with a comment that unlike sexual harassment, the whole area of modeling is only at the beginning. we who are active as researchers, scholars, activists, in terms of generating kind of baseline empirical data so we don't have the impressive volume and robust empirical data that you may have paid attention to for the first part of this talk.

what we do have and what i'll be presenting this afternoon is a good deal, a very robust qualitative information that speaks to the phenomenology, the experience of having been mobbed. what the elements and aspects of that experience are like and what the health harming effects of that are so this talk, just don't worry is the only reason i say it is going to shift a little bit from the empirical data to looking more at theconceptual and phenomenological framework . these are the books that kate mentioned that my colleague doctor lindner and i'm wrote in 2012, 2014 about mobbing

and in so doing we extended the work of heinz lannon in sweden, the psychologist who studied road and worked with targets in the 80s and also i think i would like to just credit the work of doctor ken west you in canada whose work on mobbing focused primarily on higher educational mobbing in higher ed and also i would like to include doctors ruth and gary namely, the founders and directors of the workplace bullying institute for their tireless work in both trying to understand these processes and in trying to generate awareness and solutions. so i thought that i would start with, maybe you just

might want to take a peek at the results of two studies. to do with drop satisfaction and negative outcomes in the workplace for those who were targets of nonviolent workplace aggression that was not sexual harassment in nature. so you will see in the first study, job satisfaction was lower for those experiencing nonviolent workplace aggression then for those experiencing nonviolent workplace sexual aggression. and then in the second one, output outcomes of workplace abuse were more negative across a continuum that included attitudes, behaviors

and health outcomes than workplace sexual harassment. now this is not to suggest by any means that bullying and mobbing and non-sexual workplace harassment is more help harming or more damaging . i think what it is to suggest though is that there's a certain interconnectedness amongst all these forms of abuse and harassment in the workplace and that each of them has its own particular signature and each of these has its own particular set of workplace, of personal and organizational negative outcomes. chief among those in the cases of modeling and bullying are health harming effects.

so mobbing, and you might ask the question why mobbing? why not bullying? and i hope i will be able to talk a little bit about that in a way that might make some sense to you. i will start with just a brief framework for much what mobbing is. mobbing is the targeting of an individual or group of individuals in the workplace, subjecting them to a series of hostile and abusive behaviors that are designed to cast the target in a negative light. to destabilize the target. to show them as being somehow not worthy to remain in the workplace as an entirety or the unit of the workplace. so elimination from the workplace removal, either mandatory removal through to termination or voluntary

removal which is an awful lot of what happens in mobbing cases where people just, i can't take this anymore so they leave. so the goal in mobbing his removal of the employee or worker from the organization or unit of the organization or part of the organization. and the other core part of our understanding of mobbing that we built on some of heinz lehman's work is that it also includes individual dynamics, group dynamics, work dynamics. so the organization is very much a part of this process both in terms of action and failure to act when he needs to act to prevent these sorts of destructive behaviors from taking place and likewise it's responsible for developing interventions and solutions to both prevent and stop it. who's involved in the

workplace mobbing? well, the organization through culture and leadership and that of course includes supervisors, managers, hr, policies, practices,training, lack of training , whatever it might be. the group or group of coworkers often it is a unit or subunit in the organization and the target is the individual. in bullying, and this is, i need to preface that comment by saying that we don't have a consensual definition among scholars and amongst even activists and act advocates about what precisely are the distinctions but again, building on the work of lehman, my colleague and i and others view the organizational involvement as the bellwether for assessing

whether or not the hostile behavior targeted against a person is a case of modeling or is a case of bullying so here in this graphic you will see the organization is absent so this could be a case of an abrasive or cruel supervisor inflicting harm on a worker in your organization but the organization itself if it became aware of this kind of behavior would take proactive and clear steps to stop it. mobbing, hazing and social exclusion. i was asked also to comment just a little bit about hazing and so, i have been fascinated about the role of membership in a group as central to the experiences of

both mobbing and hazing and to the whole process of social exclusion which hopefully i will be able to comment on in a minute but you can see there the definition of mobbing as getting rid of from thesocial group and hazing , ucs kind of the flip side that this is a process of inflicting abusive, hostile behavior at a person in order to kind of mark them as legitimate to enter or to stay in the group. in mobbing, as far as power is concerned, people can be modeled through supervisors and managers. it's not always top-down so power in that case is more emergent, it arises and then is distributed amongst those involved, let's say in particular in cases of bottom-up kind of mobbing. hazing usually the power

differential is pre-existing. okay. becoming a target. who becomes a target? well,basically anybody can become a target of bullying or mobbing . but we do know a little bit. we need to know a whole lot more but we do know a little bit about who's likely to become a target. in mobbing and those would be individuals were likely to say stand out in some way. very often standing out with strength and confidence. they are also those likely to speak out in some way so they may speak up, speak out, question, challenge certain practices and policies and very often challenge certain practices and policies on a legal or from a moral perspective.

the process of ganging up. how does this kind of horrible thing that results in often significant health harming behaviors get started? usually mobbing's beginning as the result of a workplace conflict, the lead resolution of which has been unsuccessful or there have been failed attempts to resolve it. people start to take sides. news of someone kind of in the process here in the workplace travel staff as most of us know right? so that person already begins to be identified as somehow different and then others who still are in the workplace begin to either try to stick up for the target which doesn't happen very often for obvious reasons or they distance which happens a whole lot or they join in the

mobbing and so what i have done here in the next piece is just list a whole series of negative acts that are the kind of acts that are done to a target, imposed upon them and i use the word or phrase unethical communication which was heinz lehman's phrase but i think also it's a very powerful phrase because we can about unethical communication at all levels in organization, at the work level, alan organization deals with communications that it disseminates and also that it receives and also that it becomes aware of. likewise in a small group, work group and likewise at the individual level. we have the ability to think about and reflect about our

own way of responding to certain kinds of bad news about coworkers but here, just a quick look at some of the abusive behaviors because we say abusive behaviors and people say well, what are they? this is not an exhaustive list. i always put gossip at the top cause it's a low-level behavior that can have really large negative results, disproportionate maybe to how it starts and it's also a point of opportunity for intervening. it's a point of leverage because we can look at gossip and all the organizational levels and do something about that without too much difficulty. rumors, pulse information, failure to correct false information about worker. i mean, that's where the organization obviously comes into play. ridicule, belittling, the

list goes on. excessive criticism. isolated, cold shoulder. all sorts of social exclusion kind of tactics. and here i just kind of highlighted what i think of the toxicity of gossip. even those in social sites, we know it has a cohesive effect, gossip but i don't think those studies were looking at malicious and hostile gossip, the kind that drivesworkplace mobbing . then what happens in a mobbing, organization gets involved. does a whole lot of things that generally fuel it, that are counterproductive. often by labeling the target and kind of going along with what's out there in the communication loop about that person.

