Adultery in Uniform Not Easily Dismissed

In the civilian world, the scarlet letter has faded to a deep blush. But as the leading candidate for the nation’s top military post learned Thursday, the public shame of adultery can leave a searing “A” on a service member’s record and promotion prospects.

At a time when almost 1 in 5 Americans admits to having had an adulterous relationship, public opinion experts say we are deeply ambivalent about marital infidelity--our own and those of our leaders.

Roughly 75% of Americans strongly disapprove of such extramarital affairs. But with so many sinners in our midst, we are forgiving of those who stray from our moral ideals.

Yet if the offender is a candidate for the nation’s highest military office, the question of what is a forgivable fault and what is a breach of duty is a grave one. At stake now is not only the career of an officer with 32 years of service, but the credibility and effectiveness of the organization he hopes to lead.

At a minimum, as President Clinton learned in 1992, a philandering candidate for public office needs the forgiveness of his spouse to withstand a tide of public reproach.

But military experts and ethicists say a senior officer who is caught violating his marriage vows needs much more if the institution of the military is to be protected from corrosive influences.

He needs the forgiveness of his superiors. He needs the unwavering respect of his troops. And he needs the support of a watchful public that must be convinced he is not being held to a standard different from that which applies to the lowliest soldier.

By Thursday, Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston had the first of those well in hand. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen bestowed his own forgiveness on Wednesday, telling reporters that Ralston’s long and compelling service record outweighed “one act of human failing.”

And by Thursday, as Washington swirled with news of Ralston’s 1984 dalliance, there were indications that the nation’s troops, weary of the public’s intense scrutiny of their private conduct, were inclined to defend the beleaguered general.

But in contrast to the publicized unfaithfulness of a politician, for example, in which the primary threat is to an individual’s career, the handling of adultery cases involving military officers also affects the institution--and, ultimately, the nation itself.

And among ethicists and public opinion experts, it remained unclear Thursday how Ralston’s potential promotion would affect the military’s status as one of the nation’s most admired institutions.

“If the military has to take the position that we expect officers to set a level of morality that includes being true to their oaths, I say more power to them,” said Yale Law School’s Stephen L. Carter, author of a book titled “Integrity.” “But they’ve got to apply it to everybody. They can’t say it’s wrong, but that if you’re senior enough, then maybe it’s OK.”

That moral standards be applied consistently matters both within the service and outside it. For as deeply as Americans disapprove of marital infidelity, they value fairness, according to those who gauge Americans’ attitudes toward their public institutions.

If Americans believe the military is using its moral authority over its members unfairly, it will diminish their respect for it and, ultimately, erode its public support.

“Because the public has very high expectations about the moral and ethical standards to which the military is held, they’re particularly inclined to think that the administration of those standards has to be evenhanded,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

But while experts agree that military officials must enforce their standards consistently, they acknowledge that the separate question of which standards the military should apply will be a delicate balance.

To maintain the respect of Americans, service members must be held to a standard that is closer to Americans’ ideals than it is to their errant behavior, according to Yale’s Carter. And to uphold discipline in its own ranks, the armed forces cannot afford to send the message that an individual’s solemn oath can be breached without penalty.

At the same time, that standard must not appear to be unreasonable to civilians, who are forgiving of their own infidelities. For if it does, Americans will lose their sense of connectedness to the military.

“I think that most Americans are on the verge of concluding that maybe the military is going too far in the defense of its ideals,” said the University of Maryland’s William Galston, executive director of the National Commission on Civic Renewal.

To many who take the nation’s moral pulse, the treatment of Ralston in this instance will be a test of how well Defense Department leaders can strike the balance between upholding the nation’s moral ideals and accounting for the public’s sense of forgiveness.

“Of course, you could say that members of the military should be held to a higher standard, that they should somehow represent our national moral aspirations,” said Carter. “And that’s good. But the question still remains: What to do when their humanity shows and they fall short? The question is what the penalty ought to be.”

With Ralston having been found guilty of adultery in the court of public opinion, Galston says, Americans will focus now on the “penalty phase.”

In that, they will look for the kind of fairness and proportionality they would apply to themselves or their neighbor in similar circumstances.

“If it becomes too unbending, then the whole principle is undermined,” said Northwestern University’s Charles Moskos, a leading military sociologist. What is needed, he said, “is a happy medium.”

While that may seem like hypocrisy to many, it is really a bow to reality. And, Moskos added, “a little bit of hypocrisy doesn’t hurt.”