The Coast Guard’s lengthy, secret examination of conscience on its chronically anemic response to sexual misconduct reports may have started because of a single case.

Operation Fouled Anchor, which reopened records of complaints from 1988 to 2006, appears to have begun in response to questions raised about a former cadet’s experience, and to have grown from that to a decision by investigators to see whether more such cases had failed to get appropriate resolution.

In other words, apparently faced with the tip of an iceberg in 2014, some people in the Coast Guard looked further. The findings evidently looked so bad for the service and for certain individuals in whose careers the Coast Guard had heavily invested that the commandant in 2018, Admiral Karl Schultz, decided to keep the existence of the investigation and its results confidential, even from congressional oversight.

The time period that the report covers begins several years after the academy first admitted women, when the number of female cadets was growing from a token few toward the nearly balanced ratios of women and men now enrolled. The Class of 2023 graduated this spring with 42 percent women as well as 34 percent of cadets from underrepresented minorities.

I asked some women career officers if they would talk about how female Coast Guard personnel have reacted to news of the study’s hidden existence. Some did not wish to, and one reminded me that every woman’s experience would be unique. But sexual misconduct in the service is not news to women cadets of any era.

Looking as far back as the study itself did, it’s clear that the first female cadets walked into a culture where bullying of all kinds occurred constantly. Older cadets bullied younger ones for their regional accents, their height, for mediocre athleticism. It seems as though, for lower-class cadets, the swab summer behaviors of some upperclassmen kept on going. Bullying women would have been a natural progression.

One former officer told me that some male cadets would ask a woman why she was there. “Why would you want to be here if you are a real woman?” Other men tolerated or openly befriended the female cadets, but with an open door policy for dorm rooms, some women were sitting ducks for a determined drunk coming in late at night. CNN, which broke the news of the study’s existence, said it identified 62 substantiated incidents of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment with others not investigated.

The Day has reported periodically for years on attempts by the academy to change the bullying culture with regard to gender and race, in particular. Just the critical mass of today’s cadets and faculty who are not white males is apt to be the factor making the most difference. Still, the Coast Guard continues to face retention problems with young women officers and enlisted who leave the service early in what could have been lengthy careers. While the women no doubt have other reasons besides misbehaving peers and superiors, the overall effect is a high turnover.

Last week, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney announced that he and a bipartisan group of other members of Congress are introducing a bill that would prohibit punishing a Coast Guard cadet who reports being sexually assaulted even if the person making the accusation was engaged in underage drinking or another forbidden activity at the time of the alleged assault.

Cadets at other service academies are already covered under such a Safe-to-Report exemption. The idea is to remove an obstacle to reporting an assault.

While the bill represents an essential step, the overriding issue the Coast Guard must address is that the ultimate betrayal of trust comes when the people who set the ideals and standards fail to protect the ones who are dutifully following the rules. Honor codes, teamwork and respect for the chain of command rest upon the ability to trust, and trust rests on transparency.

Earlier this month retired Adm. Charles Ray, former vice commandant under Schultz, resigned from the Academy’s Loy Institute for Leadership because of his (unspecified) connection to the cover-up. In a letter to the Alumni Association, Ray said he was “resigning for the good of the Service and the good of the Academy,” adding that his action was related to decisions made during his last two years of service.

The former admiral’s resignation expressly reflects that, until recently, he held an active position at the academy. Others who must have been part of the decisions he cited may no longer be directly connected to cadet corps, and thus perhaps see no pressure to publicly acknowledge their actions.

But as many non-military people who failed to address sexual misconduct on their watch have learned, neither the traumatic stress suffered by victims nor the public’s memory of their failure has a statute of limitations.

For betrayal of trust the remedy is justice, and justice delayed is, as it is said, justice denied.

Lisa McGinley is a member of The Day Editorial Board.