Assault Reform. Editorial Board, New York Times.

Editors note 6/18:
Sen. Gillibrand "said she hopes lawmakers will be convinced by data that shows racial bias in prosecution decisions made by the military. And she argued that limiting the change to sexual assault would be discriminatory — setting up what some call a "pink" court to deal with crimes usually involving female victims.
"I'm deeply concerned that if they limit it to just sexual assault, it will really harm female service members. It will further marginalize them, further undermine them, and they'll be seen as getting special treatment," she said.

Editor's note 6/16: Instead of focusing on the merits of the issue, the discussion below focuses on the propriety of using the word "pink." "Pink" was not chosen by the authors of the article, but by Senator Gillibrand:
See here at 11:18: https://www.wnyc.org/story/the-brian-lehrer-show-2021-06-15/
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY75Tlpy9Cw

Editor's note 6/12: this was likely written before the hearing this AM. That hearing (see below) indicates that Pink Courts are the preference of the DoD.

Brenner Fissell

EIC

9 Comments

Julie H link

6/11/2021 06:36:32 pm

However the dominoes fall regarding whether to take certain offenses from the GCMCA, I really hope the vernacular drops "pink courts" ASAP. It's denigrating and dismissive to women and assumes the stereotype that boys like blue things and girl like pink things. It's still an unequal playing field for women in the military and we don't need such reductive, dismissive language to refer to sexual offenses primarily involving women.

Philip D. Cave link

6/12/2021 09:04:40 pm

Thanks for the comment. Perhaps you are not familiar with Beth Hillman and Rachel V. who both signed on to the piece.

Brian L. Cox link

6/12/2021 09:36:04 pm

Phil,

Hang on - are you telling Julie H. that her concerns with the term "pink courts" are unwarranted just because two authors who are female happened to sign on to the piece? She said she finds the term to be denigrating and dismissive to women - regardless of who uses it. For what it's worth, I happen to agree with Julie H. Aside from that, though, I find it rather offensive that you would publicly dismiss her concerns just because two women (whom I respect immensely, by the way) were coauthors for the piece. I respect your work and your perspectives too, incidentally - but your flippant and rather dismissive note demands a response.

6/12/2021 10:28:07 pm

Julie and Brian, you are right that was too flippant. For that I apologize.

The piece was written before Secretary Austin and General Milley testified this week. As it happens, they, and others, are arguing that any change should only be related to sexual assault, in other words set up what we describe as a "pink" and separate system of military justice for sexual offenses only. We believe as we write in the piece that to do that would seriously undo all the work that has been done so far. This is an opportunity to reform the system in a way that benefits all accused of serious offenses and not just sex offenses.

Brian, you know well both Beth and Rachel so you know that they would have been thoughtful about what was being said and how it was said before putting their names to the piece. That, I agree, would have been the better response.

6/13/2021 12:36:26 am

Phil,

For whatever it may be worth, I admire the courageness and thoughtfulness of your response comment. Regardless of how the current debate involving court-martial convening authority plays out and no matter how much the issue divides our community of MJ scholars and practitioners, it would seem that most of us agree that this issue is but one aspect of a broader cultural change that is underway in the military and in society in general. Part of that cultural change in both venues is making space to value and respect perspectives that have been dismissed or undervalued in the past. In the context of the present discussion, I'm not suggesting that this means anyone who isn't offended by the terminology in question is wrong or should be vilified - but there needs to be space for those who are offended to express the reasons why and not to be dismissed out of hand just because two women happened to be coauthors for a piece that uses the term. I hope my initial note didn't come across as combative - if so, that definitely wasn't my intent. I have a great deal of respect for all four authors of The Hill piece - even if I personally find the term to be offensive. My intent was just to stand up for making the space for a dissenting perspective to be respected. Your response was admirable - for that, I tip my hat to you.

Julie H. - thank you for the courageous comment as well. I too hope this term doesn't take hold in our usual vernacular.

