Drill Sergeants Research Paper

Yes Drill Sergeant “It seems as if power were something to be wielded, always at someone’s expense, usually our own” (Brady, 1992). Brady is the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a parent that has absolute power over their child, much like the power that drill sergeants have over trainees. This type of power that drill sergeants wield can be very intoxicating and addicting, much like alcohol or drugs, and can change a person. This change that power may cause is not always for the better, as this paper will examine in some detail, with regard to Army drill sergeants. Drill sergeants have a tremendous amount of power over trainees and any abuse in authority breaks a sacred trust for those that are just entering the Army. Sergeants

Drill sergeants have complete control over every aspect of a trainees’ daily lives while they are in Basic Combat Training (BCT) and derive their power from this control. Trainees receive instruction to move at every command that their instructor issues to prepare them for the Army at large so that they understand how to follow orders. Some drill sergeants take this to a whole new level when they use that authority to commit sexual assault. There are several articles available, one of which is a case that occurs at Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1997 in which three abusers receive sentences ranging from six months to 25 years and a total of 12 staff members are under investigation (Clines, 1997). These cases highlight the abuses that these individuals inflict upon those who’s care they have direct control and trust of. In another article, the victim notes that after reporting her attack other drill sergeants had then harassed her because of the report, and in effect circling the wagons in support of the perpetrator (Calvert, 2014). These abuses of power effect dilemmas in the form of ethical problems and are two-fold because of the involvement of sexual assault and sexual

The Army has a system that uses three ethical lenses when trying to solve what it perceives as an ethical dilemma. These three lenses are the virtues lens, the rules lens, and the outcomes lens. The first lens, the virtues lens “comes from the view that desirable virtues such as courage, justice, and benevolence define ethical outcomes” (ADRP 6-22, p. 29). Virtues are traits or principles that are part of a person’s character that they develop from their upbringing and life experiences. The Army Values, for example, are virtues that the Army holds in high regard and one should never be in violation of these values. What is not a part of these values being those principles a person brings with them. These principles entail intangible things such as dignity and trust, which perpetrators violate every time they sexually harass or sexually assault another person. When one views these problems through the virtues lens, they can see that they are violating not just rules but guiding principles. They break not only a sacred trust between the drill sergeant and the trainee, but rules set in place to keep this from occurring in the first