then the elimination process, which i mentioned. and post elimination behavior. it's disheartening to think that once a person has been eliminated from the workplace that mobbing behaviors still go on and so you can see some of them, celebrating the person's departure. continuing to talking negatively about that person and then you know, a huge one in terms of the person's ultimate livelihood is difficulty in attaining a reference . and here i just included this to depict the power of the social exclusionary process in workplace mobbing. canwest called mobbing the stressor to beat all

stressors and we know the health harming effects are just uber profound so for example, one quick study, 2008 study that was a collaboration between harvard mass general and the hospital at the university of rome and they assessed mental health of mobbing victims. italy is one of the countries that uses the conceptual framework of mobbing more than bullying and the results were very stunning to me. and they were that over 50 percent of those who they assessed had considered suicide. 20 percent were considered to be a medium or high risk. and then here, just a graphic of the health harming behaviors, health harming effects of mobbing so you can see they are broken down into physical health consequences.

the research for these is pretty robust. psychological, emotional health consequences. ptsd symptoms. i indicated the post ptsd because it's issues with the diagnosisthat we don't have time to talk about now but they are important . psychosocial impacts and i just might adhere that in the case of someone in the military who is mobbed out, military life is not 9-to-5 life obviously and for roles and positions where that is the case, wherethe identity is more totalizing , the impact of being driven out of an organization as the result of a mobbing is more profound the more complete the identity is. and then, what is that last one?

the very top of, oh on jobs. that's a whole other one with obvious implications. financial, health, life insurance, re-employability, engagement in work. they are just profound. and then interventions. again, because mobbing is a process that includes three levels of life in an ornization, the organization itself, the small group and the individual. interventions really can be tailored to include the organization as a whole, small groups and the individual. not only targets but all workers within an organization and you see that i have value driven as the top in each of those

categories. and that's because i think my belief that, and in this i shift from the more scholarly side to the activist side here that work should be a place of dignity for people because we've spent an awful lot of timethere, don't we ? over the course of a light so we want because of that ensures to the best of our ability that everyone there whether they are folks who had adverse childhood experiences and then more traumas on top of that or not , that the workplace should be a place of dignity. and those of us who are in the area of workplace mobbing and bullying are working hard to try and in collaboration

generate interventions and you can read those, you don't need me to do that. that kind of all of us being responsible for helping to both prevent and reduce it and so we could say that in some real way it starts with us and what we do about negative communication that we become aware of in the workplace so none of us, there's no neutral position. i hope that was a little bit of an overview although very quick of what workplace mobbing is. it's health harming effects and just ahead of the directions we can take to try and make the workplace better for all of us. thank you. [applause] >> okay, our next presenter

is doctor jessica gallus. she's the director for the response assault prevention program, the shark program. she's written extensively on the workplace mistreatment, toxic leadership, sexual-harassment and workplace instability. among her many professional accomplishments, she's developing a program of research on sexual harassment and assault prevention and has focused much of her time on studying the impact of trust, cohesion and professionalism on team performance and resilience. i should also say she's a human capital expert. [applause] >> good afternoon everyone, how are you? good. thanks so much to swan for having me here, i'm excited to be here today and talk about some issues that i'm

really passionate about it. to get started, i wanted to give folks a brief overview of what i plan to cover today and i will primarily be talking about one of the armies training platforms, elite that has just rolled out and some of our future training efforts but i want to start with a broader context for why this information is important. why the continuum of harm is something we need to focus on to get at prevention of sexual harassment and assault . before i get into some of the work the army is doing, it's important to remind everyone that what we are dealing with here is not just a military problem. as one of the great moms and advocates noted today, what's happening is a greater reflection of our society and many pockets of our nation from universities, colleges, to religious groups, sports teams and based on what we

know from the research conducted by the dod or, not the dod. the cdc and other research agencies, we know we have folks coming into our services carrying baggage from prior victimization. we also know as doctor stockdale pointed out that prior victimization makes individuals more vulnerable to future experiences of sexual harassment and assault. and it's part of the reason why it's so important to have a proactive approach to prevention and the need to arm individuals with the tools they need to recognize behavior and climates that set the stage these mistreatment to happen. it's also important to highlight that we oftentimes think of sexual harassment and assault as a woman's issue. and we talked a lot about the vulnerability of women in this arena.

we had a bit of discussion on male survivors today. one of our audience members aptly pointed out that you know, women, there's a much higher percentage of women who are survivors then there are the percentage of men but the way i look at this is that there are still thousands of male servicemembers who are suffering in silence because of the culture the dod and the culture of our society really and the shame that people carry with them especially when it comes to male survivors though i just wanted to point out that this is not just a female or women's issue. that this is a particularly tough problem for our society and also for the dod where we are talking about servicemembers who are operating in hyper- masculine cultures. unfortunately we are starting to see some movement on male survivors. we had a number of brave

folks who have started coming forward on these issues and we are starting to make a little headway in that area. i am going to get to trading at some point. why does all of this matter? for most organizations, sexual-harassment and assault are a concern because of the impact on the bottom line of the army's bottom line isn't monetary. its readiness to meet the mission, it's our ability to fight and win our nation's wars. and this is part of the reason to understanding the committee continuum of harm is so important in the army. if we can stop behaviors before they happen we can avoid the negative impacts to the soldiers who experience them, their teams and the greater organization.the impact of the team and organization is particularly important in the dod and especially the army even that soldiers predominantlywork in a team context . now i'm going to get into a few of the training efforts the army is doing to get out

and get after some of these challenges. i will be talking about a few products the army has put together to address different aspects of the continuum of harm and i will talk mostly about what we call the elite command team trainer or delete ctt since this tool was just released to the army. and this elite ttt addresses the latter half of the continuum of harm so as we can see on the bottom of the screen we have a continuum that goes from less severe or low-level behaviors to more severe and elite command team trainers address those objects on the more severe side of the spectrum so what do commanders need to do? what do professionals need to do once an incident has taken place? i will also briefly go over elite post so our prevention and outreach stimulation trainer, which is a tool to

