Scenario: Tea for Two, but Not for You

Group Size: 4-15

Scenario

“Uh, can I speak with you Warrant?” asked Master Corporal (MCpl) Cardwell. 

“Sure, come in and sit down,” replied Warrant Officer (WO) Ames. “What’s up MCpl?” 

“Well, I couldn’t help but overhear the conversation you had with the Master Warrant Officer (MWO) about the change of appointment ceremony for Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Reyes,” said MCpl Cardwell. “If the Commanding Officer (CO) isn’t going to pay for the reception after the parade from their hospitality fund, how will we pay for the beverages?” 

“Yes, I always knew the CO didn’t like the CWO, but I didn’t know it was because of their sexual orientation,” said WO Ames. “I guess they got married a few months ago to a same sex gender partner and the CO doesn’t approve of that. Don’t worry about funding for their change of appointment reception though because the Honorary Colonel has offered to foot the bill.”

“But Warrant, that’s not right,” said MCpl Cardwell. “I don’t think the CO can discriminate against CWO Reyes like that, and the funding always comes out of the CO’s hospitality budget.”

“Whoa there, MCpl. slow down,” insisted WO Ames. “Be very careful about accusing anyone of discrimination, especially the CO. Look, Chief Reyes is retiring, and nobody has the time for a discrimination investigation at this unit. So just drop it.” 

“But Warrant,” continues MCpl Cardwell, “that type of discrimination shouldn’t be allowed to continue anymore. After all, that was the reason I joined the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), so that I wouldn’t have to put up with that kind of treatment.” 

MCpl Cardwell thought about their conversation with WO Ames for a few days afterwards. Everyone in the section seemed fine with the outcome, but they were still very uneasy with the CO’s decision and didn’t know what else they could or should do given their junior rank. 

Categories

• Principles: Respect the Dignity of all Persons, Serve Canada before Self, Obey and Support Lawful Authority
• Values: Courage, Excellence, Integrity, Stewardship
• Cultural themes: Leadership, Teamwork
• Misconduct types: Discrimination
• GBA Plus themes: Sexual Orientation
• Audience: Canadian Armed Forces

Facilitator’s Guide

Learning Objectives

• Discuss the ethical obligations to Respect the dignity of all persons, Serve Canada before self, and Obey and support lawful authority in this scenario. 
• Discuss the ethical values of courage, integrity, stewardship, and excellence in this scenario. 
• Discuss CAF policies on discrimination and how they impact the correct course of action in this scenario.  

Facilitation Questions

1. What is the ethical dilemma in this scenario?  
   • Allow for open group discussion. 
   • The ethical dilemma in this scenario is that MCpl Cardwell must balance their commitment to the CAF and respecting the decision of their superiors with expressing and acting on their concerns about potential discrimination. 
2. What considerations are at play with respect to Defence Ethics and the CAF military ethos? 
   • Allow for open group discussion. 
   • Discuss Respect the dignity of all persons, Serve Canada before self, and Obey and support lawful authority as they apply to this scenario. How do they complement one another? Are there any points where they aren’t fully aligned with each other? 
   • Discuss the values of courage, integrity, stewardship, and excellence in this scenario. Consider elements of leadership’s obligation to stewardship and the wellbeing of their subordinates. 
   • MCpl Cardwell believes that discrimination or unequal treatment based on personal characteristics, including sexual orientation, is unethical and illegal against the Human Right Act and discrimination based on sexual orientation. They are willing to speak up for what they believe is right, even if it means challenging their superior's decision. However, they are also obligated to obey and respect the decision of their superiors based on their junior rank.    
   • The CO, as a lawful authority in the CAF, must ensure that their decisions and actions adhere to the ethical principles and regulations of the CAF, and are not discriminatory in nature or based on personal opinions on sexual orientation.     
3. Should concerns about discrimination be addressed, even if the person involved in the act of discrimination is a senior officer? How should junior members of the CAF navigate and handle ethical concerns when they disagree with the decisions of their superiors? 
   • Allow for open group discussion. 
   • Is there any further action the MCpl can take in this scenario to address the discrimination against CWO Reyes?
   • Speaking up about ethical concerns, especially when there is a legal component, can be challenging, especially when taking into consideration difference in rank. Addressing discrimination is an ethical responsibility for all members/ranks to ensure that the CAF creates a discrimination-free environment.