The Efficacy Of
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
There is no more intimate
relationship . . . they eat and sleep
together. They use the same facilities
day after day. They are compel ed to
stay together in the closest association.
—U.S. Senator describing the life of a Soldier
Experiments within the Army in
the solution of social problems are
fraught with danger to efficiency,
discipline, and morale.
—U.S. Army general officer
ce (Shelley Gill)
By O m P r a k a s h
U.S. Air For
The Efficacy of
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tel ”
Homosexual Servicemembers
have had to compromise their
personal integrity by keeping
their sexuality secret
Colonel Om Prakash, USAF, wrote this essay while a student at the National War Col ege.
It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition.
88
88 JFQ
JFQ / / issue 55, 4th
issue 55, 4 quarter 2009
th
quarter 2009
ndupress.ndu.edu
PRAKASH
Though the epigraphs echo
Pentagon policy, subject to the executive
arguments made against
orders of the President. As a companion to the
homosexuals serving openly in
DADT policy, Congress permanently stifled
the Armed Forces, they are the
this route, to the chagrin of the President.
words of Senator Richard Russell of Georgia
To preclude any future action to lift the ban
and General Omar Bradley in opposition
via executive order, Congress wrote into law,
to President Truman’s 1948 executive order
“Pursuant to the powers conferred by Section
to racially integrate the U.S. military.1 The
U.S. Army
8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United
discourse has gone beyond what is best for the
Opposition to homosexuals serving openly in
States, it lies within the discretion of the Con-
military is reminiscent of opposition to President
combat effectiveness of the military to become
Harry Truman’s desegregation of military
gress to establish qualifications for and condi-
a vehicle for those seeking both to retract and
tions of service in the armed forces.”7
expand homosexual rights throughout society.
It has used experts in science, law, budgeting,
has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect
Rationale
and military experience in an effort to settle
as homosexuals serving, estimated to be over
During congressional debate, there
an issue deeply tied to social mores, religion,
65,000,4 must compromise personal integrity.
were three components to the argument sup-
and personal values.
Given the growing gap between social mores
porting the ban on homosexuals serving in
A turning point in the debate came in
and the law, DADT may do damage to the
the military: health risks, lifestyle risks, and
1993. Keeping a promise made during his
very unit cohesion that it seeks to protect.
unit cohesion.8
campaign, President Bill Clinton attempted
Finally, it has placed commanders in a posi-
The Army Surgeon General offered
to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the
tion where they are expected to know every-
statistics showing a homosexual lifestyle
military. After strong resistance from the
thing about their troops except this one aspect.
was associated with high rates of HIV/AIDS,
leadership in both the Pentagon and Congress,
hepatitis B, and other sexually transmitted
a compromise was reached as Congress passed Origins
diseases. Aside from the increased health risk,
10 United States Code §654, colloquially
During the 1992 campaign, Presidential
statistics also showed a homosexual lifestyle
known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).2
hopeful Bill Clinton made homosexuals in the
was associated with high rates of promiscu-
This law, which allowed homosexuals to serve
military a political issue, promising to change
ity, alcoholism, and drug abuse.9 Ultimately,
as long as they did not admit their orientation,
the Pentagon’s policy that only heterosexuals
neither of the first two arguments made it
survived the Clinton and Bush administra-
could serve in the military.5 On taking office,
into the rationale offered in §654—ostensibly
tions essentially unchanged. Repealing the
because these risk factors are not uniquely
ban on homosexuals serving openly was also a
associated with homosexuality and could be
campaign promise of Barack Obama, though
it is necessary to consider
screened for and dealt with in a manner other
ce (Shelley Gill)
his transition team stated that they did not
the evidence as to whether
than determining sexual orientation.
plan to tackle the issue until 2010.3 As this
homosexuality is a choice, as
The central argument, and the only
U.S. Air For
debate reignites, it is worthwhile to reexamine
the courts have traditionally
one that made it into law, rested on unit
the original premises that went into forming
cohesion. The final language adopted by
protected immutable
the DADT policy, explore the cost and effec-
Congress stated:
characteristics
tiveness of the law, and finally, with 16 years
of societal drift, revisit the premises on which
One of the most critical elements in combat
it is based.
