This document is a paper written by David Francis Chang for a Naval Science course on leadership and ethics. It analyzes racial discrimination and ethical lapses in the U.S. Armed Forces. It examines case studies such as the suicide of Private Danny Chen due to racial harassment and the Fort Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hassan who felt discriminated against for his religion. It discusses the concept of "Double V" from WWII representing victory over fascism abroad and racial discrimination at home. It recommends that future junior officers must prevent ethical lapses, provide a supportive environment free of discrimination, and uphold high standards to prevent tragedies and improve morale.

1. Double V: A Modern Interpretation of Ethical Challenges in the United States
Military
A Study of Racial Discrimination and Ethical Lapses in the Armed Forces
by
David Francis Chang
MIDN 1/C USMCR
NROTC UC Berkeley
Spring 2016
Naval Science 412: Leadership and Ethics Seminar
Captain William S. Koyama
A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the Department of (identify department or organization that requires the paper;
e.g., Joint Military Operations).
The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by
the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.
Signature: D. F. Chang
(1 April 2016)
If distribution of paper is limited in accordance with the DON ISPR, show Distribution Statement
here.

2. This is page ii.
Contents
Table of Contents: page ii.
Introduction: page 3-5.
“Suicide of Private Danny Chen: Could It Have Been Prevented?”
Racial Slur or Military Banter: page 5-8.
“What’s the Difference?”
Recommendation & Conclusion: page 8-10.
Selected Bibliography page 11.

3. This is page 3.
Suicide of Private Danny Chen: Could It Have Been Prevented?
It was justanother normal dayin Afghanistan where the darkness encompassed the vastcountryside of
Kandahar and the only movements were the interior guards patrolling the militarycompound. Private Danny
Chen,of C Company,3rd Battalion, 21stInfantry Regiment,1stStryker Brigade CombatTeam,25th Infantry
Division had justtaken a position at the guard tower at an Army combatoutpostaround 7:30AM. Danny’s
parents never wanted him to join the Army, but in a communityof Chinese immigrants and faced with racial
discrimination,Dannywanted to do something differentand to prove people wrong aboutthe stigma ofChinese
Americans living in America. At 11:13AM, a single shotwas heard within the guard tower and Private Danny
Chen was found with a gunshotwound to his head.1
Racial prejudice in the United States Armed Forces have been a major issue throughout the
past decades and the more recent destructive cases have proved to be fatal to unit morale
and integration. In this study, we will be focusing on the ongoing racial discrimination of
service members and personnel whether intentionally or indirectly to one another and detail
possible solutions to the issue at hand and how it correlates to the Double V terminology
used in 1942. The Double V campaign term originated during World War II where the
African American community in the United States resolved to gain victory over fascism
abroad as well as victory over the ongoing racial discrimination at home.2
While the term
Double V was more used during WWII and more associated with African Americans fighting
racial discrimination specifically, the current amelioration of the Double V campaign has
evolved more into a broader spectrum of racial prejudice for all minorities and ethnic cultures
in the United States Armed Forces. With this case analysis of the study of current ethical
challenges in our military, we can use Double V as an example to determine the obstacles
that the United States military branches and their personnel currently are facing.
One of the hard debated issues that the United States military currently is addressing is with
its new junior officers entering into the Armed Forces and the hard task to educate them to
instill trust with their enlisted personnel and to care for their subordinates at all times. After
careful analysis of the suicide of Danny Chen, the real ethical leadership challenges facing

4. This is page 4.
junior officers in the United States military to date is on how to prevent ethical lapses or be
aware of such issues that lead to demoralization and possible death of its personnel from
the decisions or lack thereof of an officer in charge. 1st
Lt. Daniel Schwartz was Danny’s
platoon commander and failed to promote a climate in which everyone was treated with
dignity and respect, regardless of race and did nothing to uphold the rules of preventing his
subordinates from engaging in racially abusive language to one another when he could
have. David Wood, a senior military correspondent revealed that a tragic milestone in
military affairs was reached in 2012 when 185 active-duty Army soldiers died by suicide
compared to the 176 soldiers actually killed in battle in Afghanistan.3
Another instance of when racial discrimination played a part in fatal injuries or deaths in the
United States Armed Forces personnel was of Nidal Hassan, a Major in the United States
Army who admitted to Jihadist motives for his killing of thirteen people and the injuring of
thirty-two others by opening fire in Fort Hood, a Texas Army Facility in 2009. One of the
primary reasons behind Nidal Hassan’s motive to kill his fellow service-members was due to
racial discrimination of him being Muslim and because he was an Arab. Mohammad Munif
Abdallah Hasan, Major Nidal Hassan’s cousin implied that the Army major wanted to leave
the military and avoid the war in the Middle East because he felt as if he was disrespected
due to his religion and did not want to harm Muslims in Afghanistan when he received his
deployment orders. “Yes, you are a major in the U.S. Army, but you are still an Arab, a
Muslim, you have your own traditions and values and we have ours. He was bothered by
that a lot. He wasn't respected as he should have been."4
Major Nidal Hassan also believed
and felt that because of his religion and of his race, he was also prevented from being
promoted further in the United States Army and chastised and mocked constantly by his
peers.