help shark professionals focus on what prevention and outreach activities need to take place to help maintain a culture of respect and to eliminate some of these low-level behaviors from even starting. to give you some background on elite and the elite products, there are a collaboration between university of southern california's institute for creative technologies, the army research lab and the army shark program management office and sharp academy. we have a very well-rounded group of stakeholders involved in the creation of the elite product for research scientists, technical and professional experts, who understand the roles of shark professionals. those commanders who are responsible for program implementation. and what use is unique about the elite product is they address a number of needs for the army and one need is what's highlighted by one of the audience members in terms of the death by powerpoint. how can we develop training

tours tools that are more dynamic, more engaging so servicemembers actually become a part of the conversation rather than having us talk at them about some of these situations. and they are also a means for commanders and sexual assault response coordinators and victims advocates to go through some exercises together to help build that cohesive team needed to address some of these issues. here's a little more background on the development of ctt and elite posts. both were developed with a level of rigor based in science. for example, what do we know the research on gaming that we can leverage as a

foundation for these tools? the information in these tools aligns with army policy and directives related to sexual harassment and assault. for instance, what are the steps soldiers and leaders need to take to make sure they are consistent with the actions outlined in policy? the tools were developed by a number of stakeholders including commanders, shark professionals. again, those are your sar k nda's. researchers and individuals from the sharp program management office and sharp academy. we wanted to make sure the information provided in these products was up-to-date and that the scenarios reflected the current challenges of commanders and sharp professionals and they were heavily involved in the creation process. so let's get into some of the basics on the command team trainer. the concept of this project is the army needed a way to engage commanders and their shark professionals to ensure they were on the same page in

terms of responding to sexual harassment and assault incidents. we wanted to do so again in engaging in an interactive way. this training is heavily focused on rights issues so how they should respond incidents once they have occurred and the primary reason we focused on response is because we needed at the time to focus on response initially. where now more focused on prevention but we needed tools put in place so commandersand sharp professionals were prepared to deal with incidents as they happened . one of the main components that address by elite ctt concerns the roles and responsibilities of the each stakeholder, in this case commanders and shark professionals. for example, what does the commander have to do following an incident and perhaps as important or more important, what should the commander avoid doing? how should the sexual response assault coordinator and victims advocates best work with the commander to help the commander and understand the importance of getting the response right?

what do commanders and shark professionals need to know to distinguish between sexual harassment and assault? these are some of the areas covered. unfortunately we don't have the internet capability here to give you a preview of the training so you will be able to see some of the pictures of avatars in the next line. here's a closer look at this application. the command team trainer consists of three parts. the first part is upfront construction. this part of the training uses a virtual or avatar-based sark to go over the rules shark commanders need to follow. i will give you specifics on the next line. these rules are founded in research and with the expertise of shark professionals and commanders. the second component are the animated vignettes. half of the vignettes for that are on sexual harassment, half are on sexual assault and the next provide trainings with

examples of effective and ineffective behavior for handling some of these challenging experiences. the last piece of the elite command team trainer are the practice exercises though this is the part where folks are asked to engage. this is where we give students a chance to see if they can apply what they've learned and in summary, the best way to describe it is elite ctt and the elite products are a version of a choose your own adventure for lack of a better term so each exercise includes a scenario followed by a number of choices and feedback is provided based on the choice selected.you can also see then how the consequences or of your decisions play out. here's a bit more on the instructional framework for elite ctt. this is based on input. the idea is if we can give leaders and sharp

professionals a mnemonic device to remember the roles and responsibilities, they will be able to more effectively interact once an incident happens. you can see the first piece of the frameworkfocuses on the acronym respect and provides a framework on how to respond in incidences related to sexual assault. you see things like providing support, responding without judgment . the second is called silence, risk providing steps for responses to sexual assault. and you will see with both of these, some of the steps apply to both commanders and sharp professionals and some highlight the unique responsibilities of each. once the tool is developed, it was tested with a number of stakeholders including instructors from the sharp academy, shark professionals, soldiers, sexual assault response coordinators and company commanders. overall, the feedback has been positive.

many find this more engaging than the traditional death by powerpoint approach.a number of people noted how this would have been a helpful tool prior to taking command. some also highlighted this should be a requirement for incoming commanders . one of the things i want to emphasize and this is along the lines of what mitch ferrell was saying is that we really need to put some measurement behind the training approaches we are taking and we need to capture whether or not what we are doing is having an effect so i don't want to put this information up here and say this answers the mail in terms of assessing effectiveness. we realize this is only initial feedback and while we appreciate the positive response we are just starting now to dig in to the true effectiveness of this tool. and we are doing so with the help of the army research institute who is in the process of putting together a pre-and post assessment for leaders going through pre-command course. so the battle idea is that we would assess commanders before they are introduced to

this tool, after they are introduced and ideally we would assess them longitudinally to make sure any changes we see are not just changes based on recent training but changes that have actually been incorporated into handle how they handle these incidents. >> we also do some testing that was needed so that this could be an approved game-based training application for the army so there's a comprehensive validation process that takes place and it's past january, elite command team trainer went through this process at the national simulation center. as part of this process the number of stakeholders from the sharp academy at fort leavenworth tested the product. they completed the three parts of the training and practice exercises and we just launched this tool in early april is now the army games for training portfolio.

so before i wrap, i wanted to give a brief and broad overview of another gaming tool that's currently in development. this is the elite prevention and outreach simulation trainer, otherwise known as elite post. the tool is designed explicitly for sharks and das to help them with outreach efforts so this is whereas the command team trainer was right in saying this is a focus. what can we do to prevent sexual harassment and assault from occurring in the first place? and we are just, we are halfway through i would say this process in the step of developing avatars now. we've worked through a lot of the training scenarios and are still finalizing those and we should have a complete

product at some point this fall. so this was a very quick overview of some of the armies training efforts in addressing sexual harassment and assault and i want to end with the idea that training and technology are not a cure all for what are some very complex and tough problems that the dod and other parts of society face. training is one solution and the army is doing cutting-edge work in this area it is not the solution. the solution needs to be multifaceted and at the core needs to focus on a culture of respect as the foundation for prevention. thank you. [applause] >> our next panelist is someone i would walk with me in a dark alley if i were cornered. he is the director of defend

yourself and for more than 30 years, lauren taylor has taught more than 20,000 people from all walks of life the skills they need to stop harassment, abuse and assault. she has widely been published on topics related to interpersonal violence including in the washington post , the justice department and ij journal, the men's long and on every day feminine. she recently confounded safe bars, a program using bystander education to empower dc area bar staff to disrupt sexualharassment and aggression. please join me in welcoming lauren taylor . [applause] >> hi everybody. before we actually get started i would like to ask everybody to come a little bit forward. move up in the room so that we can actually do some stuff. this is a powerpoint free presentation.