President Clinton initially assumed the ban
capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds
There are five central issues. First, §654
could be lifted with an executive order, similar of trust among individual service members
has had a significant cost in both personnel
to the method President Harry Truman used
that make the combat effectiveness of a
and treasure. Second, the stated premise
to racially desegregate the military. He met
military unit greater than the sum of the
of the law—to protect unit cohesion and
fierce opposition in Congress led by Senator
combat effectiveness of the individual unit
combat effectiveness—is not supported by any
Sam Nunn (D–GA), who organized extensive
members. . . . The presence in the armed
scientific studies. Strong emotional appeals
House and Senate Armed Services Commit-
forces of persons who demonstrate a propen-
are available to both sides. However, societal
tee (HASC and SASC, respectively) hearings
sity or intent to engage in homosexual acts
views have grown far more accommodating
on the ban of homosexuals in the military.
would create an unacceptable risk to the
in the last 16 years, and there are now foreign
Two other factions emerged in Congress, one
high standards of morale, good order and
military experiences that the United States can arguing for a complete repeal of the ban. A
discipline, and unit cohesion that are the
draw from. Third, it is necessary to consider
third compromise faction final y prevailed
essence of military capability.10
the evidence as to whether homosexuality
with the position that went on to become
is a choice, as the courts have traditionally
DADT, allowing homosexuals to serve as long
Associated Costs
protected immutable characteristics. To date,
as it was done in secret.6
Before the inception of DADT, the rates
though, the research remains inconclusive.
Aside from the fierce divide in opinions,
of discharge for homosexuality had been
Fourth, the law as it currently stands does
the debate also turned into a contest between
steadily falling since 1982. Once the law was
not prohibit homosexuals from serving in the
Article I and Article II of the Constitution.
passed, rates climbed, more than doubling by
military as long as they keep it secret. This
Previously the ban on homosexuals was a
2001 before beginning to fall again.11 Since
ndupress.ndu.edu
issue 55, 4th quarter 2009 / JFQ 89
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
the reasons, the fact remains that because of
President Clinton attempted
DADT, those Servicemembers no longer serve.
to fulfill campaign promise
to lift ban on homosexuals
It is also worth noting that the 12,500 figure
in the military
is most likely low since it cannot capture the
number of individuals who do not reenlist or
who choose to separate because of the intense
personal betrayal they felt continuing to serve
under the auspices of DADT.
In a report released in February 2005,
the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) estimated the financial impact to be
at least $190.5 million for the previous 10
years of DADT policy. However, a University
of California Blue Ribbon Commission that
included former Secretary of Defense William
Perry questioned the report’s methodology.
The commission faulted the GAO for not
including recruiting and separation costs that
brought the 10-year estimate to $363 million.15
U.S. Navy (Bob McRoy)
Also worth noting is that these figures do
not account for the additional opportunity
1994, the Services have discharged nearly
the number of discharges for homosexual
costs of high-profile, prized specialties such as
12,500 Servicemembers under the law.12
acts actually declined over the years.14
Arabic speakers.16
There are various explanations for
The drop in discharges under the law
If one considers strictly the lost man-
the rise in discharges for homosexuality
since 9/11 has been used by both sides in
power and expense, DADT is a costly failure.
after 1993. One is that the increase reflects
support of their case. Gay rights advocates
Proponents of lifting the ban on homosexuals
how discharges are recorded rather than an
stated the military now needed every person
serving openly can easily appeal to emotion
underlying change in practices. A senior Air
it could get, so it looked the other way, but an
given the large number of people lost and
Force Judge Advocate points out that prior to
equally compelling argument is that in the
treasure spent—an entire division of Soldiers
the change in the law, homosexual discharge
wake of the events of 9/11, pride and desire to
and two F–22s. Opponents of lifting the ban
actions during basic military training were
serve reduced the numbers of those making
offer interesting but weak arguments when
classified as fraudulent enlistments because
voluntary statements in an effort to avoid
they compare the relatively small numbers
the person had denied being a homosexual
further duty. An Air Force source also argues
of discharges for homosexuality with those
when he or she enlisted and later changed
against the perceived need for personnel
discharged for drug abuse or other offenses.
