Can someone order you to answer a question that pertains to your personal ideas?

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 04:07:55 -0500

So, the SITREP behind my question is as follows, during a sensitivity training, an instructor was using the "shotgun" method(asking members to answer questions directly), an E5 was called upon to answer a question that pertained to their personal thoughts on an issue, the member did not want to answer because they felt uncomfortable sharing their personal opinion on the matter, an O5 then interrupts the training and tells the E5 to answer the question, the E5 simply answers "No Sir" this happened three times until his E7 tries to convince the E5 to just answer the question, then the E5 response saying that he feels uncomfortable sharing his personal opinion on the matter and that it is insensitive to make him answer, then training then continues, now a week later that E5 has EMI for what happened in the training.
So the question is can someone order you to answer a question that is based on their personal opinion?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Nov 4 at 2015 4:31 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 04:31:02 -0500

I would say "I do not feel comfortable discussing that." If it's that important, I would refuse the EMI and ask for a Request Mast to tell the Captain why.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 5:55 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:55:14 -0500

I am not sure what EMI is, but whatever it is I believe the instructor should be the one getting it. When the SM said I do not have an answer or do not want to answer, the instructor should've asked someone else instead.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Nov 4 at 2015 6:21 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:21:06 -0500

You must conform or be punished. This is the new approach to try to root out any that do not accept the DoD line on whatever the topic du jor is. This is how many PC policies will be forced upon people. They will be asked and forced to lie, refuse to answer or knuckle under. Until we have a change in leadership at the very top this will likely continue.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 4 at 2015 6:57 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 06:57:19 -0500

Yes. Unless the order needlessly endangers self, others, or violates a regulation or law you can cite. Follow the order.

That said, you can lead with "I'm really not comfortable answering that question in public. May we discuss this issue privately."

Keep in mind there may be mitigating circumstances like information which is not theirs to share, or fear of reprisal, especially when asking questions in a Public forum.

The E7 & O5 never should have placed the E5 in that position (without knowing the exact content/context of the question). The Irony here is that it happened during Sensitivity Training.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 7:04 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 07:04:53 -0500

If I remember correctly the UCMJ has an article which is like the 5th amendment,

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Nov 4 at 2015 7:12 AM

SCPO Joshua I — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 07:12:19 -0500

It's a lawful order. Not much to discuss beyond that. It's not necessarily always the right thing for an instructor/facilitator to do, but we're monday morning quarterbacking and the O-5 certainly has the authority to issue the order.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 4 at 2015 7:34 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 07:34:18 -0500

Absolutely not personal beliefs are exactly that.... personal and therefore I consider them private.

Response by Cpl Dave D made Nov 4 at 2015 7:57 AM

Cpl Dave D — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 07:57:59 -0500

I know we give up many of our rights and freedoms when entering the military, but is the 5th amendment one of them? Can we really be forced to answer a personal question in public? Especially when certain opinions could get us into legal trouble... When I FAP'd out to military police, we still informed suspects that they do have the right to remain silent. So why not warriors that are jit in trouble? This sounds like a power happy PO and officer. Sounds pretty unnecessary to me.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 8:17 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 08:17:13 -0500

The question was answered, but the answer is not what the instructor was not prepared for that answer.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 8:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 08:30:30 -0500

I don't think so, but I would have chosen another reaponse so they would move on. Sad, but it happens.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Nov 4 at 2015 9:50 AM

CMSgt James Nolan — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:50:41 -0500

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member Do you know if there was any more to the story? For example, was the PO2 making faces, shaking his/her head, rolling his/her eyes etc? That could prompt the instructor to single him/her out.
If there were no outside influences that prompted the O-5 to single out the PO2, that would be different. If that were not the case (mitigating reasons for the call out), I would call that "sensitivity" training an absolute fail. By putting that PO2 on the spot, that O-5 alienated every person in that class.
The theory behind that training is to share your experiences when you are comfortable, not to be forced to speak.
Can an order be issued? Yes. Should it have been? I do not think so. (unless, that PO2 was bucking)

That training is significantly more effective with participation, as views get expressed, opinions get shared, and wait for it...sometimes minds change.
Were it me as the instructor, unless someone was acting out, I would not put them on the spot. If I had an issue with a student, I would remove them and we would then reach an understanding.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 4 at 2015 9:56 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:56:48 -0500

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member - First, the O-5 can certainly order the E-5 to answer the question, however, I think to do so was out of line and probably unenforceable if it went to non-judicial punishment or court-martial. I know that I would overturn it on appeal, if it came to me.

