News Jul 2022
Larry Stevenson, RMC Class of 78, wrote an article in the Globe and Mail The CAF's sexual misconduct crisis is not reason enough to dispense with Canada's military colleges. With a bit of patience, you can read this for free.
Two of his classmates responded. Their comments appear on this page.
Comments by Ken Cooper
Larry/all:
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-written article. I agree with all of your points. If I could, I would like to add my two bits.
One issue I believe that needs to be more forcefully made is that the CMC's specifically, and the CAF in general, are a selected subset of the Canadian population. As such, they are a reflection of, or if you want, a mirror of Canada as a whole. Cadets enter the CAF with most of their attitudes, morals and beliefs already firmly in place. My experience was that almost all of us left with those same attitudes and beliefs, whatever they were, still largely intact.
The assumption made in the Justice's report, or perhaps an inference, is that the structure, culture and training in the CMC's creates the attitudes that lead to sexual harassment and assault. This is, of course, false. Some military members enter the CAF with these attitudes. They learn them from their parents and/or in our school system, from media exposure or exposure in sports. The CAF does not create this. (Any role the CAF may have in amplifying these beliefs should of course be identified and eradicated.) Therefore, closing the CMC's will not address the root cause of the problem.
Sexual harassment and assault occur in every organization in Canada. You alluded to this in your article, discussing the problems various educational institutions have.
This is, in my line of work, a significant issue. We discuss PTSD in military members, veterans and First Responders. We pour a great deal of resources into treating this, and rightly so. What we don't discuss often enough in this country is the fact that the largest single population of Canadians with PTSD are women who have experienced some type of sexual harrassment and/or violence. A smaller but not insignificant population are males who have suffered the same thing (something that is rarely if ever discussed). Taken together, this population far outnumbers those with military/first responder PTSD.
This issue is ongoing. It needs to be addressed by, of course, the CMC's and by the CAF, but also by Canada as a whole. Focusing on the idea that the CMCs/CAF somehow creates these attitudes with its culture and organization passes the blame, and allows the Canadian people to not have to look into that mirror for a long, serious and uncomfortable consideration of some hard truths.
Cheers, Ken
Dr. Kenneth J. Cooper MD, MHSc, FRCPC
Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine
Work: 902-446-2121
Fax: 902-797-1177
drkencooper@kjcpsychiatry.
Back to
Comments by Derrick Bouchard
Gentlemen;
I have not yet weighed in on the many interesting and excellent discussions regarding the Arbour Report and Larry’s OpEd piece, but have been following them. Many people have suggested we need to do “something” – I would like to offer a contrarian suggestion.
For those who may not know, I arrived at RMC in 1990 as an AERE major to teach in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I remained there until early 1996 when I left the CF under the Force Reduction Program. After finishing a PhD I had started earlier, I was hired as a civilian professor at RMC in Elec and Comp Eng in Sep 1997. I was dept head from 2005 until 2010, Associate Dean of Engineering from 2010 until 2014, Dean of Engineering from 2014 to 2019, and then I retired in Sep 2020.
The Report of the Independent External Comprehensive Review of The Honourable Louise Arbour (which I will call the Arbour Report going forward) is a long document – if you haven’t looked at the report, you should (there is also a 420 page pdf version). The MND accepted the report in its entirety. The discussion about RMC (and CMRSJ) is found in Section II, and begins here. Justice Arbour made just two recommendations specifically regarding RMC – one was to eliminate the Cadet Wing responsibility and authority command structure, and the other was to suggest a review the programs and goals of the Mil Cols (the recommendation did not say to close the Colleges). It is important to keep these two recommendations in mind and to separate the two. In speaking to a colleague at RMC, in regards to the first recommendation, the Commandant and DCdts are already looking at the leadership issues in the Cadet Wing; for the second recommendation, there will likely be a review, perhaps beginning in January.