position. After the change in the law, the Air
contributing in any way to the Air Force data
It is necessary to look past both of these
Force no longer collected the information
because the response to indications of homo-
arguments, remove the emotion, and instead
during the enlistment process, so fraudulent
sexuality has remained unchanged. The Air
examine the primary premise of the law—that
enlistment was no longer an option, and
open homosexuality will lead to a disruption
the Air Force began characterizing the dis-
of unit cohesion and impact combat effective-
charges as homosexual conduct. Gay rights
commanders reported
ness. If that assumption holds, then the troops
advocates argued that the increase was due
fear of being accused of
lost and money spent could be seen as a neces-
to commanders conducting “witch hunts,”
discrimination and only
sity in order to maintain combat effectiveness
yet commanders also reported fear of being
processing discharges when a just as other Servicemembers unfit for duty
accused of discrimination and only process-
must be discharged.
case of “telling” was dumped
ing discharges when a case of “telling” was
in their laps
dumped in their laps.13 Another explanation
Unit Cohesion/Combat Effectiveness
is that given the law and recent reduction
In 1993, as the language was drafted for
in stigma associated with homosexuality
Force investigates all cases when presented
§654, there were no direct scientific studies
in society at large, simply declaring one
with credible evidence or a voluntary state-
regarding the effects of acknowledged homo-
is homosexual, whether true or not, is the
ment and has initiated discharge proceedings
sexuals on either unit cohesion or combat
fastest way to avoid further military commit-
in all cases when the inquiry reveals a basis
effectiveness. Furthermore, it is incorrect
ment and receive an honorable discharge. In
for such action.
to equate the two because unit cohesion is
support of this supposition, Charles Moskos,
Though the arguments explaining the
only one of many factors that go into combat
one of the original authors of DADT, points
patterns in discharges are compelling on both
effectiveness. Potentially far outweighing unit
out that the number of discharges for
sides, ultimately it is difficult to prove any one
cohesion, for example, are logistics, training,
voluntary statements by Servicemembers
factor because each explanation only partially
equipment, organization, and leadership, just
accounted for 80 percent of the total, while
explains the trends. Furthermore, whatever
to name a few.
90 JFQ / issue 55, 4th quarter 2009
ndupress.ndu.edu
PRAKASH
Testimony before the HASC and SASC
sion, the factors include leadership, group size,
a high percentage of identical twins share
involved speculation on possible impacts
shared threat, and past success. Interestingly,
a characteristic (such as green eyes) while a
from psychologists and military leaders.17 To
success seems to promote cohesion to a greater lower percentage of nonidentical twins share
date, there is still no direct scientific evidence
degree than cohesion promotes success.21
that trait, it suggests there is a genetic basis.
regarding homosexuals serving openly, but
This leads to the conclusion that
Conversely, if identical and nonidentical twins
there is now additional empirical data as
integration of open homosexuals might
share a characteristic at equal rates (such as
several North Atlantic Treaty Organization
degrade social cohesion because of the lack
preference for the color red), it suggests there
Allies have since lifted the ban on homosexu-
of homogeneity; however, the effects can be
is not a genetic basis. With homosexuality, a
als serving.