Requiring people to publicly state their personal opinions about certain issues (religion, homosexuality, politics, etc.) is wrong. In fact, that should be discouraged, not encouraged or required.

I would recommend that people confronted with such a question simply state, "I have no personal opinion about that".

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 4 at 2015 10:35 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 10:35:17 -0500

You answered your own question when you noted the EMI for refusing to answer. It is better for the individual to gundeck it; tell them what they want to hear, the exercise is all BS anyway.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 12:26 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:26:07 -0500

I think that one can probably surmise what the subject of the class was.
Thing is, if the question is what is your personal opinion, you SHOULD be free to express it. If someone asks me what I think, I will tell them and it should not be in fear of reprisal. That Commander changed the game when he jumped in and asserted his will on that Petty Officer.

Guess what? I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I think that gay service members can serve admirably and with distinction.
I think transgender issues go far beyond what you "identify" as and those may well complicate service.
I think BOTH people are responsible when they get drunk and have sex, not just the male participant.
I think that it is cool that females are going to and successfully completing Ranger School. I also think that those same outstanding women would have a very difficult time hacking it on the line every day. On this, I am open-minded enough to be proven wrong.

BUT, none of that impedes my support and execution of Army policy, nor it's enforcement in my ranks.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 2:26 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:26:53 -0500

No, he doesnt have to share his personal thoughts/feelings. But next time he can just bullshit about his personal thoughts and call it a day instead of going against the grain.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Nov 4 at 2015 3:12 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:12:27 -0500

If I have to share my opinion, I will not hold back, I will be brutal if I am pushed to answer but tactfully. That [E5] could have went a different route instead of saying no. So what was asked?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 4 at 2015 3:36 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:36:23 -0500

I don't know about regulations, but it seems it was in poor taste.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 8:00 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:00:41 -0500

They can order....whether I would follow that order is another issue. No one gets a free ticket inside my head. That's a violation of the 4th amendment...

Response by SPC William Del Valle made Nov 4 at 2015 8:09 PM

SPC William Del Valle — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:09:27 -0500

I would say Yes, they can make you answer the question, however they cannot tell you how to answer it. I know if that was me I would have said something like “ at this moment I feel as though I cannot answer the question without receiving negative feedback from my superiors, peers and subordinates”.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Nov 5 at 2015 12:57 AM

PO3 John Jeter — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:57:27 -0500

My response would have been "SIR! With all due respect, If the military wishes me to have an opinion on this subject I am quite certain it will be issued to me. Until that point I have nothing to offer. That is my personal opinion. SIR! Then sit down and shut up. If they have a problem with that we can go through the process.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Nov 5 at 2015 11:43 AM

SGT Scott Bell — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:43:40 -0500

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Nov 5 at 2015 10:58 PM

PFC Robert Falk — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 22:58:49 -0500

One would think not but this day and age they want to know everything about you, your thoughts on everything.

Response by Sgt Jerami Ballard made Nov 5 at 2015 11:25 PM

Sgt Jerami Ballard — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 23:25:58 -0500

No, it is an unlawful order as it doesn't in effect contribute to the discharge of official duties.
We are very often battered over the head in the military with the thoughts and opinions of others but we quickly forget that we are legally allowed to withhold our words and selves unless under judicial review.

I would advise the E-5 to challenge the EMI and contact a SJA as soon as possible because it is unusual and unfair punishment.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Nov 6 at 2015 1:41 AM

SPC Luis Mendez — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 01:41:42 -0500

Well yes of course, if that someone is in a post of Authority over me, in a Court of Law for example, my Boss at work etc. Especially if it may be pertinent, like a Policeman at the scene of an Accident or Crime. What I mean by this is; it has to be someone who is somebody, a big shot, the big wig somewhere. Now whether I answer or not that's a whole other story. He/she whoever may be can order ALL he/she wants or is entitled to, but I can refuse to answer under the 5th or just simply say; I don't know, I don't have an opinion.