so if you are in the back, if you could come up to the first safe for rose that would be truly wonderful. this is the audience participation part of the day. i know you've been sitting a long time area so defend your self and other empowerment self defense organizations around the united states and around the world dwell in the solution and not in the problem. we are prevention oriented, also healing and recovery oriented area we help people learn how to take care of themselves. we respect everybody's existing expertise in taking

care of yourself including respecting what everybody has already done in any violations that you faced in your life and in any given room particularly of women and girls which is primarily who we teach. those most often targeted for abuse and harassment, abuse and assault. and i'm sure you've heard this at some point today. probably more than half of us have experienced some kind of violation whether it's childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, being in an abusive relationship, a rate attempts, a completed rate . if you include street harassment or public space harassment in that definition, 100 percent of us are survivors and we certainly have all been harmed by the fact that we live in a culture that causes us to be afraid. so i would like to introduce you to some of this by having us do it.

just to point out, i'm sure there are survivors in this room as there are in every room and i hope that everybody will do what they need to do today care of themselves. i'm sure sitting around listening to statistics and such about sexual assault and violation might have been triggering so i'm going to ask you to whatever you know how to do to take care of yourself to do that while i'm also talking about it and asking you to do things. all participation in all of our classes is voluntary. he will participate at the level at which they feel comfortable. you don't empower people by telling them what to do. so that said, if i go out here can everybody hear me? >> no i can't. you need to take the microphone. [inaudible conversation]

>> so in the back you can't hear us? got it. okay. okay. i don't think i've ever taught self-defense behind the podium but it's just another challenge. so what i would love for everybody to do is stand up and if you use a wheelchair or for some other reason are more comfortable seated, everything we do can be adapted for all levels of abilities and disabilities and i see this woman in the front row is standing with her hips and the wonder woman position. how many times have you watched the ted talk with amy cuddy's power positions? we use that a lot in teaching self-defense and i hope everybody who hasn't seen it will google amy cuddy, cu dd y and power poses.

it's very helpful. i don't know if anybody noticed, before a presentation i was in the back in the wonder woman position. what i want you to do is in the confined space you have, take one little step back and put your hands up. and how you're going to put your hands up is like this. and with kids we call it a stop sign but basically it's your body language setting a limit. whoever did that. you're using your body language to set a limit. you could be doing this in a low-key situation. we've been hearing about the continuum all day. you could do this in a low key situation where somebody is saying something that bothers you all the way up to a full body attack. this reinforces what you are saying and if it turns into a full attack this is also your guard so you already have your hands up, they are ready to go.

they can shield your head and faces which is the most important part to protect. everybody in your stance had you want the hands to also be close together. one reason is that this gives a different message. another is the most vulnerable parts of our body are down the center line. you need to protect those, not this everybody is here. and i'm just going to say some words and i want you to an me back. words and phrases. everybody ready question mark take a deep rest. breathing is an incredibly important part of self-defense. for one thing, it helps break the freeze response. just go after me. stop. you need to leave. take your hand off me. i'm not okay with that. leave now. stop. stop. i know you can get louder than that.

but let's do the getting more intense part one more time. we will start with no so just repeat after me. number number number number that was better. so you need all those levels and even all the levels in between those because there are so many different situations in life that call for maybe know or. [louder] note so it depends on the situation and you would in a longer class start using your own language. this is me offering some samples but the important thing about it are the underlying principles. you can sit down. you will be getting up again. the underlying principles are , use your voice, body and face to give a consistent message.if one of those channels of communication is doing something else, you will not be as effective. voice, body and face. forexample if i went like this .stop.

what's the problem? i was smiling. very normal. a lot of us get a smile when we are nervous so we trained how to keep a serious face. you can see how if any one of the three things is off-line, your message will be as clear so using your body and face to give a consistent message. the messages what you want to happen. so i said stop. i said take your hand off me. i said leave now. those are all examples of what i decided i want to happen. one thing that is common in classes is thatpeople won't necessarily know what they want to happen and especially for women , that part of our socialization and

unless you train in something that develops your knuckles you could end up in the emergency room with broken knuckles so instead we are going to hit with the padded part ofyour fist . calling this hammer fist because it comes on like a hammer. i promise not to hit. i promise not to touch you. i'm going to ask you to come over here because i can't move from this and here's some of the things you can do. come closer. here's some of the things you can do with a hammer fist. you can go down to the nose. all of our targets are based on extreme pain or temporary

disability so we are looking for something that will end the situation so you can get to safety so you can come down on the nose. you can go into the temple or into the temple. you can go into the throat. those are a few things you can do with this very multifaceted technique. thank you. let's see everybody with your hands up and you're going to take a stronger hand, hands together. take a stronger hand and pretend to come down on the nose and if you're sitting behind somebody make sure you don't hit them. so unlike count, one. okay. now we are going to yell because that makes you stronger right? i'm sure this is used in military training, right? a call and response thing, i've seen it. but even if you look at like tennis players go on when they hit the target or the racket, the ball. or people who do clean and

jerk, people yell. it makes you stronger.also in self-defense, if you are yelling, that you are breathing and that breaks the fear response. coming down and we are going to yell no. ready? go. good. you come back here because you don't know what you're going to do next. two. and three. now pretend you are getting attacked and i'm not there yelling loud for you so i want to hear you yell as loud as you can. ready quest mark go. that's better. one more time. and i'll yell with you. one, two, three. number you can sit down now. do you feel the difference in your body? that is a mini class, that's an appetizer of what we do. we work on understanding the framework of risk which is along the continuum.

