Tale of two captains: censorship of political opinions in the military
The similarities between U.S. military officers Maribel Jarzabek and Lindsay Rodman are staggering.
Both women are highly educated lawyers serving their country—Jarzabek in the United States Air Force, and Rodman in the United States Marine Corps. Both hold the rank of Captain, and both have drawn on their experiences with the military-justice system to develop and publically express their thoughts on the handling of sexual assaults in the armed services.
But these similarities end with the reaction to the officers’ perspectives within their respective branches.
Last December Senator Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY) proposed legislation that would remove military commanders from having any role in the prosecution of sexual assault in the military. At the time, Jarzabek was serving as an Air Force Special Victims’ Counsel, providing legal protection and assistance to alleged sex-related offense victims, and decided to voice her support for the legislation on Gillibrand’s Facebook page. Jarzabek explained that she was warned of potential retributive action by the Air Force due only to her zealous advocacy as a Special Victims’ Counsel. This had the potential of impacting future assignments and her career.
After posting her comments on Senator Gillibrand’s Facebook page, Jarzabek was notified that she was under criminal investigation for advocating “a partisan political cause” that could undermine confidence in the Air Force. Jarzabek ultimately received a reprimand for her actions. But to her credit, Jarzabek remained undeterred and defended her actions. “Air Force leadership,” she stated, “demonstrated that weighing in on the bipartisan reform—changes to the way the military handles sexual assaults—is not prohibited, so long as you agree with them.”
When Gillibrand learned of the retribution against Jarzabek, she issued a written statement: “I think the message being sent here is very clear—unless you are going to toe the company line, shut up, or we will punish you.”
Rodman’s story, on the other hand, is quite different. Rodman wrote an editorial with the Wall Street Journal while assigned to the Pentagon as a lawyer. In the article, Rodman identified herself as a Marine Corps judge advocate officer and was photographed for the article in her military uniform. This, in many respects, denotes a level of endorsement by the Marine Corps. And unauthorized endorsement can get you in trouble.
Rodman stated that she was disheartened by the reactions from members of Congress to the data on incidents of sexual assault in the military and that she feared “Draconian solutions” from Capitol Hill would only exacerbate the sexual-assault issues in the military. After the article was published, Rodman was assigned to the Joint Staff to concentrate on sexual-assault issues. Rodman clearly found herself on the “right” side of this political issue.
Sadly, the censorship of political opinions by the military is not uncommon. One could conclude that this disparate treatment is the result of the differences that exist between the armed services and how they handle their service members, yet, the argument of being on the “right” side of the political spectrum shows more of a trend than just an isolated case of disagreement.
http://www.blueforcetracker.com/article/Tale-of-two-captains-censorship-of-political-opinions-in-the-military
