"Don't ask, don't tell" is the common term for the U.S. military policy which implements Pub.L. 103-160 (10
U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the numerous exceptions from 10 U.S.C. 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone
who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the
high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act
prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from
disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual
relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men
and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed
to investigate their sexuality.
Beginning of the policy
It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill
Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those
who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W.
Bush.
Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members
who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or
a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.
– quoted in "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military",
The New York Times (July 201993), p.A14.
More generally, "Don't ask, don't tell" has come to describe any instance in which one person must keep their sexual
orientation and any related attributes, including their family, a secret, but where deliberate lying would be undesirable.
History
-
The armed forces, during the early American revolutionary war, treated sodomy (then broadly
defined as oral or anal sexual conduct) as grounds for being dishonorably discharged. The first recorded efforts of such a
discharge were in 1778 when Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin
was dishonorably discharged, with the approval of General George Washington, for a
conviction of homosexual sodomy and perjury. The Articles of War maintained the crime of sodomy, but it was not until 1942 that the armed forces considered homosexual status as grounds for being separated from the military through a
process of effective recruitment screening or internal investigations that some historians have qualified as being
witch-hunts. Thus, gay and bisexual people in the armed forces were subject to criminal
sanctions under the sodomy prohibition or could be given a dishonorable discharge (often a Section 8) and returned to civilian life where they would not receive veterans benefits and often had difficulty finding employment because most civilian employers knew what a
Section 8 discharge meant.
The success of the armed forces in pre-screening out gay and bisexual people from the 1940s - 1981 remains in dispute, and
during the Vietnam Conflict some heterosexual men
would try to pretend to be gay in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of gay men and women did manage to
avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction. For example, in the 1950s - 1960s the
Navy medical doctor Tom Dooley received national fame for his anti-Communist
and humanitarian efforts in Vietnam. His homosexuality was something of an open secret in the Navy, but eventually he was forced
to resign and the Navy conducted the first official study on sexual orientation and the Navy regulations and rules. The 1957
report, titled Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the
Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals (aka the Crittenden
Report) found that gay people were no more likely to be a security risk than heterosexual people and found there was no
rational basis for excluding gay people from the Navy, although it stopped short of recommending a change in the regulations
because of society's social mores.
Beyond the official regulations, gay people were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow heterosexual servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or
turn themselves into investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a blanket party and involved several other service members during the night in the barracks, who first
covered the face of the victim with a blanket and then committed assault, often quite severely and sometimes even fatally as in
the case of Allen R. Schindler, Jr.. Cited by President Clinton when passing the
Don't ask, don't tell bill, US Navy gay Radioman Third Class Schindler was brutally murdered by
shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice) leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse."[1] The introduction of "Don't ask, don't tell" with the later amendment of "don't
pursue, don't harass" has officially prohibited such behavior, but reports suggest that such harassment continues.
The degree of official and unofficial attempts to separate gay people from the armed forces seems to be directly related to
the personnel needs of the armed forces.[citation needed] Hence, during wartime, it has not been uncommon for the rules regarding
homosexuality to be relaxed. Up until 1981 it was the policy of all branches of the armed forces to retain a homosexual person,
at their discretion, thus promoting the "queen for a day" rule which allowed a person accused of homosexuality to remain in the
armed forces if one could successfully claim that their behavior was only a temporary occurrence.[citation needed] This especially became the case
during the Vietnam War.[citation needed]
However, during the 1970s several high-profile court challenges to the military's regulations on homosexuality occurred, with
little success, and when such successes did occur it was when the plaintiff had been open about his homosexuality from the
beginning or due to the existence of the "queen for a day" rule. In 1981 the Department of Defense issued a new regulation on homosexuality that was designed to
ensure withstanding a court challenge by developing uniform and clearly defined regulations and justifications that made
homosexual status and conduct grounds for discharge (DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January,
1981):
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in
homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the
accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to
maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity
of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live
and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public
acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.
The directive justified the policy and removed the "queen for a day" rule that had prompted some courts to rule against the
armed forces. However, the intent of the policy had also been to treat homosexuality as being akin to a disability discharge and
thus ensure that gay people would be separated with an honorable discharge. The DOD policy has since withstood most court
challenges, although the United States Supreme Court has refused to
weigh in on the constitutionality of the policy, preferring to allow lower courts and the United States Congress to settle the matter.
However, in the 1980s many of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates had expressed an interest in changing the regulations concerning homosexuality in the armed forces, and, as American
society's social mores changed, public opinion began to express more sympathy with gay people in armed forces, at least to the
extent that investigations into a serviceman or -woman's sexual orientation were seen as a witch-hunt. "Gays in the military"
became a political issue during the 1992 Presidential
campaign, when Clinton, the Democratic candidate, promised to lift the military's ban on homosexual and bisexual
people.
In 1992 the United States General Accounting Office published a report entitled Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on
Homosexuality. GAO/NSAID-92-98, that outlined the DOD policy on homosexuality and the reasons for it. The report also
included excerpts from a previously unpublished 1988 DOD study on homosexuality that made similar conclusions as the 1957
Crittenden Report. In 1993 the two reports were published alongside an argument by an armed forces general who argued against
lifting the ban on homosexual and bisexual people based on a belief that they pose a security risk, will erode unit cohesion and
morale alongside the argument that most homosexual and bisexual are pedophiles who engage in
a self-destructive and immoral life-style.
Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on homosexual people in the armed forces was led by Democrat Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has
remained unchanged since the 1981 directive. While Congressional support for reform was led by Democrat Congressmen
Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who fought for a
compromise, and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued for a complete repeal of the ban. After a large number of people flooded the
Congressional phone lines with oppositions to lifting the ban, President Clinton soon backed off on his campaign promise to lift
the ban on homosexual and bisexual people in the armed forces. The final result was a Congressional compromise of "Don't ask,
don't tell" that was later amended to include "don't harass." Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no
longer ask recruits about their sexual orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or servicewoman's sexual orientation
without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts), and homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in
homosexual sex acts, or do anything that announces that they are a homosexual, i.e. public statements or participate in a
same-sex marriage openly.
In 2000, Northwestern University Professor Charles Moskos, the principal author of
DADT (Which, as originally coined by Moskos, was "Don't Ask Don't Tell; Don't Seek Don't Flaunt"), told "Lingua Franca" that he
felt that policy will be gone within five to ten years. Moskos also dismissed the unit cohesion argument, instead arguing that
homosexual people should be banned due to "modesty rights", saying "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be
forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay [man]." Moskos did not offer any alternative to his
DADT policy. [2]
In 2005, member of Congress
Marty Meehan (third from left) unsuccessfully attempted to
repeal the policy
On September 13 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the
Military (on October 23, 2006 renamed the Michael D. Palm Center), a think tank affiliated with the University of
California, Santa Barbara, issued a news release revealing the existence of a 1999 FORSCOM regulation (Regulation 500-3-3) that allowed the active duty deployment of
Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command
spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National
Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.[3]
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a recent Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights,
the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding in order to force universities to accept
military recruiters in spite of their nondiscrimination policies.[4]
Public opinion
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the US
military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of
participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in
March 2006 showed that 60% favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, with 32% opposed. [2] Over recent years,
while the American public has begun to favor the idea of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, the military
remains largely opposed. An Army Times poll of military members only found 25% in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
[3]
Statistics
Statistics on the number of persons discharged from the military due to homosexuality in the fiscal years since the policy was
first introduced (1993):
| Year |
Coast Guard |
Marines |
Navy |
Army |
Air Force |
Total |
| 1994 |
0 |
36 |
258 |
136 |
187 |
617 |
| 1995 |
15 |
69 |
269 |
184 |
235 |
772 |
| 1996 |
12 |
60 |
315 |
199 |
284 |
870 |
| 1997 |
10 |
78 |
413 |
197 |
309 |
1,007 |
| 1998 |
14 |
77 |
345 |
312 |
415 |
1,163 |
| 1999 |
12 |
97 |
314 |
271 |
352 |
1,046 |
| 2000 |
19 |
104 |
358 |
573 |
177 |
1,231 |
| 2001* |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
1,273 |
| 2002* |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
906 |
| 2003* |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
787 |
| 2004 |
15 |
59 |
177 |
325 |
92 |
668 |
| 2005 |
16 |
75 |
177 |
386 |
88 |
742 |
| Total |
113 |
655 |
2,626 |
2,583 |
2,139 |
11,082 |
Financial impact of policy
In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released
estimates on the cost of the policy. Cautioning that the amount may be too low, The GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting
costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.[5]
In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission including Lawrence Korb, a former
assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, former Defense Secretary William Perry, a
member of the Clinton administration, and professors from West Point U.S. Military Academy concluded that
figure should be closer to $363 million including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged,
$17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.[6] The commission report stated that the GAO didn't take into
account the value the military lost from the departures.
Military Readiness Enhancement Act
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1246) is a
bill introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives on February 28, 2007.
Sponsored by Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA) with 136 cosponsors, the bill is currently
in committee.
The stated purpose of the bill is "to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by
replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy
of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
A previous version of the bill was introduced in the Republican-controlled 109th Congress. The bill did not make it out of
committee.
Criticism
Both former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.
John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[7] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[citation needed] spoke against the policy publicly in
early January 2007.
Situation outside the United States
-
Some Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of other sexual orientations (with strict
policies on sexual harassment). Of the 25 countries that participate militarily in
NATO, more than twenty permit gays to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit gays to serve openly, and
three (United States, Russia, China) do not.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom's policy is to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and
discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden. It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to
come out. All personnel are subject to the same "no-touching" rules.
See also
Notes and references
- ^ Belkin, Dr. Aaron. " Abandoning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Will Decrease
Anti-Gay Violence" Naval Institute: Proceedings Monthly. 1 May, 2005. [1]
- ^ Frank, Nathaniel. "The Real Story of
Military Sociology and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'", [[Lingua Franca (magazine)|]], October 2000, pp. 71-81. Retrieved on
2008-08-09.
- ^ Chibbaro, Lou (2005). Out gay soldiers sent to Iraq -
Regulation keeps straights from ‘playing gay’ to avoid war. Washington Blade. Retrieved on 2006-03-06.
- ^ Mears, Bill (2006). Justices uphold military
recruiting on campuses. CNN Law Center. Retrieved on 2006-03-06.
- ^ Report: 'Don't
Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M. USA Today, Washington/Politics (2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-25.
- ^ Report: 'Don't
Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M. USA Today, Washington/Politics (2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-25.
- ^ Lubold, Gordon. "Former JCS chairman:
It’s time to give ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy another look", Air Force Times, 2007-01-15.
Retrieved on 2007-01-13.
Further reading
- Johansson, Warren and William A Percy. Outing: Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence. Harrington Park Press, 1994.
- Shilits, Randy (1994). Conduct Unbecoming: Gays
and Lesbians in the US Military.
- Carter, Chad C. and Kolenc, Antony B. Law Review Article:"Don't Ask, Don't Tell:"
Has the Policy Met Its Goals?PDF (157 KiB) University of Dayton Law
Review, Fall 2005.
- Zylbergold,Bonnie (2007) "The Key to Enlightenment: Semper-fi, a documentary about ex-marine Jeff Key, showcased
at Frameline31", American Sexuality Magazine
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
