US Coast Guard says swastika and noose displays are no longer hate incidents

WASHINGTON - The United States Coast Guard is redefining how it views harassment across the service, discarding the concept of “hate incidents” and recasting symbols of hatred, including nooses and swastikas, as “potentially divisive”.

In the past, the display of such symbols was unambiguously cited in policy as “incidents of hatred and prejudice” that “have no place in the Coast Guard”.

But the revised edition of the policy, which goes into effect in December, raises the bar for proving that displaying hate symbols in public merits punishment.

The new instructions, described in a document titled “Harassing Behavior Prevention, Response and Accountability”, was signed on Nov 13 by the Coast Guard’s assistant commandant for personnel, Rear Admiral Charles E. Fosse.

The policy acknowledges that hate symbols, including “representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias,” can “marginalise segments of our work force”.

But displaying them in public, it said, will be considered “divisive” only if they affect “good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale or mission effectiveness”.

Displays of symbols “widely identified with oppression or hatred” in private spaces outside public view are specifically allowed under the new guidance, the document said.

Under the revisions, gender identity will no longer be considered “a protected characteristic”.

In January, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that barred transgender people from serving in uniform.

What is considered harassment in the service, the new directive says, must be based on race, sexual orientation, national origin, physical or mental disabilities or parental status, among others.

But harassment must be “severe or pervasive” to be punishable, the policy says. To meet that standard, the service will apply a “reasonable person standard” test in which another person is hypothetically exposed to the same circumstances as the victim to help determine whether he or she has suffered harm.

To overturn a finding that a person has engaged in harassing behaviour, leaders must determine that the evidence rises above the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used for nonjudicial punishments, but less than the “beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt” standard for criminal cases heard by courts-martial.

The instruction requires victims to report incidents of harassment within 45 days, unless they are of a sexual nature, though it allows for some discretion in reporting after more time has passed. NYTIMES