5. This is page 5.
A recent report of the distribution of active-duty enlisted women and men in the United
States military in 2010 based on race and ethnicity showed that almost fifty-three percent of
active-duty servicewomen and seventy-one percent of active-duty servicemen were white.
While the United States Armed Forces is known throughout the world for having a
supplemental amount of diversity in its organization, people of African American, Asian
American, Native American or Hispanic or Latino origin, all fall in the minority realm. 5
In 2008, News Blaze, a multiplatform news network organization published a 1999 Pentagon
survey in efforts to promote good race relations in the Armed Forces found that forty-seven
percent of Hispanic personnel and forty-eight percent of black personnel experienced
incidents that caused them to lose trust in their colleagues, how minority service personnel
felt they received poor evaluations more often than their white counterparts because of their
race or ethnicity, and that thirty-eight percent of Hispanics and sixty-percent of blacks felt
that the military did not pay enough attention to racial discrimination. 6
Lt. Col. Hoffler served
in the military for twenty-two years and was the first black squadron commander assigned to
the U.S. Air Force Academy and reveals that he was the victim of a racially motivated “witch-
hunt” and subsequently was denied a promotion due to his race. In an expected result found
from the United States Department of Defense statistics, it was shown that the number of
black, active-duty, enlisted personnel has declined fourteen percent in five years.
Our servicemen and women took an oath to defend and support our Constitution and our
country and yet the discord between our own military service members is potentially causing
more blue-on-blue suicides and emotional turmoil in our own ranks. With the plenty of
cumbersome and arduous tasks already assigned to each military personnel, the U.S Armed
Forces cannot afford to have racial discrimination as another obstacle that lowers morale
and the commitment that our personnel has for each other and for their institution.

6. This is page 6.
Racial Slur or Military Banter? What’s the Difference?
It is often very difficult to differentiate or distinguish between playful banter or actually
malicious slurs directed by military personnel to each other. What may be perceived as a
norm in the military might be something characterized as spiteful in the eyes of those who
aren’t quite sure of the jargon and the casual play of it. The United States Armed Forces has
gone through many changes over the past few decades in hopes of creating a more efficient
and effective work environment for its personnel. Phrases, events and activities conducted
in the past that were considered to be normal will no longer be accepted and can now be
classified as hazing or active racism and will not be tolerated. A recent report from Michelle
Tan who is currently a staff writer for Army Times found that a platoon of soldiers was given
a free pass to use racial slurs against each other during what was known as “Racial
Thursdays” by their platoon commander, who neglected to uphold the standards to prevent
such a thing from happening in the first place. 7
Soldiers had a tough time speaking out against what was going on; as for the
minorities, they did not want to be looked down or cast as traitors or “Blue Falcons”. These
types of actions demoralize our country’s combat effectiveness from our military personnel.
Diversity encompasses more than just race and gender, and with the United States Armed
Forces coming from a very diverse populous background, the young Americans who
voluntarily join the military serve will only do better they know that their country and their
fellow servicemen and servicewomen from different races, gender and religion, are able to
work alongside each other without any issues. Hazing back in the day was considered by
many as a rite of passage, something that every servicemen and women goes through and
experiences as a way to create closer bonds. This is not the case anymore in our modern
military with the reasoning that there are other approaches and better ways to instill