mitigated with leadership and will further
number of twin studies attempted this type
Though unit cohesion is not specifi-
dissipate with familiarity. More importantly,
of isolation, and while early studies seemed to
cally defined in §654, it does refer to “bonds
task cohesion should not be affected and is in
indicate a genetic linkage, follow-on studies
of trust,” the sum being greater than the
fact the determinant in group success. Given
found the error rate too high based on sample
individuals, and “high standards of morale,
that homosexuals who currently serve do so
selection.23 Repeat studies showed a genetic
good order and discipline.” The Dictionary
at great personal expense and professional
linkage, if it existed, was only moderately
risk, RAND interviews suggest such individu-
heritable and not in the simple Mendelian
als are deeply committed to the military’s
model.24
there is no direct scientific
core values, professional teamwork, physical
In a different approach, in 1993 Dean
evidence regarding
stamina, loyalty, and selfless service—all key
Hammer and others initially found a strong
homosexuals serving openly,
descriptors of task cohesion.22
genetic linkage in male homosexuality dubbed
but there is empirical data as
by the press as the “gay gene.”25 Their studies
Homosexuality and Choice
involved examining the X chromosome of
several North Atlantic Treaty
As the debate reignites on DADT, it is
homosexual men (homosexual brothers and
Organization Allies have lifted necessary to consider whether homosexual- their family members). Yet follow-on studies
the ban
ity is a choice. Traditionally, courts have
in 2005 and a complete analysis of the entire
protected immutable characteristics, and
genome found a weaker correlation.26 Even
of U.S. Army Terms defines unit cohesion as
Americans
the “result of controlled, interactive forces
writ large are
that lead to solidarity within military units
demonstrably
directing soldiers towards common goals
more accepting
with an express commitment to one another
of character-
and the unit as a whole.”18 As psychologists
istics that an
explored the concepts, experimental and cor-
individual
relation evidence supported dividing cohesion
cannot change.
into two distinct types: social cohesion and
Contrasting
task cohesion. Social cohesion is the nature
this, many
and quality of the emotional bonds within a
opponents of
group—the degree to which members spend
lifting the ban
time together, like each other, and feel close.
assume that
Task cohesion refers to the shared commit-
homosexuality
ment and motivation of the group to a goal
is a choice and
requiring a col ective effort.19
use this as the
U.S. Navy (Javier Capella)
When measuring unit performance, task basis of many
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, USMC
cohesion ends up being the decisive factor in
arguments.
(Ret.), stated that homosexuality is a “sin” in a 2007 interview
group performance. Common sense would
Unfortunately,
suggest a group that gets along (that is, has
research has not yet yielded a definitive
anthropomorphic differences in homosexuals
high social cohesion) would perform better.
answer to this question. Both sides of the
such as left-handedness, spatial processing,
Almost counterintuitively, it has been shown
debate are armed with ultimately incon-
and hypothalamus size27 that seem to argue
that in some situations, high social cohesion
clusive scientific studies. What follows is a
for a genetic linkage can also be explained by
is actually deleterious to the group decision-
brief overview of several studies that have
prenatal differentiation through pathways
making process, leading to the coining of the
attempted to settle the dispute.
yet to be elucidated.28 Though these scientific
famous term groupthink. This does not imply
Several studies in the early 1990s exam-
studies give compelling evidence that there
that low social cohesion is advantageous, but
ined the sexual preferences of identical twins
is some biological basis to sexual orientation,
that moderate levels are optimal.20
and fraternal twins in the hopes of finding a
possibly genetic, and perhaps something early
Several factors contribute to cohesion.
genetic linkage to sexual orientation. Since
in development or even prenatal, the exact
For social cohesion, the most important
identical twins have 100 percent of nuclear
mechanism is yet to be identified.
factors are propinquity—spatial and temporal
genetic material in common and fraternal
Anecdotal data is also compelling, as
proximity—and homogeneity. For task cohe-
twins have only 50 percent in common, if
illustrated by statements from homosexual
ndupress.ndu.edu
issue 55, 4th quarter 2009 / JFQ 91
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
military members: “I wish I could decide who
the question of whether homosexuality is a
very unit cohesion DADT sought to protect:
I fel in love with; if someone thinks I would
choice can be treated as irrelevant. If the ban is “I couldn’t be a part of the group for fear
consciously choose such a life where I am
lifted, basic respect of privacy will be required
someone would find out, I stayed away from
forced to live in hiding and fear, knowing the
just as when women were fully integrated
social gatherings, and it certainly affected my
bulk of the population is against you, is just
into the Services. Previously, the military
ability to do my job.”