we practice verbal techniques and we practice physical techniques. the physical techniques while you will probably never have to use them give you the belief in yourself that enable you to practice the verbal techniques in everyday life. let me just say a little bit about the framework of empowerment self-defense and principles that we are based on. we don't believe in tips or should which is what a lot of supposed prevention material is about which basically just constrains behavior, you know? don't park next to a man, don't wear a short skirt. be aware of everything all the time. can be aware of everything all the time? the we work on the most common violations so i tell my students, do not ask me if you are on a deserted island and there's three guys with machetes and you are duct

tape to a palm tree. i don't want to hear that question. we deal with the things you are most likely to face every day. we are very trauma informed and have a very strong no victim blaming stance. we all are what every skill anybody use to get through whatever they've been through and we are just here to add more tools in your toolbox so whatever you face going forward you will have more options. we are you might note and this has been a topic today experiential. we do some conversations but there's no standing around talking at you. we will be in a conversation to have worked out a different problem together and the importance of the support of the group and the bonding in that experience. some research on self-defense efficacy has found that the result of self defense training is very powerful

even without using self-defense. i believe that people in the military are uniquely positioned to carry out a lot of the principles that we believe in because they, you. some of you are not in the military, understand the power of thegroup to change culture and social norms . they understand the importance of the group in standing up for oneanother and in supporting one another . they have a strong leadership structure, that's the word i was looking for. strong leadership structure that can be put into place in the interest of gender-based violence prevention and recovery.

just a couple things. one is, as you know but i need tosay it again as a disclaimer , that is an incredibly smalltaste of some of the skills that we share. i have two handouts on the table on the way out . one of them is a link to a article i cowrote with a colleague and it's from an online article. if you go to online place you can find all the links to self-defense efficacy and research and all that kind of stuff. i will send around during the q and a a sign-up sheet of any but he wants to get our newsletter. i want to thank kate and ellen for inviting me to this and fort swan for putting it on. thank you. [applause] >> i'm probably lucky.

our last analyst, we are really fortunate to have, her name is loree sutton and she's a psychiatrist who retired from the army as a brigadier general after 30 years of sandwich service. prior to leaving the army she was the founding director of the military defense centers of excellence are psychological health and traumatic brain injury and when she retired she was the highest ranking psychiatrist in the army. she's been a key advisor to senator gilleland regarding military sexual assault and currently serves as commissioner of the new york city department of veteran services. [applause] >> thank you so much kate. it's really a joy to be here today and i have to say a very very briefly, i am filled with a sense of grace, gratitude and grit. grace because it's such an unbidden blessing after

having had the privilege of serving nearly 30 years in uniform to now be still serving in new york city and at a time when the struggles are real and so are the strengths and i hope you will join us in really transforming the narrative around veterans, that veterans are family. yes we have struggles but let's lead with the strength and so much of the time the strengths, through the struggle. our veterans and families are our countries leading natural renewable resource. and what is it to be renewed? it's that commitment to service. kate, i was struck by your comments. i haven't met you before, i don't know your story other than what you shared but as jessica talked about, this is all about human capital. and as i heard your list of

assignments, your duties, your increasing sense of responsibility, you excel at everything you did in the united states marine corps. and thankfully you are still here and you've decided to keep on serving area and i for one look forward to seeing you in new york city whatever it is we can sit down over a cup of iced tea and plot out the next phase of battle comes to mind but it's struggle. released. so thank you for your service . that sense of gratitude, i must say, doctor duffy. like kate, i didn't know what happened when i left the army in 2010.over 20 national

news stories puzzling the abrupt circumstances of my departure. you would think as a psychiatrist that i would have had some clue. i scoured. i scoured the literature on bullying in the workplace, some of it yet but it was just totally inadequate to describe what i had witnessed over time and what i had experienced. all of that was amplified even more over these last several years when in working with senator joe legrand and so many targets of modeling, so many survivors of military sexual trauma, to know that two thirds of the situations where the men and women who have been assaulted report that violation, that retaliation is what they then

report. so i don't know how many men and women have been really found themselves through your work but i will tell you that from the time i learned about your work in late 2012, i have given your books to everyone that i think can possibly benefit and every time that i give a presentation, when i insert the world mobbing, someone comes up to me in the audience and relates a very similar story. so the fact that swan is taking the lead here in washington dc, just in the shadow of the pentagon, just across the river from the capital, gives me great hope . great comfort, great courage

and yes, gratitude for the work you have done doctor duffy, for the work that lauren described. i will tell you another great resource i found in these last several years in this journey came through alexander coates's recent book, the body keeps the score. folks, when we know neuroscience that what goes off-line under exposure to conditions of threat trauma and loss is just compare. just think about what it was like during the presentation to get up and see the word maybe it's the first time for some of us in this room that we've ever

said the word stop on our own behalf. just think about it. notice how that feels. last, it's not going to be easy to change the systems whether it be in the military or in the workplace or the playground in the schools and the associations but it starts with talking about it and it starts with the words jessica is doing in the army i would want to run an organization. that gives me confidence to.

this is right before i was getting out and he said when i was in the army it was all about the unit cohesion. i can see that the community as a civilian equivalent of that unit cohesion and what you are now doing in this work is recognizing in the leadership that is the thing we playe poino when things go around and when things fall apart why wouldn't we start to the organization and the group level not to ignore

the individual but let's start organizationally and at the leadership level the organizational growth and then yes we can pay attention to that individual as well. so let me just say i'm going to take this back up to my veterans in new york city but i've got to tell you that my confidence in what our military is doing is not ill placed. hwe serve in an institution that is the world's best at talking to change but when we required to change there is no organization on earth that is better at tackling change and leading the way that we entered the work in progress and

transgender that is a work in progress with this issue. we can call it the continuum of harm if we need to but let's never forget what it is, sexual violence and workplace aggression. the sexual aggression, gender-based violence in the military and society. the arc is starting to bend towards justice. thank you so much. [applause]

>> that was like slow motion. i'm sure there are some great questions out there. >> i will prime the pump in case nobody wants to be first. this room it's obviously the opposite dynamic that we normally see when we talk about the military because what do you notice it's predominantly women

so my question for the panelist is the majority of the military is obviously men and clearly they need to begin in trouble part of so what solutions would you put in place to engage and understand as leaders. don't all jump at once. >> i think it doesn't necessarily have to be gender in terms of response i think there are instances where it is needed i think a lot of it comes down to creating a climate and culture for respect and a lot of what i've seen in the trainings that dod has provided has been around what's not to do and what

i think it needs to focus on is helping us a lot everybody knows what behaviors are involved in creating a culture of trust and respect and if we can emphasize some of those powerful characteristics for the performance and readiness i think we will be ahead of the game. i would've out to the greater knowledge of the people that do the work on men's engagement. i have been to have chosen this particular slice but there are incredible groups like that in dc that has a national presence.