This is not the first time the military colleges have come under the microscope. In 1967, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) asked Major General Rowley, his Chair of Officer Development, to examine the whole range of officer development and education in the Canadian military, and to make recommendations for the way forward. The resulting report, known as the Rowley Report, was published in 1969. His report defined RMC education in terms that are still applicable to the twenty-first century context:
“The subjects of study to be offered at a military college should naturally be those which have a meaning for the student of the military art. This is a narrower choice of course options than those offered at the civilian universities. In addition we believe that it is essential that control of electives be exercised so that before specialization is undertaken in the later years, a few mandatory courses in mathematics, science, management, the second language and the philosophy of conflict be mastered by all students. It is inconceivable that the future defence of the nation should be entrusted to officers who are not both literate and scientifically literate.”
The report further argued that civilian universities cannot provide the same foundation because “there must be control of course pattern so that each and every student takes at least a minimum number of mandatory military and academic subjects and also can acquire, in the time available, a nationally recognized baccalaureate degree.” Civilian universities could not be relied upon to be as responsive to CAF needs, and any government influence on “the civilian universities to achieve this end will be ill-advised and in the long run possibly disastrous.”
Nearly 30 years later, in 1997, a review of the state of the CAF resulted in number of recommendations on a wide range of issues, including leadership, training and education. Recommendation 12 of the resulting report to the Minister of National Defence directed The RMC Board of Governors undertook to conduct this review, and commissioned a Study Group chaired by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General (ret'd) Ramsey Withers. The Study Group began its work in December 1997, and in the following year it made a number of recommendations in what has come to be known as the Withers Report. The starting point was to “ensure for each graduate, a broad-based education, well grounded in the sciences and the humanities, with special emphasis being placed on the development of values, ethics and leadership skills needed for responsibilities and service to country.” The resulting idea of a core curriculum was a central theme in the Withers Report, which argued that a core curriculum would make “a substantial contribution to the production of officers, all of whom share a common body of knowledge virtually unique to the profession of arms in Canada.”
Recommendation 13 of the Withers Report called for a working group to be established to develop and implement a rigorous militarily relevant "core" curriculum, based on a set of basic principles:
“The core curriculum should constitute approximately 30% of a typical degree program. Comment: The result will be a selection of mandatory subjects which all cadets will receive in equal measure. The core curriculum will span all four academic years. This curriculum will be progressive in nature, span four years and cover topics such as international affairs, leadership, military history, military theory, information technology, emerging technology and strategy. Mathematics and science subjects must be well represented. The objective is a cohort of graduate officers, all of whom share a common, professional body of knowledge in addition to their specialist degree.”
In response to this recommendation, the RMC Board of Governors created a Working Group at the beginning of October 1998, co-chaired by Dr John Cowan, Vice Principal of Queen’s University, and Dr Jean Fugère from RMC. The group also included the Deans of Arts and Engineering, a representative from the Division of Continuing Studies (DCS), and three senior officers representing each of the branches of the CAF. The Working Group presented its findings in March 1999, and the result of their efforts is the Core Curriculum as it exists today.
In my last two years as an RMC faculty member, I was chair of a committee to review the Core Curriculum used at the CMCs to ensure that it continues to support the educational needs of the CAF’s ROTP, and to recommend changes to it. Committee members were drawn proportionally from RMC’s three Faculties (Engineering, Science, and Social Sciences and Humanities); additionally, there was representation from the Division of Continuing Studies, CMR St. Jean, and the Canadian Defence Academy. It is difficult to summarize two years of committee work (along with the results of an interim and final report) in an email, but some of the points we found were that are germane to this discussion are:
Although a very high proportion of the countries in the NATO group do have some form of military degree-granting institution, only 8 of 30 do not. Of the 22 NATO member-states with degree-granting military institutions, 14 have a core curriculum of some description. The Committee found that the concept of a core curriculum is a crucial element in education at all military universities, and the core curriculum is fundamental to officer training and is something that sets a military institution apart from its civilian counterparts. My committee and I were able to propose and align RMC core curriculum learning objectives with the requirements and objectives for officership stated in several CAF documents, including those articulated in Duty With Honour, the Officer General Specification, the Director Personnel General Requirements’ “Competency Dictionary,” and Strong, Secure, Engaged, something that had never been done.