In the Military however is a whole other story, the Military is a world of its own, a different scenario, duties and responsibilities. So it's possible that I would have to answer such a question while on Duty. Maybe off post or on my free time no, but on Duty while on training, if it may be pertinent, which usually is. Yes I may have to answer to someone who is somebody.

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Nov 6 at 2015 4:59 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 04:59:26 -0500

Wow. Talk about trying to lead him through a mine field! If they disagree with his opinion he could be screwed worse than getting EMI. They could twist things around so no matter what answer he gave, it would be wrong. I guess there's ways to give "safe" answers like telling them he has no opinion. He's just a Sailor, there to do a job and he'll leave such and such topics to his seniors to worry about. I think he handled it in a smart way.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Nov 6 at 2015 7:03 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 07:03:09 -0500

Even before I retired (and that has been some years) interjecting ones personal opinion into something dealing with "sensitivity" or issues thereof was akin to skipping drunk thru a minefield and to be avoided at all costs. Today is even worse in a public or business setting unless among friends and something spoken in jest or not to the current political correct bent can have an unplanned snowball affect. As someone stated earlier, it is best just to state you have "no opinion on that particular subject".

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2015 10:17 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:17:47 -0500

Members of the military have rights under the U.S. Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and the military's own regulations. If you are in the military, you probably know by now that the military doesn't tell you much about your rights but it does very well at reminding you of your responsibilities. Personal opinion, that's a tricky one and there are two sides to this. The first is that DoD Directive 1325.6 promises that "The Service members' right of expression should be preserved to the maximum extent possible, consistent with good order and discipline and the national security." The other side is that expressing your own opinions can be used by others that do not share your views to make your work environment hard by facing informal harassment from co-workers and superiors. Sometimes situations that look innocent in nature like a simple question leads to retaliation in the form of poor performance evaluations, bad recommendations, and bogus disciplinary charges. It's important to think about whether you are vulnerable. Is there anything in your record (tardiness, poor pt performance, etc.) or any action pending against you that might be a problem if your command wants to cause you trouble?. The short answer is you may speak your mind but you took an oath to join the armed forces so as a civilian you have rights, as a soldier you have rights as long as they don't interfere with UNIT MORALE and NATIONAL SECURITY. Unit morale can be used by your command to punish you, and national security can be used by the commander and the federal government in general to make a case against you if something you said really offended your command and can be interpreted as an offense to the armed forces, commander in chief and/or if you revealed any classified information in your answer. How can you avoid this? The best way to protect yourself is to be prepared in advance. Before you exercise your rights, read the regulations. If you don't have a clue about the regulations as it happened to the E-5 when he was called to answer then you should consider this If officials ask you questions about subjects that could get you in trouble, even if you believe you were in the right, you have a right under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and Article 31 the UCMJ not to answer. You don't have a right to lie. LYING can get you in trouble. Saying "I don't know" when you do know is a lie. Saying "I exercise my rights under the Fifth Amendment and Article 31 not to respond to that question" or if you are called into your commanders office to inform you of charges against you under UCMJ then you can say "I choose not to respond to your questions before consulting with an attorney" and this should not get you in trouble. If you are already facing charges then an attorney or civilian counselor can help you to be sure you have as much protection as possible against harassment or retaliation. The armed forces has a whole legal branch (JAG) with unlimited resources, lawyers and paralegals working in a room trying to find a way to chew you up and throw you out so get legal advice and stay on top of it because only you can take care of yourself in these matters.
I hope this answered your question and any more that might arise if the situation escalates into a more complex one.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Nov 6 at 2015 10:55 AM

CW3 Jim Norris — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:55:53 -0500

Nope, unless it pertains to an opinion about the enemies situation or deployment or assets.....then it would be foolish not to say, 'I think saw 10 T82's over that ridge, at least I think they where 82's and in my opinion they where refueling'........But, 'Sargent, what do you think about same sex marriage'? Nope, and it would be crappy leadership to ask such in ANY forum as a leader, unless your a Chaplin of the service members belief and are speaking in that office. It could very possibly be harassment in the situation you describe. OK navy due, what's an EMI?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Nov 6 at 2015 11:35 AM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:35:26 -0500