7. This is page 7.
comradery and devotion to peers other than hazing. Just like how hazing was once a
military norm, it has since been eradicated as it proved to serve no benefit whatsoever and
the same could be said for racial slurs and discriminations. Military banter can serve as a
positive and supportive approach to our servicemen and servicewomen in our Armed
Forces, but when it evolves into racial discrimination and racial slurs with the intent of
creating emotional or physical harm to an individual, it destroys the esprit de corps that our
military embodies. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey
said in a statement in 2012 that all service members have a personal responsibility to
intervene in and stop any occurrences of hazing or bullying and that this type of behavior
directly undermines the United States Armed Force’s values and tarnished the
professionalism and reputation and erodes the trust that bonds its personnel. 8
Anthony E. Hartle in “Ethics and the Military Profession: The Moral Foundations of Military
Service” wrote that men and women in uniform sometimes fail to recognize that being a
member of a profession also imposes high moral obligations. He goes on to state that the
qualities necessary to lead men and women in carrying out missions impose great
responsibility on what it means to be a leader of character and of an officer in the United
States Armed Forces. He continues that duty incorporates concepts of obedience and self-
discipline and that honor for American military officers connotes integrity, not military glory or
prestige. In doing so, we have to understand the relationship between the enlisted and the
officer, and that a decision such as having “Racial Thursdays” impacts a company or a unit
as a whole. 9
After “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the United States Armed Forces was pushed to be repealed in
2011 by President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, Congress eliminated the law against gay men and
lesbians from serving openly in the military. While this was a huge step to bringing equality

8. This is page 8.
and acceptance into the Armed Forces, a report conducted in May of 2014 showed that as
many as fifteen-thousand service-members must still lie about themselves in order to serve
their country without any risk of backlash or prejudice towards them from their fellow service-
members. In an interview with ABC, Mr. Chuck Hagel stated that, “There is no compelling
medical rationale for banning transgender military service,” and “eliminating the ban would
advance numerous military interests, including enabling commanders to better care for their
service members.” 10
While the ban did help many service-members come out and still work and serve their
country, there was a lot of backlash from officers and enlisted personnel alike on the
decision made for “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and many gay and lesbian service-members still
received if not more, threats, hazing, racist remarks and opposition that affected their
working environment, their ability to perform the duties asked of them and their morale.
Public outcry was still resounding with mixed opinions as a report from the Pew Research
Center in 2010 that fifty-eight percent of the U.S public favored allowing gays and lesbians
to serve openly in the military while about twenty-seven percent were opposed and the rest
were undecided.11
During the presidential election for the 2012 campaign, On September 22,
2011, the audience at a Republican candidates' debate booed a U.S. soldier posted in Iraq
who asked a question via video about the repeal of DADT (Don’t ask, don’t tell), and none of
the candidates noticed or responded to the crowd's behavior. Two days later, Obama
commented on the incident while addressing a dinner of the Human Rights Campaign: "You
want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who
wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient.”12
With racial
slurs becoming more degrading and aggressive with repeal of DADT, junior officers who are
about to enter into service especially must set the tone and example for their men and
women and allow a good working environment where there is no discrimination for anyone.

9. This is page 9.
Recommendation
With close to around 1.3 million active duty personnel and around 800,000 reserve
personnel, the extreme size of the United States Armed Forces makes it very difficult to
enforce high standards through all their personnel without seeing any ethical lapses or
negligence to duty. So the question that comes to mind is, do we address these issues at
the lowest level possible or give officers the freedom to regulate and dictate how their
command will be ran? Willie Harris, an editor for Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, stated
that the United States military, in particular the U. S Army, believed that they were
somewhat successful in quelling and reducing racial discrimination and racial slurs by
implanting policies that support full commitment to nondiscrimination and to uphold the
standards of performance that is vital to achieving its goals. 13
An important element in this reasoning is through the support that by having a strong and
rigid hierarchical institution like the United States Armed Forces, it can offer additional
principles and moral guidelines and rules that their employees and personnel must follow.
With this analysis, it goes to show that future junior officers entering into the service must be
mindful of their duties and of their commitment to their subordinates and fellow service
members. The death of Danny Chen would have been prevented if his platoon commander
decided to take a stand against racism and hazing and acted like how a good leader should
be.
Countless suicides and physical, mental and emotional injuries could have been prevented if
stricter guidelines and the quick thinking and steadfast leadership of officers were employed.
As a result of prolonged wars that the United States has been involved in, lieutenants and
captains often have more combat experience than to the generals that command them.
When the U.S Army is experiencing more suicides in their active duty personnel compared
to actual deaths in combat related missions in Afghanistan, that itself shows that something

