Skip to main content
The Army Lawyer | Issue 3 2023View PDF

Court Is Assembled: A Dignity-Focused Approach Is the Key to Developing the Army of Tomorrow

Kristin A. Damigella speaks to the 72nd Graduate
        Course on building inclusive teams. (Credit: Jason
        Wilkerson, TJAGLCS)

Kristin A. Damigella speaks to the 72nd Graduate Course on building inclusive teams. (Credit: Jason Wilkerson, TJAGLCS)

Court Is Assembled

A Dignity-Focused Approach Is the Key to Developing the Army of Tomorrow


The Department of Defense (DoD) Human Goals Charter states:

Our Nation was founded on the principle that each individual has infinite dignity and worth. The [DoD], which exists to keep the Nation secure and at peace, must always be guided by this principle. In all that we do, we must show respect for Service members, [C]ivilian employees, and [F]amily members, recognizing their individual needs, aspirations, and capabilities.1

Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird signed the first Human Goals Charter in 1969 to galvanize the Department’s resolve that all Service members must be treated with dignity and respect. The language in the charter has not changed much over fifty-four years. Subsequent changes have mostly broadened who is included under the umbrella. Secretary of Defense Chuck T. Hagel signed the current version of the charter in 2014 and added sexual orientation as a protected category. It spells out ten goals to achieve an equitable and inclusive DoD. Among some of the notable goals are:

TO make military service in the [DoD] a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin;

TO provide equity in civilian employment regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or genetic information, without reprisal and to provide an environment that is accessible to and usable by all;

TO hold those who do business with or receive assistance from the Department to full compliance with its equal opportunity policies;

. . .

TO create an inclusive environment that values diversity and fosters mutual respect and cooperation among all persons;

. . .

TO foster a culture that treats all individuals as full and equal partners on the National Defense team and encourages the fullest utilization of their skills consistent with DoD policy.2

The charter codifies the DoD’s commitment to equal opportunity and diversity within the U.S. Armed Forces. Signatories include the highest-ranking military and Civilian leaders of the DoD. This level of leadership has signed it to demonstrate their commitment that all will be treated with infinite dignity and respect.

Although the DoD has been committed to most of these goals since 1969, challenges with sexual assault issues and racial disparities continue. An examination of “dignity” and “respect” as separate words, signifying distinct concepts, may explain why these concerns are not relics of the past.

When we see “infinite dignity and worth” in everyone we work with, it can break down barriers.

Often, people think dignity and respect are the same thing. Dr. Donna Hicks, Ph.D, the author of Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict,3 disagrees and says, “Dignity is our inherent value and worth as human beings; everyone is born with it. Respect, on the other hand, is earned through one’s actions.”4 If one looks to the plain meaning of the term, Merriam-Webster defines respect as “to consider worthy of high regard.”5 In an article titled The Relationship Between Respect and Bias, the author, Megan Saxelby, discusses respect as a socialized concept. She states that the definitions available for respect “imply personal opinion and context”; therefore, there is not one universal definition of respect.6

If dignity is a given and all people are born with it, but respect is influenced by our socialization, when we talk about dignity and respect, we need to consider what is “worthy of high regard” and who decides. I propose that it depends on the perception of the person giving respect and their socialization. I also propose that although we conceptually believe all people are born with infinite dignity and worth, we sometimes allow our biases to hijack the process and how we extend respect. If dignity is defined as an individual’s inherent worth, but respect is the action of recognizing that worth—a process on which our biases exert influence—we will need to take intentional actions to identify and disrupt this bias.

Dr. Hicks recommends discussing dignity and our understanding of each person’s inherent worth prior to engaging in conflict resolution. Ensuring that all parties to the conversation are aware that we all have a desire to be valued can break down barriers. Dr. Hicks says, “Our shared desire for dignity transcends all of our differences, putting our common human identity above all else.”7 She continues, “While our uniqueness is important, history has shown us that if we don’t take the next step toward recognizing our shared identity, conflicts in our workplace, our personal lives, and between nations will continue to abound.”8 Focusing on dignity and the human need to be valued is critical.

Ms. Saxelby recommends “using dignity in place of respect . . . because it replaces biased concepts of respect with universal recognition of worth and value as the foundation for culture and relationships.”9 Approaching every relationship from the perspective that we are all worthy of respect could be transformative. She also suggests that we should examine our own perceptions of respect by asking questions such as: How do I define respect? How did I come to understand my definition? How did my life experiences impact who I respect and why? Does my perception limit who I see as valuable? Why do I feel my perception of respect is the “right” one? How might my definition of respect impede someone else’s ability to succeed? Only through this type of self-reflection will we identify our own biases around respect.

In the diversity, equity, and inclusion arena, I think dignity is key. When we see “infinite dignity and worth” in everyone we work with, it can break down barriers. It can put us on the trajectory to tap into all the talents each person brings to the table. Focusing on infinite dignity allows us to see the person objectively separate from their behavior. It allows us to value the person and acknowledge that we are all a work in progress. It accepts that we are all human and will make mistakes. Focusing on each person’s inherent worth enables us to help each other course correct when we make mistakes. It instills in us the responsibility to help each other be the best version of ourselves and enables our collective development. A dignity-centered approach10 provides a platform for developing the agile, innovative, and inclusive force we need for today and tomorrow’s challenges. It ensures we can all “Be All We Can Be.” TAL


Ms. Damigella is the Director of the Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in the Office of the Judge Advocate General at the Pentagon.


Notes

1. U.S. Dep’t of Def., Human Goals (n.d.), https://home.army.mil/benelux/index.php/download_file/view/354/734.

2. Id.

3. Donna Hicks, Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict (2011).

4. Donna Hicks, What Is the Real Meaning of Dignity?, Psych. Today (Apr. 10, 2013), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dignity/201304/what-is-the-real-meaning-dignity-0.

5. Respect, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect (last visited Aug. 2, 2023).

6. Megan Saxelby, The Relationship Between Respect and Bias, Megan Saxelby (Sept. 24, 2020), http://megansaxelby.com/2020/09/24/the-relationship-between-respect-and-bias.

7. Hicks, supra note 4.

8. Id.

9. Saxelby, supra note 6.

10. For more information on the Dignity-Centered Approach, see Dignity Model, Organizing Engagement, https://organizingengagement.org/models/dignity-model (last visited Aug. 2, 2023).