crazy. I can’t help who I am.” “Why would
found a lack of sexual privacy, as well as sex
DADT also represents a unique chal-
I choose to suffer like this?” Ultimately, it is
between male and females, undermined order,
lenge for commanders. Normal y charged
probable that sexual orientation is a complex
discipline, and morale.32 Dorm and facilities
with knowing everything about their troops,
interaction of multiple factors, some genetic
upgrades will no doubt be required. Sexual
commanders are now trying to avoid certain
and some developmental, and that elements of
harassment regulations and sensitivity train-
areas for fear of being accused of conduct-
free choice exist only to the same degree that
ing would need to be updated, and guidance
ing witch hunts38 or looking as if they are
they do for heterosexuals ignoring powerful
from leadership would be necessary. These
selectively enforcing a law they have moral
biological urges.
would not be insurmountable obstacles.
reservations against. Vice Admiral Jack Sha-
Taking another step back, the problem is
nahan, USN, stated, “Everyone was living a
further complicated by individual identifica-
Disconnects and Challenge
big lie—the homosexuals were trying to hide
tion of sexual orientation. Frequently, indi-
As social mores shift toward a greater
their sexual orientation and the command-
vidual men who have engaged in single, and
acceptance of homosexuals, we slowly
ers were looking the other way because they
sometimes numerous, homosexual acts do not
introduce cognitive dissonance into Service-
didn’t want to disrupt operations by trying to
identify themselves as homosexuals. Depend-
members. Consider that a Washington Post
enforce the law.”39
ing on the circumstances, such as prison
poll stated 75 percent of Americans pol ed
In the case of integration of the sexes,
populations that preclude sex with women,
now believe that homosexuals should be
the U.S. military found lack of sexual privacy,
individuals treat certain events as occurring
allowed to serve openly in the military, up
as well as sex between males and females,
outside their sexual orientation.29 The issue is
from 44 percent in 1993.33 A 2006 Zogby poll
undermined order, discipline, and morale.40
far more complicated with women. Research
of military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan
These concerns were solved by segregated
found 37 percent disagreeing with the idea
living quarters. Here the issue becomes
and 26 percent agreeing that they should be
complicated. Those opposed to lifting the
sexual harassment regulations allowed.34 The poll further found that a large
ban point out that the living conditions of the
and sensitivity training would
percentage of Servicemembers are looking
military would at times make it impossible
the other way, with 23 percent reporting
to guarantee privacy throughout the spec-
need to be updated, and
that they are certain they are serving with a
trum of sexual orientation. But would such
guidance from leadership
homosexual in their unit (59 percent of those
measures actually be necessary? Considering
would be necessary
reporting stated they were told directly by
that estimates put 65,000 as the number of
the individual).35 Growing numbers, in both
homosexuals serving in the military,41 would
indicates women’s ranks include primary les-
the Services and those considering service,
revealing their identities lead to a collapse
bians, who are exclusively attracted to women,
see a gap between the traditional American
of morale and discipline? Many top military
and elective lesbians, who shift back and forth
creed of equality for all and the DADT law. To
officials do not believe it would. For example,
depending not on the gender but on the per-
understand the moral dilemma this creates for Representative Joe Sestak (D–PA), a retired
sonal qualities of a particular man or woman.
many, consider the likely reaction if the forces
Navy vice admiral, currently supports lifting
This is a behavior not generally observed in
were again racial y segregated. Even former
the ban. He stated that he was convinced by
men.30 Such studies give insight and suggest
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
witnessing firsthand the integration of women
some practical steps if homosexuals are to be
Peter Pace, who publically stated his opinion
on board ships as he commanded an aircraft
integrated into the military.