like the pep talk in the california coalition against assaults that has a huge program for men and boys that work on developing the scope that you were talking about redefining what is a healthy masculinity so that we can have a culture of respect so i would reach out too the men that already thought about this for decades. >> questions? >> i'm with trade talk right now so my question is for you i've been working with the program

since 2009 when i first went to the victim advocacy course and i guess the biggest thing i've seen with the program specifically speaking to the army program i'm not really familiar with the other services but kind othat kind of effort se program's inception, it felt like there's always been a lot of talk at the top levels and we've gotten a lot of top-down push which is great however i feel like no one at any point has reached down to the advocates anadvocatesand at somt there is a lot of input to be taken within at the line units and the survivors and victims and the predators out there and i feel like there's a lot of untapped resources. like i said i know that you talk about this but i wonder if it's not at peace trade-off levels and maybe there's not any reach

down to get that additional information or resources so what are you looking at doing talking to people like me bette that art the basic level to see the program. >> great question. i want to thank you for your comments because there are so many organizations that are focused on men. one in six is another of them so just in terms of trading and developindevelopingdeveloping tm it's i'm not sure we need to be gender segregated. to answer the question what are we doing to engage with them over levels were across the army? i think there's always room for improvement. i was just at fort last week when the director of the army program office met with a bunch of them very and we also met with subject matter experts from

various universities as well as the trade-off leaders that were out. i do think there are opportunities for engagement. when we do research, they are probably the group that we tap most frequently because we want to know what scenarios and challenges you are facing that we might not be aware of i and part of the page that has to be with interviews, focus groups getting in-depth detailed knowledge from those that have lived this process. one of the other things i've been trying to do to develop greater collaboration between the dod and the industry that includes bringing them wherever we are going because i was at the society for the industrial psychology conference a few

weeks ago and we have some in the room from different parts of the army and so part of it is bridging the gap making the connections but i absolutely agree that there's always room for improvement. >> my name is bernadette and i commented earlier my daughter was or is a victim of the rotc program cadet. but my question is two parts. she was attacked from behind so if it shows us what happens when you are unexpectedly attacked from behind and this occurred more than four times and i also want to include the other advocate in the case was senator

mark warner. they started calling my daughter so i have to give them credit for what we are trying to resolve right now is to not get the perpetrator in addition to the army and my second question is on the sharp program, there wasn't enough involvement in my daughter's case or the military college there she sat and so having heard her tell me about the inadequacies of the program at the campus and the lack of the coordinator on campus for them to finish, they wanted the title ix investigation finished first and then when that was done, my daughter went to the office program coordinator and wanted to file a complaint and

they refused so what i'm saying is being that she experienced this inadequacy and it's just a two-year military college, is your program going to extend this concept to all the service academies and there are six military college academies that strictly have army programs for the early commission program into the army. >> let's give the panel an opportunity to answer the questions. >> the short answer is i don't know. i am not knowledgeable on that program although i will find out and get your information and find out

>> are you going to need for me to be a dummy again? >> i'm sorry for everything that you and your family has gone through. i just want to make sure i understand you are asking me to show some options a person would have if they were attacked from behind, is that it? i want to be clear attacked from behind and putting your daughter this isn't training most people have coming up but we would all like to have universal training in the schools so most people wouldn't know the things but tht here's a couple things you can do a.

can you hear me? we try to have a relatively small vocabulary of strikes so that people that don't train for a long time can remember in a stressful situation but there's two off the bat that work well if you are attacked from behind, one is a stomp to the foot so somebody is behind me and i'm going to take the whole bother but my foot and hold onto them for balance and land where the leases with the. no matter how much power i have in my body it doesn't matter, what matters is i'm dropping my weight into their thoughts so

thafoot so thatit would look li. this one works in the front but it's one of the versatile techniques that works in the front and the back. if someone was behind me. if someone was behind me i could simply go like that. if she was grabbing me in a bear hug and i didn't have access to my hands i could stomp on her foot or i could if the attacker

ismail i coulis mail i could gre testicles and pull. so the way that would all come together, do you mind attacking me? you could do some serious damage and pain but it's not as high whether they have testicles. so here's the hold we take this hand as well, this will be a little hard with the microphone, but i would hold on to make sure that i've got air. i can kick their knee because they don't like to go anyway but one way, stom sto underfoot and would cause enough pain they would be a little bit loose and then i could strike to the genitals. i can go to the ribs and then i could do something like this, something like that and get to safety. all the techniques that we teach are designed to create a

possibility for you to get to safety. we are not about hurting people we are about creating an opening ticket to safety so that might have been just one misstep on her foot or it might have been multiple techniques. it depends on the situation that this is just to see that you do have options if you are attacked from behind. those are the things people are the most afraid of being on the ground were attacked from behind and there's lots of options. >> any other questions okay. my question it's been nine years since i've been to paris island.

it's completely segregated south helhow do you feel about that? >> if you read some of the things i published it is very clear what my stance is on that. my second question we focus a lot on how they do it and i'm not sure but basically i'm not sure if obviously the basis is going to be about the same thing for what to do about the harassment training however i'm not 100% sure if we are all taught across the board on procedures and what to do especially when we are in environments like afghanistan.

when i went to afghanistan i was the only marine in the army unit so it's a different environment so if something had happened overseas i'm going to tell my staff sergeant happened and then they go and talk to the army and there's some kind othen there'sy we don't do things this way. >> is there going to be a program that will be the same across the board regardless of what service you are in? this is definitely an issue in evolution and progress and i think back to the issue of suicide for the longest time each service stated frankly it wasn't until the institutions of suicide seriously enough that they then coordinated the standard definition approaches but still a comedy that for

service specific. it's for two hours over whether or not if you were raped by a friend it would occur within marriage and whether sexual assault with the different than sexual harassment, so we've come a long way but i think that's absolutely a stepping stone and maybe we can hasten to pay those of us that are working in this area by really educating for the joint combined team so let's have a unified approach to these kinds of issues. >> i'm afraid we're out of time but join me in thinking that guests and their expertise.