I do not think it should be allowed for someone to be ordered to answer something personal, however if it's work related, then yes.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 6 at 2015 12:18 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:18:26 -0500

I think the question you pose is broader than your SITREP, so IT DEPENDS is my answer. We order crewmembers sitting nuclear alert duty to answer a long list of questions pertaining to their personal ideas and ideals. It is part of their certification and PRP status. It is needed because the government needs to have confidence you will press the button or pickle the bomb when ordered to do so, even though you know millions will die. We simply can't afford conscientious objectors on nuclear alert. So under my SITREP, the answer is Yes, they can order you, and the order is lawful.

Response by PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole made Nov 6 at 2015 12:20 PM

PO1 Cleve Ikaika Waiwaiole — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:20:21 -0500

Many officers or chiefs don't really like a flat out "No" as an answer.. especially from someone junior to them, in a room of a lot of people... maybe if the E-5 responded with a little more feedback I think that it wouldn't have escalated to that level. for an example: "Sir, I don't have any personal opinion on this subject"

Response by MSgt John Carroll made Nov 6 at 2015 6:00 PM

MSgt John Carroll — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:00:02 -0500

They can order you but it is not a lawful order.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Nov 6 at 2015 6:55 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:55:28 -0500

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member Now that I have read a significant number of opinions and see that some senior NCO's are in disagreement. I have to ask two things:
1. What was the question asked or the issue under discussion?
2. Exactly what was the subject of the EMI?
Since this was supposed to be sensitivity training, answering my first question should not be an issue. However, the second question that I have posed may not be answerable on your part, I understand, but then without an answer to that, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to determine if the EMI was fair and applicable to the circumstances.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 7 at 2015 1:46 AM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 01:46:24 -0500

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member The truth is that this is a lawful order, so the Commander can do this. However, if -I- was on the receiving end of this, I'd say what I thought the guy wanted to hear, and then make a friggen BEELINE for the Command Master Chief before the last person from that class sat down to their next meal.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 1:55 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 01:55:09 -0500

That doesn't sound like a legal order to me. If I didn't want to share my opinion, I certainly wouldn't, and I'd definitely speak up to stop that situation if it occurred. That O-5 and the E-7 should both be ashamed of themselves.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Nov 7 at 2015 4:05 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 16:05:59 -0500

Its a definite gray area. Training is supposed to focus on professional matters and when you get personal it can cause discomfort to some.
An example would be if the E5 answered the question and the O5 didn't like the answer or was offended by the answer then what?
To give EMI after the fact for not answering a question that was seeking a personal opinion is, in my opinion, retaliation for making the O5 and E7 look bad. I don't think there is any other reason for the EMI, I mean why else would they assign EMI, the training was attended, and the question, although not answered specifically was answered to the best of the E5's ability at the moment.
Seems like the O5 and E7 need lessons not only in sensitivity training but also in leadership.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 11:06 PM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:06:00 -0500

Negative. That would be an unlawful order and service members do not need to discuss their personal views or anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.. Service members are protected under various programs in the Navy, many under 21st Century Sailor. I would have advised the Sailor to refuse signing any counseling sheet and to seek legal advice or bring it up with a higher member in the chain. . .

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2018 5:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:59:12 -0400

Yes, unless it's a violation of their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination. Plus, no NCO should be unwilling to share their opinion, for "discomfort". How can one be, "the backbone of the Army" when they have no spine?

Response by SGM Gerald Fife made Jul 24 at 2020 3:01 PM

SGM Gerald Fife — Fri, 24 Jul 2020 15:01:47 -0400

I had a similar experience a long, long time ago. I gave them my answer, which they didn't like, then there was the threat of being failed. So I gave them them the answer they wanted to hear. I graduated and that was that. It is what is "go along to get along." A question on personal thoughts is nothing but an opinion. Opinions are worth just that. And maybe later your opinion you had will change. And we all have opinions here on RP, as experienced by some of the answers everyone writes. Including me.