that homosexuality is a sin, also said, “Are
carrier group. There were similar concerns
There can be strong similarities between
there wonderful Americans who happen to
about privacy and unit cohesion that proved
settings such as prisons and the Spartan
be homosexual serving in the military? Yes.”36
unwarranted.42 Paul Rieckhoff, executive
field conditions Servicemembers must at
General Charles Dunlap, Jr., USAF Judge
director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
times endure and the relatively weak correla-
Advocate, points out that those serving want
of America and former Army platoon leader,
tion between isolated homosexual acts and
to serve honorably for what they believe to be
illustrates an additional point: “Just like in
self-described sexual orientation. This can
the right causes.37
the general population, there is a generational
manifest itself as homophobia and severe self-
The law also forces unusual personal
shift within the military. The average 18-year-
discomfort from conscious or subconscious
compromises wholly inconsistent with a core
old has been around gay people, has seen gay
clashes of sexual desires with values gained
military value—integrity. Several homosexu-
people in popular culture, and they’re not this
from society, family, or religion.31
als interviewed were in tears as they described
boogeyman in the same way they were to Pete
Though many scientific experts will no
the enormous personal compromise in
Pace’s generation.”43
doubt be called to testify during any future
integrity they had been making, and the pain
debates, lawmakers will not yet find any solid
felt in serving in an organization they wholly
What to Expect
ground on which to base conclusions on the
believed in, yet that did not accept them. Fur-
If the ban on homosexuals was lifted,
immutability of homosexuality. Ultimately,
thermore, these compromises undermined the it is worth considering what impacts there
92 JFQ / issue 55, 4th quarter 2009
ndupress.ndu.edu
PRAKASH
tions have made similar observations that
yotte)
though they were not open about their orien-
tation, they knew some of their subordinates
knew or suspected, yet they did not experience
any discrimination in disciplinary issues. In
many cases, more senior Servicemembers’
U.S. Marine Corps (Michael J. A
concerns went beyond how their subordinates
would handle their orientation to focus on
the legal standing and treatment of their
partners—another vast area of regulations
the Department of Defense would have to
sift through since same-sex marriages are
governed by state, not Federal, law.49 Never-
theless, psychologists speculate that it will not
be an issue of free acceptance. Homosexual
leaders are predicted to be held to a higher
standard where they will have to initially earn
the respect of their subordinates by proving
President Obama seeks to repeal the
their competence and their loyalty to other
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
traditional military values. The behavior of
the next leader up the chain of command is
would be on the Services. There are potential
Aside from the heterosexual popula-
expected to be critical for how subordinates
lessons to learn from other countries that have
tion, changes in the behavior of the homo-
will react to a homosexual leader.50
lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly.
sexual population would also be necessary.
No doubt there will be cases where units
There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals,
Several homosexual Servicemembers inter-
will become dysfunctional, just as there are
and there was also no mass “coming-out”
viewed reported that given their relatively
today among heterosexual leaders. Interven-
of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans,
small numbers, and the secrecy they are
tion will be required; such units must be dealt
in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated
faced with, hidden networks have evolved.
with just as they are today—in a prompt and
that they would refuse to share showers with
These networks, built under the auspices of
constructive fashion. Disruptive behavior by
a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom,
emotional support, have also led to violations
anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, should
two-thirds of males stated that they would
of the military regulations governing frat-
never be tolerated.51
not willingly serve in the military if gays
ernization between ranks. With any lifting
There will be some practical changes
were al owed. In both cases, after lifting their
of the ban on homosexuals serving openly,
and certainly some cultural changes if Con-
bans, the result was “no-effect.”44 In a survey
internal logic that condoned abandonment
gress and the President move to lift the ban
of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada,
of fraternization regulations would no longer
on homosexuals serving openly in the Armed
Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found
have even a faulty basis for acceptance.
Forces. These changes will not be confined
that all agreed the decision to lift the ban
to the heterosexual populations. Education,
on homosexuals had no impact on military
leadership, and support will be key elements
performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to
in a survey from Australia,
in a smooth transition even though the cul-
recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV
Canada, Israel, and the United tural acceptance of homosexuals has grown
rate among troops.45
Kingdom, it was found that
dramatically in the 16 years since the passage
This finding seems to be backed by the
of DADT.
the decision to lift the ban
2006 Zogby poll, which found that 45 percent
had no impact on military
of current Servicemembers already suspect
The 1993 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law was
they are serving with a homosexual in their
performance
a political compromise reached after much
unit, and of those, 23 percent are certain
emotional debate based on religion, morality,
they are serving with a homosexual.46 These
Ultimately, homosexuals must be held to the
ethics, psychological rationale, and military
numbers indicate there is already a growing
same standards as any others.
necessity. What resulted was a law that has
tacit acceptance among the ranks.