6/13/2021 10:19:03 am

Thank you for this forum in which we can have a thoughtful discussion. The relevant issue for me is: why "pink" courts? Calling them "pink" courts will distract from their purpose, which is to address sexual assault offenses, and cause observers to think that they aren't taken as seriously because they're "pink," meaning cute, cutesy, a derivative of something more serious, etc. My 10 year old son refuses to like anything that's pink because he associates it with girls, no matter how many times I tell him that there are no "girl" colors and "boy" colors. If we're going to craft a new system for sexual assault offenses, let's not minimize it with our vernacular.

Lone Bear

6/16/2021 08:14:53 am

I posted and didn’t see your response, thank you for sharing your perspective.

6/16/2021 08:10:51 am

I thought the term “pink court” was intentionally provocative, and intended to point out that the appoach of limiting the reforms to sexual assault offenses sets up a court primarily for crimes where there are female victims, and therefore drives a wedge between female service members and male servicemembers. I like it because it highlights the lack of understanding and the brazen sexism that the current flag officers and Senator Reed are displaying in their thoughtless recommendation to limit reforms to only sexual assault offenses.

That being said, the women’s march on Washington involved wearing pink hats, breast cancer awareness uses pink ribbons, etc... I think there is some acceptance of the term “pink” for women’s issues.

Last, I get stuff wrong all the time, and am open to other perspectives, particularly from females. I like the term and find it thought provoking and empowering, but who cars if it makes female servicewomen uncomfortable.

6/17/2021 12:56:59 am

Lone Bear,

I think you're right - the term "pink court" was probably utilized *because* it would be provocative. The intended connotation was probably something like: it seems ridiculous to draw the CM convening authority line only at sexual assaults, so let's use a term that sounds as ridiculous as the concept is to demonstrate that this is not the best way forward. Since (statistically) most SA offenses are committed against women, let's use the term "pink court" to be provocative and show just how ridiculous this proposed dividing line is.

I don't know who came up with the term "pink court", or precisely why the term was chosen, but that's my best guess. That all sounds harmless enough...until the term gets adopted as part of our standard lexicon. This is the concern (if I understand correctly) Julie H. expressed - and with which I agree (for what that's worth).

If that term is adopted in practice, what was originally intended to illustrate the ridiculousness of the convening authority dividing line *then* becomes applied to the category of cases themselves. For any number of reasons, it's already a difficult decision whether to disclose an allegation of sexual assault...now imagine that if you do, your squad mates are going to ask how it's coming along in that "pink court" that's now different than other judicial proceedings.

Now imagine you're already struggling every day to have your (predominantly) male counterparts consider you as an equal at work - how is the prospect of ending up at a "pink court" going to weigh on your mind as you decide whether to disclose an experience of sexual assault? Imagine you're a guy who has experienced sexual assault and if you come forward, your case is going to be heard in a "pink court". It seems easy to suggest that this shouldn't affect the decision whether to come forward...but will it?

These are just some reasons to hope that the term doesn't become part of our usual vernacular. I suspect that whoever coined the term did so *specifically* because it would seem controversial and trite (in order to prove a point about the seeming arbitrariness of dividing CM convening authority at SA cases rather than all "felony" level cases). This sensationalism may prove a point about the supposed arbitrariness of that dividing line, but the second and third order effects of actually adopting that term in common vernacular should be considered when deciding whether a sensationalist approach to making a point is worth it.

That said, I should clarify that it's not clear to me that the authors of the piece we're (now indirectly) discussing actually coined the term. It's just as possible that they picked up on a term that had already been used in discourse involving MJ reform. Whatever the source, I join Julie H. in hoping that the term doesn't become part of our standard vernacular - and (I think) for the same reasons.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

CAAFlog

UPDATED: More from the Virtual Hill -- Fidell, Cave, Hillman, and VanLandingham on "Pink Courts"

Brenner Fissell

Leave a Reply.

Categories

Archives