10. This is page 10.
needs to be changed. Being successful under such conditions often requires upholding
some old rules of leadership for young officers, which also consists of adhering to the high
standards and instilling leadership and a sense of responsibility to their subordinates and
officer peers.
Racial discrimination and prejudice impacts not only the service-member’s capability to
complete their work and task in a supportive working environment, it negatively reduces
morale and combat effectiveness to the command around it. With the notion of gay and
lesbian servicemen and servicewomen allowed for service of their country, junior officers
must also acknowledge their beliefs and provide an environment where no race or religion
or belief is belittled or condemned upon. Events such as the suicide of Danny Chen or the
mass murdering of Fort Hood by Major Nadal Hassan both based on feeling discriminated
by their race or religion, could have been prevented. Our servicemen and servicewomen do
not need the additional burden of dealing with blue-on-blue attacks whether through
physical, mental, or emotional turmoil while serving their country. For future junior officers, it
is our job to prevent these mishaps from happening and to take a strong stand on providing
a healthy environment for all military personnel to work in.
Preventing any ethical lapses for racial discrimination and prejudice must be enforced from
the top down through the chain of command. Especially as future junior officers, how we set
the example and guidelines impacts our command structure and working environment. The
United States Armed Forces will continue to be the world’s most effective military force not
solely based on its equipment, engineering and innovation alone, but also on the brave,
committed and selfless men and women who sign up and volunteer to serve their country
regardless of their race, their ethnic background, religion or belief.

11. This is page 11.
Selected Bibliography
[1] Gonnerman, Jennifer. "Pvt. Danny Chen, 19922011." NYMag.com. January 6, 2012. Accessed February 13, 2016.
http://nymag.com/new s/features/danny-chen-2012-1/.
[2] Jr., Henry Louis Gates. "Double V Campaign During World War II: What Was It? “The Roots”May 24, 2013. Accessed
February 22, 2016.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/05/double_v_campaign_during_world_war_ii_what_was_it.html.
[3] Wood, David. "Army Chief Ray Odierno Warns Military Suicides 'Not Going to End' After War Is Over." The Huffington Post.
September 25, 2013. Accessed February 18, 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/ray-odierno-military-suicides_n_3984359.html.
[4] Special Investigation Report. "Fort Hood Suspect's Religion Was an Issue, Family Says"" CNN. November 07, 2009.
Accessed March 30, 2016.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.suspect.muslim/.
[5] Distribution of Race and Ethnicity Among the U.S. Military 2010; Statista. December 2011. Accessed March 30, 2016.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/214869/share-of-active-duty-enlisted-women-and-men-in-the-us-military/.
[6] External Writer. "Is The U.S Military Addressing RacialDiscrimination?" New s Blaze New s. November 26, 2008. Accessed
March 31, 2016.
http://new sblaze.com/usnews/military/is-us-military-addressing-racial-discrimination_7333/.
[7] Tan, Michelle. "Army Investigates Alleged 'Racial Thursdays' at Unit." Army Times. March 19, 2015. Accessed February22,
2016.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/03/18/army-race-investigation-unit/24994093/.
[8] Vergun, David. "ARMY.MIL, The OfficialHomepage of the United States Army." Zero Tolerance in Army for Bullying,
Hazing. August 13, 2012. Accessed March 31, 2016.
http://www.army.mil/article/85308.
[9] Lucas, George R., Rick Rubel, and Anthony E. Hartle. Ethics and the MilitaryProfession: The Moral Foundations of
Leadership. P.63. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 2006.
[10] Editorial Board. "Discrimination in the Military." The New YorkTimes. May 14, 2014. AccessedMarch 31, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/opinion/discrimination-in-the-military.html.
[11] Pew Research Center: "Most Continue to Favor Gays Serving Openly in Military", Nov 29, 2010. Retrieved February 14,
2012.
http://www.people-press.org/2010/11/29/most-continue-to-favor-gays-serving-openly-in-military/
[12] "Obama: Don't stand silent w hen soldier is booed", MSNBC: October 1, 2011. Retrieved February 13, 2012. Accessed
March 31, 2016.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44744458/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-dont-stand-silent-when-soldier-booed/
[13] Curtis, Willie. "A Military Strategy for Combatting Institutional Racism." Diverse. July 04, 2007. Accessed February 23,
2016.
http://diverseeducation.com/article/8055/.