Homosexuals have successfully served
been costly both in personnel and treasure. In
As pointed out above, basic respect
as leaders. There are several anecdotal
an attempt to al ow homosexual Servicemem-
of privacy will be required just as when
examples of homosexual combat leaders such
bers to serve quietly, a law was created that
women were fully integrated into the Ser-
as Antonio Agnone, a former captain in the
forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with
vices.47 Dorm and facilities upgrades would
Marine Corps. Though not openly gay during
the American creed of “equality for al ,” places
be needed. Sexual harassment regulations
his service, he claims that “Marines serving
commanders in difficult moral dilemmas,
and sensitivity training would need to be
under me say that they knew and that they
and is ultimately more damaging to the unit
updated, and guidance from leadership
would deploy again with me in a minute.”48
cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve. Fur-
would be required.
Others who have served in command posi-
thermore, after a careful examination, there
ndupress.ndu.edu
issue 55, 4th quarter 2009 / JFQ 93
ESSAY WINNERS | The Efficacy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
is no scientific evidence to support the claim
at <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&Term
that unit cohesion wil be negatively affected if
article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html>.
ToSearch=8332896&log$=activity>.
homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the neces-
3 Rowan Scarborough, “Obama to delay
26 Mustanski et al.
sarily speculative psychological predictions are
‘don’t ask, don’t tel ’ repeal,” The Washington
27 S. LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic
that it wil not impact combat effectiveness.
Times, November 21, 2008, available at <www.
structure between heterosexual and homosexual
washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/
men,” Science 253, no. 5023 (1991), 1034–1037,
Additional y, there is sufficient empirical
obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tel />.
available at <www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
evidence from foreign militaries to anticipate
4 Thom Shanker and Patrick Healy, “A New
abstract/253/5023/1034>.
that incorporating homosexuals wil introduce
Push to Rol Back ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tel ,’” The New
28 Mustanski et al.
leadership chal enges, but the chal enges will
York Times, November 30, 2007.
29 Rostker and Harris, 53.
not be insurmountable or affect unit cohesion
5 David F. Burrel i and Charles Dale, Homosex-
30 Nancy J. Chodorow, “Homophobia,” 1999,
and combat effectiveness. Though, as Congress uals and U.S. Military Policy: Current Issues, Report
available at <www.cyberpsych.org/homophobia/
No. RL30113 (Washington, DC: Congressional
chodorow.htm>.
Research Service, May 27, 2005), 1.
31 Ibid.
6
the 1993 “Don’t Ask Don’t
Ibid.
32 See <www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/
7
Tell” law was a political
See Ҥ654. Policy concerning homosexuality
january00/gays_military1.html>.
in the armed forces,” available at <www.law.cornel .
33 Dropp and Cohen.
compromise reached after
edu/uscode/10/654.html#b>.
34 Sam Rodgers, “Opinions of Military Person-
much emotional debate based
8 Maginnis.
nel on Sexual Minorities in the Military,” Zogby
9
on religion, morality, ethics,
Ibid.
International, December 2006, 5, available at <www.
10 “§654.”
palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf>.
psychological rationale, and
11 Burrel i and Dale, 11.
35 Ibid.
military necessity
12 Leo Shane, “Obama wants to end don’t ask,
36 Marcus Baram, “Gay Soldiers Dis-
don’t tel policy,” Stars and Stripes, January 16, 2009.
mayed by Pace’s Comments,” September 27,
clearly stated in 1993, serving in the military
13 Charles Moskos, “The Law Works—And
2007, available at <http:/ abcnews.go.com/US/
is not a constitutional right, lifting the ban
Here’s Why,” Army Times, October 27, 2003, 62.