The CMC Core Curriculum prepares cadets for the duties and requirements of officership while also adhering to the traditions of a liberal arts education and fulfilling the programme requirements of disciplinary specialization. The broad topical scope and military context of the Core Curriculum, as well as the RMC degree itself, ensures a stable and coordinated cohort of officers ready to serve.
No other Canadian university has faculty committed to preserving the university standards of education while preparing officers for the demands of their profession. This is a very strong argument – perhaps the strongest - for retaining the military colleges.
The Arbour Report also mentions three other reports that shone an unflattering spotlight on the military colleges:
The Special Staff Assistance Visit (SSAV)
The Office of the Auditor General’s (OAG) Report 6—Royal Military College of Canada—National Defence
The three reports are well summarized by Justice Arbour. As somebody who was involved in both the SSAV and OAG visits (I retired just as the third was delivered), I can tell you that both were taken very seriously by RMC, and I can recall the many meetings and the many hours spent responding to both reports. The two military colleges are better places now as a result, but more apparently needs to be done. James Doherty noted that RMC’s Principal, Dr Harry Kowal, retired BGen and Ex-Cadet, outlined the many steps that RMC has taken to strengthen the foundations of the institution and to posture for success in the years ahead in a well-written article. I am sure the same seriousness will be given to another review should it occur.
We cannot ignore the statistics presented regarding sexual misconduct in the CAF and how women have been treated, which is what initiated Justice Arbour’s review. Like Doug, John, Harold and Phillip have mentioned, in 30 years at RMC, I am aware of only a few cases of sexual misconduct, perhaps because there were so few female cadets in Engineering. One of my female students did confide in me in 1994 that she had been assaulted in her dorm room by another cadet. I encouraged her to contact the MPs, which she did, who in turn involved the JAG. I recall that was as far as it got, as she was told it was a he said/she said situation, with no evidence to support her accusation. Thus, I can understand (and believe) that many female cadets who have experienced inappropriate conduct do not feel it is worth the time and effort to report such incidents, and I hope that the handling of such incidents improves.
Following the SSAV visit, there was considerably more emphasis on appropriate conduct and leadership by the cadets. A new Commandant arrived at RMC in the summer of 2017, BGen Sebastien Bouchard (no relation that he and I know of!). He liked to walk around the College, and at all hours, to see what was happening and chat informally with people. He and his wife are also both Ex-Cadets, and all 4 of his children went, or were going, to Mil Col, so he had a good sense of what was happening on campus. He would not have tolerated any misconduct if he had heard about it. Having said that, note that the StatsCan report used data collected in 2019. I noted in the Arbour Report that, “RMC Kingston prepared a response to the 2020 Statistics Canada Report, which discussed the report’s findings and performed an analysis to identify “gaps” where it most needs to improve,” and Justice Arbour commended that effort to identify and rectify these long-standing “gaps” in a timely and serious way. So, RMC has been quick to respond to criticism.
In response to a few comments in other emails, we cannot say RMC is any worse than any other institution when it comes to sexual misconduct, even if that is currently the case. That’s like saying the Mil Cols have done all they can and won’t be doing anything else, which I know is untrue. Canadians expect more from its military and its future officers. And RMC (and the CAF) is very much in the public eye these days. Both must come to terms with the cases of sexual misconduct that have come to light and find ways to prevent more from happening.
So, where does that leave us? I do not believe we need do anything until we see if the government or the CAF actually goes ahead with a review, and, if it does, what the mandate of those doing the review will be, and who might conduct it. If there is a review, that might be the time to do “something.” As noted, the Mil Cols survived two earlier significant examinations by Major General Rowley in 1967 and by General (retired) Ramsey Withers in 1997, as well as the recent SSAV and OAG visits, and I am pretty sure they can survive another. We also need to know if RMC and CMRSJ staff actually want our help - the responses prepared by the Mil Cols to the SSAV and OAG visits, and to the StatsCan report, appear to have satisfied the government and NDHQ, and were prepared without external help.
Perhaps in the mean time we can collect and be ready with those “good news” stories, such as what James Doherty provided regarding the Canadian astronaut program.
Apologies for this being so long.
Derrick Bouchard
11746
Back to