[applause] >> first black president, i know that you are biracial but the first black president. [applause] is proud to be able to say that that's unless you screw up. [laughter]

then it's going to be what's up with the half white guy. [laughter] so it's not a strong field in who knows iandwho knows if theyu in 2012 but i can tell you who o welcome the 2012 barack obama. he would have loved him. [laughter] was he a little too idealistic, maybe that he would have loved him. i think we remember the first lady was there and may i say as beautiful as he looked on that day you look even more beautiful tonight. [applause]

what happened to you when you were sworn and you looked like e the guy from the old spice commercials. [laughter] i never said this to anyone before but maybe you should start smoking again. [laughter] is this the change you were talking about, lend me your hair if it gets any whiter the tea party is going to endorse it.as >> they say that it's a matter of carrots and sticks. i felt weird about eating dessert. i left it untouched. the reason people thought that you were from kenya had nothing to do with your birth certificate. it's because you lost so much weight we thought we were in the boston marathon.

>> he's always the coolest guy in the room, that's what everybody says. but here's my question. who else is in that room? it's not hard to be the cool one when the others are joe biden and john kerry. i would feel cool if john vilsack was showing how to do the harlem shake. [laughter] it's good to see the white house press secretary is here. [laughter] i haven't seen him this nervous since the president told him just go out there and tell them the website is broken. they will understand. [laughter] mr. president, you have to admit and you already have the launch

of healthcare .gov was a disaster. it was so bad i don't even have an analogy because it is now the thing people use to describe it other bad things. [laughter] they say stuff like i shouldn't have eaten all that sushi. i was up all night healthcare.goving orthopedist johnny depp movie really at the box office. you can't get healthcare.gov out of chad but thanks to this or as the president refers to it, mecare, millions of uninsured can visit a doctor's office in tdr.'s office in tosee that to deceive a print magazine actually looks like. [laughter] [applause]

mr. president, thank you so much for taking time away from jimmy kimmel to be here. it's amazing to see the president having this fancy dinner and i know it must have cost a ton of food stamps so thank you. i can say that because a lot of you don't d know this but president obama invite grew up together in chicago. i remember when we used to go down to the basketball court i would place up a pair of jordan said he would slip on a pair of my mom's genes and we would have to speak to [laughter] but those were simpler times. now you've got the congress and use it at your salt we can't solve thescan solvethese probles and singing come kumbayah, the

village the president was born. your approval rating is at 48% and not only that but your gray hair is that 85%. so right now it can talk to the police. [applause] [laughter]

>>

>> as was suggested in one of the briefs the parents of the citizens give them lower priority and what is the difference between that? >> is a very important point justice ginsburg that is precisely what preferred action is. it is a decision of the you rea low priority that is the dedication of at and the response has conceded we have authority to do both things.

, . >> let me make a logical progression. >> this leads into the standing argument that the principle bone of contention is whether it the secretary to authorize these people to work with the insular -- to a salary benefits and then challenge that with three fundamental reasons. first it is not addressable because even in death they achieve the injunction that they want with the benefits but for the reason that justice ginsburg identified provide under texas law they still qualified for a license for offer driver's

license to everyone but not those who were here under your proposal. >> the key word is hypothesizes that is the key point they have not made that change with their law. >> it is a completely legitimate policy they want that to be available to those were lawfully president of the federal government says they're lawfully present the behalf to get a driver's license to

half a billion people who would be potentially eligible. but they did in answer is don't give them a driver's license of identity in your brief. current policy reflected in the existing law and regulation is quite different and they will get a driver's license now to any category of person donnelly to see your lawfully present but we're officially tolerated your presence there are vast number of people under texas law that is an eligible for a license even though they're not lawfully present for example, those who receive deferred action based on childhood arrival but beyond that people who are applicants that there are hundreds of those waiting for status. >> so this policy with the government is invalid with the separation of powers therefore we will not issue a license.

>> i think. >>. >> that's correct but they have not done it. >> that is the whole point? to but did not want to give drivers licenses to the beneficiaries of dapa. unless you can tell us there is some way to achieve that the idaho how they are not injuring the fact. >> i disagree. >> with which part? >> all of it. [laughter] texas law does not express that judgment for what the policy is now. i am looking at the law it says it will give a license to persons granted deferred action on the basis of documentation received with alien number from the government.

so they already made that determination stick it is one thing but and if you are lawfully present. and the policy as it is written down with an authoritative statement. not to give those were lawfully present but also numerous categories that they are a dnc now but not eligible. >> your argument is they should take these people out of eligibility also. >> cry argument is we will give a driver's license from deferred action. and you say it you can take that away that is catch 22. but then he would change the policy.

but then you would sue that instantly a favor lawfully present under the federal authority it is a pre-emption argument. but the fundamental problem is with that very. and to have headed by israel opinion with the is up to the judiciary that they would have to decide if it is pre-empted. and then you could lose the suit. >> that's correct. >> is a hypothetical. >> data know what you would lose the suit for what that state ward required for benefits. including deferred action.

to not understand the basis of a pre-emption. >> justice can get with the to agree but we don't think that applies to drivers' licenses in depending on what day did but and tell they take that step which would be a significant change they really are asking for the advisory opinion. >> you think because they have options and one that they would like to pursue is for the beneficiaries if you make the argument that lack standing because of a legal option to have to tell us if that is lawful for them to do that. >> a think the chief justice

ask that before and he didn't get a chance to answer. >> it depends on what they did but they have to do it. think about it this way and. >> are you saying to us their lack standing because they have an option run but you have to wait? >> they may think it is unlawful to give licenses still there is an article three standing all the time per you say this cause of action i want to declare it is void. >> against to the point justice kennedy if right now tomorrow or today they come into court and say we won a declaratory judgment we're thinking about changing the state law fifth we will lead to a judgment if we do so it is pre-empted i think this could be out in the

nanosecond as hypothetical that is precisely this situation we're in now you have to render a judgment. >> is city enough to be put through litigation end up policy. and that he will not dispute they will be put through litigation? >> because you could have said that pennsylvania vs. new jersey or others that may have to incur some cost. >> if i own a parcel of land it is subject to a regulatory program why isn't the answer that is not subject to a? you can avoid the injury by your own inaction it seems that is what you are saying here now we have to give a driver's license and that cost us money and the answer is maybe you don't but change the policy.