Story?id=3661031&page=1>.
on open service by homosexuals would more
14 Ibid.
37 Charles Dunlap, Jr., “Lawfare amid warfare,”
clearly represent the social mores of America
15 “Report: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tel ’ costs $363M,”
The Washington Times, August 3, 2007, available at
in 2009 and more clearly represent the free
USA Today, February 14, 2006.
<www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/03/
16 Mark Thompson, “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t
lawfare-amid-warfare/>.
and open society that serves as a model for the
Tel ’ Turns 15,” Time, January 28, 2008,
38 Moskos, 62.
world. Ultimately, Servicemembers serving
available at <www.time.com/time/nation/
39 Anne Flaherty, “Study: Military Gays Don’t
under values they believe in are the most effec-
article/0,8599,1707545,00.html>.
Undermine Unit Cohesion,” Huffington Post,
tive force multipliers.
17 Bernard D. Rostker and Scott A. Harris,
July 7, 2008, available at <www.huffingtonpost.
Repealing the ban now will be more
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel
com/2008/07/07/study-military-gays-dont-
difficult than when it was created in 1993. It
Policy: Options and Assessment (Santa Monica, CA:
_n_111296.html>.
is no longer a Pentagon policy, but rather one
RAND, 1993), 283.
40 See <www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/
codified in law. It will require new legislation,
18 Army Regulation 310–25, Dictionary of
january00/gays_military1.html>.
which would necessitate a filibuster-proof
United States Army Terms (Washington, DC:
41 Shanker and Healy.
supermajority in the Senate.
42
52 Most likely,
Headquarters Department of the Army, October 15,
Peter Speigel and Joel Rudin, “The Nation:
leadership on the issue will come from the
1983), available at <www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/
Tune is changing on gays in military,” The Los
ar310-25.pdf>.
Angeles Times, August 9, 2007, A1.
executive branch, and President Obama’s
19 Rostker and Harris, 291.
43 Ibid.
transition team has indicated it will likely
20 Ibid., 295.
44 Aaron Belkin, “Don’t ask, don’t tel : Is the gay
tackle the issue next year.53 It is also possible
21 Ibid., 303.
ban based on military necessity?” Parameters 33, no.
the law could be struck down by judicial
22 Ibid., 313.
2 (Summer 2003), 108–119.
action finding the law unconstitutional.
23 Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brueckner,
45 Ibid.
Based on this research, it is not time for
“Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attrac-
46 Rodgers.
the administration to reexamine the issue;
tion,” The American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 5
47 See <www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/
rather, it is time for the administration to
(March 2002), 1179, available at <www.chssp.colum-
january00/gays_military1.html>.
examine how to implement the repeal of the
bia.edu/events/ms/year4/pdf/gss_Bearman,%20
48 Baram.
ban.
49
JFQ
Peter%20and%20Hannah%20Brueckner.pdf>.
Ibid.
24 Brian S. Mustanski et al., “A genome-
50 Rostker and Harris, 331.
wide scan of male sexual orientation,” Human
51 Ibid.
N O t E s
Genetics 116, no. 4 (2005), 272–278, avail-
52 Speigel and Rudin, A1.
able at <http:/ springerlink.metapress.com/
53 Author interview of Commander Jeff Eggers,
1 Robert Maginnis, “Gays in the Military,”
January 2000, available at <www.pbs.org/newshour/
content/3xcxqtb6x36aaap1/>.
USN, commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Com-
25
forum/january00/gays_military2.html>.
Dean H. Hammer et al., “A linkage between
manders Action Group, January 23, 2009.
DNA markers on the X chromosome and male
2 Kyle Dropp and Jon Cohen, “Acceptance
of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatical y,”
sexual orientation,” Science 261, no. 5119 (1993),
The Washington Post, July 19, 2008, A3, available
321–327, available at <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/
94 JFQ / issue 55, 4th quarter 2009
ndupress.ndu.edu
