Review into the treatment of women at the Australian Defence Force ...

Such a lecture may provide a starting point for education in the area, but would not of itself meet theintent of the Recommendation.There were mixed reactions from undergraduates and staff about the 2012 sexual ethics lecture. Thelectures were interactive, and undergraduates were encouraged to text questions and comments to thefacilitator. Some spoke positively about this, but others felt that the way this lecture played out madelight of an important topic. One undergraduate said that:I think they should have been a bit more serious. A lot of the material affected me and a fewothers and it’s just hard when you’re sitting in that class and a lot of people laugh about stuffthat you don’t find funny at all. That’s just really hard to take. People have to realise that there’scertain material that isn’t funny and should be presented a lot more seriously than it was. 11This view was reinforced by several staff members who attended these lectures. One told the Audit thatthe mode of interaction gave undergraduates:the opportunity to be anonymous and crass, and as 17 and 18 year olds will they took thatopportunity, and it detracted enormously from the value of the presentation. 12Another said that the interaction was ‘a bit of a free for all [because] they could write whatever theywanted and they got a bit stupid.’ 13The ‘unhealthy attractions’ lecture was provided to all years and sought to:provide an understanding of how obsessive interpersonal attraction develops, how to identifyproblem behaviours and how to intervene to prevent this behaviour becoming worse. 14Responses about the ‘unhealthy attractions’ presentation were generally positive. 15The reactions noted above highlight the need for a well-designed, integrated, and expertly deliveredprogram in this important area. Unfortunately, the Audit cannot comment on whether the 2013 ‘sexualethics’ program meets these needs, as it did not receive module materials or have the opportunity toattend any presentations prior to the completion of the Audit.The Audit has received the 2013 program outline (noted above) which appears sound, but questionsremain about the scope and content that will be delivered, and who the facilitators of the modules willbe. 16The Audit understands that the package will be delivered by a combination of chaplains, equity anddiversity staff, psychologists, Divisional officers and squadron commanders, 17 however the ADFA Reportcalled for the program to be delivered by ‘an external expert in gender relations, sexual ethics andhealthy and respectful relationships, in collaboration with ADFA.’ 18 The Audit heard that, in part, the needto deliver the package with internal staff is due to logistical issues – that is, facilitating many sessionsover a period of time to fit in with AMET and university commitments. However, sexual ethics trainingmust be a priority. The Audit appreciates the timetabling constraints at ADFA however sexual ethics is avery sensitive and sometimes confronting topic. A high degree of expertise and sensitivity is required toaddress the issues, and possibly disclosures, which can emerge during or after these sessions.There remain questions about how well the ADFA staff tasked with delivering these modules will satisfythe Recommendation for an ‘expert educator’, and how approachable they will be for undergraduatesdealing with sensitive matters. However, the Audit acknowledges that the 2012 program, delivered by acivilian, encountered issues of discipline, which may have been on account of its administration by an‘outsider’.Audit Report: Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy • 2013 • 95