>> there is a difference with the direct action against a landowner by the government we are regulating alien said that is the broader point of importance it would be the first time in our history to recognize as a basis to allow the one government to sue another there is no limit. >> mr. chairman in the normal course with assume that texas decides tomorrow to achieve its law and it says contrary to what it says at this moment that it will not give licenses to immigrants with deferred action. presumably the immigrants

would like that license. correct? id with any number of preemption arguments. >> the states will defend that action and it would raise legitimately any defense. correct? it could say dapa is a legal. correct? so there is a way of. >> and that goes to what the court said that it may seem like this is an important issue and it is. but the legitimacy is deciding if you don't have that here yet. >> so your argument is imagine a federal statute

every state must give a license as a statute. second we are transferring one quarter of a million soldiers to rhode island and it also thinks that the second statute and in that circumstance, for rhode island. so i am trying to say there is a law that says texas you have to give a driver's license to certain people and the second law says we are sending you 1 billion of those people always want to know is it in taxes under

those circumstances the argument is we don't know if that is true or not is their standing in your opinion? texas would say it is unconstitutional for some reason do they have standing to say that? >> because it's the second law is immigration of up policy judgment that i don't think they would have standing but the fundamental point is the premise of the first law they are required is not present. >> and i have no doubt.

>> but i do see this is the issue of the other foot in the state decided it would not enforce the minimum wage law anymore with the costs for federal minimum-wage laws to have standing to go into the state court battle think anybody would think that was about the bad is the flip side. >> is that injury any more direct? to rick guess mr. chief justice but with respect to the majority opinion is seems there are fundamental differences but the court

said under the clean air act to charge the epa from the others of air pollution with the specific cause of action and then the court said it was critical that we consider them were only they could not and in addition you do have a different situation there is no way for massachusetts and there is no way here. >> maybe i could ask you to switch it. >> it is important to free briard but texas agrees that the ages has the authority

of these alien parents of u.s. citizens. but what we disagree principally if we had the authority to authorize them to work that is based on the work. could the president grant deferred removal of lawfully present alien in the united states? over time there is set up administrative defense and from the executive branch somehow that defines them now?

this has the benefit of approved at this point either i don't agree with that province you have the lowest priority with regulations going back decades of those of deferred action that their past to be a statutory policy that they have the authority to implement such as foreign relations to keep the three of the unity when one is a u.s. citizen. >> the chief is going more fundamental. that is what they have set for themselves now is to change those parameters in the future that i have found

in your theory of discretion that is his question. >> a couple of things about that but the statutory strings that exist now for example, congress has said they have to prioritize there is no way they could have deferred action so as not criminals then who else? that they would follow from back to people who recently made it into the country that is a deferred action either because that would undermine the judgment. >> anyone who has been here for two years there are specific statutory categories so there are a whole host of things of manageable limits.

>> so the categories excluded are criminals or people detained at the border. other than that the president could grant that? >> for example, if you look they reached the conclusion that they could not plan deferred action of the parents of the children of who got deferred action for the childhood arrival. >> that the president said there was the time and there was the right policy we will just remove anybody who could challenge that. >> is the opposite now but that is a question. >> could anybody challenge that? >> yes.

it could be to eligible with that footnote if you decide you want to forestall law at all. that is a million miles from where we are now the key point. >> there 4 billion people from where we are now. >> that is the big numbers to back that is the whole point. talk about discretion we're defining the limits of discretion that is a legislative day and not executive act. it is there president admitted a certain number of people and congress approves it seems they have it backwards as is the president is setting up policy but it is upside-down. >> i don't take it is upside-down but different to the recognition with the nature of immigration policy

>> how much of a factor is the reality you have 11.3 million undocumented aliens to the legislature has removed about 4 billion? so inevitably. >> exactly civic the enforcement priority is not an issue of the problem is of the benefits the earth did come tax credit security benefits and medicare benefits so this is the point that you made there not disputing the fact you have the authority to exercise discretion. >> we want to get your question. >> mr. general before you go on but just to make sure we're on the same page, you

only support 400,000? >> so we have ted billion but it thousand people that cannot be supported because there is no need of resources. >> correct. >> we always have a policy when you are officially tolerated if you don't have any rights and in the circumstances it makes sense to allow you to work we will be here if you cannot work lawfully to be forced into the underground economy -- economy. >> with those two pages in your reply brief of those individuals covered lawfully present in the united states. but one page later you say

that could -- preferred action at this have been a harsh sentence to write to their lawfully present budget presently violation of the al law? to back i had no trouble writing that mr. chief justice. [laughter] because that phrase has caused a terrible bill to of confusion and realize but the reality is it's been something different to people in the immigration world what that means not the you have a legal right to be the united states three status has changed it doesn't need any of those things and it never has so wet that fundamental level you are not trying to change that doesn't mean you are legally present. >> but those may lawfully

work in the united states. >> how is that possible there are millions of people. billions etiquette's to the point section 1324. >> can with of english language. how can it be lawful to work here but not be here? >>, we go through the reality of how disruptive the ruling would be period. white house since 2008 those who get work authorization we have given out 3.5 million of those categories of people since 2008 in the decade before was hundreds of thousands every year but they're not lawfully present in the

united states to have lawful status. those in those removal proceedings now to give up 325,000. >> there is no statutory authority either to say they are lawfully present and this is the key thing that there is no statutory authority to grant work authorization to those categories. >> did you say they were lawfully present in the united states? >> no. but their argument why we can do work authorization is a statutory argument. id to extinguish our right and authority for those presidents who were officially tolerated but that is not a plausible reading of the text.

but the regulations that consider that very restriction giving out the work authorization that i ns projected that. and in the third coinages of consequences if you go through all those different categories it knocks out 5460 to those categories. >> can they attack that 1986 regulation and? >> absolutely they could petition for rulemaking. >> under section 553? >> they did not do that. stick you have done the exact same thing without putting that phrase? >> absolutely if the court

wants to put a red pencil through that that is falling. really. i am busy and the issues that it causes but with that significance do socials of bangladesh social security benefits that is the tale of the doggy the fleece. >> would they be entitled to ask for the injunction. >> forgive me the justice kennedy have not thought about that but i have my doubts they could get the injunction under those circumstances. >> but they would object. >> if we are talking about issuing guidance to get to the issue of commons proceedings.

>> lots of people have standing. >> but if this court decides against to the issue that will have decided the does have freestanding. >> but under the predecessor if you broad did it that i would ignore the al long the way we should defend legally what were they talking about? interest to possible things. what data -- daca gives the ability to work. if they said i would give lawful permanent residence status that would be going further to say we're lawfully present.