Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those that are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 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 "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through persecutions and harassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue.
Contents |
The LGBT-related policies of the United States military have changed over the course of the 20th century. The subject remains a debate in Congress, the topic of political campaigns and activism, presidential speeches, and popular opinion polls. Starting in 1916, neutral blue discharges were often given to homosexual servicemen. In 1947, the blue discharges were discontinued and instead labeled "general" and "undesirable". Under this system, a servicemember found to be homosexual but who has not committed any homosexual acts while in service would receive an undesirable discharge. Those who were found guilty of engaging in homosexual conduct were dishonorably discharged. From the 1940s through the Vietnam War, some notable gay servicemembers avoided discharges despite pre-screening efforts. The policy garnered public scrutiny through the 1980s and 1990s, and it became a political issue of the 1992 U.S. presidential election. In the events leading up to DADT, then-President Bill Clinton and others cited the brutal murder of gay U.S. Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr.
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 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[1][2]. At the time, as per 1982's Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.[3] Congress, opposing Clinton's proposed changes, included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 policy[3]. The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[4] issued Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, which while following the letter of Congress's restrictions attempted to soften them by focusing on homosexual "conduct" rather than sexual orientation, and stating that military applicants are not to be asked what their sexual orientation is.[3] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Since it has been passed more than 13,000 troops have been discharged.
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 20, 1993), p.A14.
Beyond the official regulations, gay people were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a blanket party; during the night in the barracks, several service members 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.. When passing the DADT bill, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, who was brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse".[5] 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.[6]
Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces was led by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized congressional hearings that largely backed the armed forces position that had remained unchanged since the 1981 directive. While congressional support for reform was led by Democratic Congressman 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. Subsequently, Congress compromised, amending "Don't ask, don't tell" with "don't harass". Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual activity and/or orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or servicewoman's sexual activity and/or orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts), and self-identified homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual sex acts, or otherwise announce their homosexuality through public statements or open participation in a same-sex marriage.
In September 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military – a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and renamed the Michael D. Palm Center in October 2006 – 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.[7]
DADT has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006), 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.[8]
In 1993, the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment.[9] It concluded, in measured language, that "circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention"[10] if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions.
In 1993, Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis and a national authority on heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, testified before the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Representative Ron Dellums. Dr. Herek testified on behalf of the American Psychological Association and five other national professional organizations. Those organizations were the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Nursing Association, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Dr. Herek stated: "My written testimony to the Committee summarizes the results of an extensive review of the relevant published research from the social and behavioral sciences. That review is lengthy. However, I can summarize its conclusions in a few words: The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters."[11] In his testimony, Dr. Herek reviewed existing scientific research concerning issues of unit cohesion and effectiveness and the fitness of lesbians and gay men for military service. He concluded that heterosexual personnel can overcome their prejudices and adapt to living and working in close quarters with lesbians and gay men. Furthermore, he said, lesbians and gay men are not inherently less capable of military service than are heterosexual women and men. "The assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one," said Dr. Herek.[12] Dr. Herek stated in 2008: "Today, as then (1993), the real question is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. The social science data answered this question in the affirmative then, and do so even more clearly now. Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of antigay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy."[13]
American Psychological Association states:
Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.
The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).[14]
Public opinion polls have been widely varied in their results. 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. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.[15]
An April 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 48% of Americans approved of the don't ask, don't tell policy, 8% believed that the policy was too lenient on homosexuals, and 37% believed that the policy was too harsh.[16]
A February 2010 Quinnipiac University national poll shows American voters favor gays serving openly 57% to 36%. Voters also say 66% to 31% the current policy of not allowing openly gay men and women to serve is discrimination. [17]
A February 2010 CBS News/New York Times national poll shows Americans favor allowing gay men and lesbians serving openly 58% to 28%.[18]
A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays and lesbians serving in the military, 37% opposed gays and lesbians serving, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. 66% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 64% said as much for overall unit morale. Of those respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay or lesbian personnel, 51% thought that such unit members would have a neutral or positive effect on personal morale, while 48% thought that they would have a negative effect on unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.[19]
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)[20] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen[21] spoke against the policy publicly in January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."[22]
In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.[22][23] On November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement.[23]
On May 4, 2008, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, when speaking to graduating cadets at West Point, expressed the view "that Congress, and not the military, is responsible for [DADT]". Mullen's answer came in response to a cadet's question asking what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. During his Senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Mullen told lawmakers, "I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate." He went on to say, "I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions" with respect to considering repeal.[24]
In an interview on CNN's State of the Union broadcast on July 5, 2009, Colin Powell said he thought that the policy was "correct for the time" but that "sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." In the same program, Mike Mullen said the policy would continue to be implemented until the law was repealed, and that his advice was to "move in a measured way... At a time when we're fighting two conflicts there is a great deal of pressure on our forces and their families."[25]
Several gay service members have written novels and nonfiction works about life in the military under DADT. In 2005, Rich Merritt released his memoir Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star,[26] and in 2008 Brett Edward Stout released his first novel, Sugar-Baby Bridge.[27] Openly gay service member Dan Choi, who helped found West Point's LBGT group Knights Out, made an appearance on the web-based documentary series In Their Boots, criticizing the U.S. military's neglect of the partners of service members.[28] As a linguist, Choi was among 59 gay Arabic speakers discharged by the military, along with 9 gay Farsi speakers discharged by the military up to June 2009,[29] despite a shortage of translators for these languages.[30]
In September 2009, Air Force Colonel Om Prakash sharply criticized the policy in an article published in Joint Force Quarterly. He argued that it is unsound for numerous reasons, including the complete lack of any scientific basis for the proposition that unit cohesion is compromised by open homosexuals serving in the military.[31][32] The article won the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition for 2009.
Speaking in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2, 2010, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen denounced the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.[33] A March 2010 poll by the Military Times asking over 3000 servicemembers "do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" resulted in 51% oppose votes, with 24% in favor and the remaining neutral or declining to answer.[34]
During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama stated in an open letter[35] that he "called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell".[36] During 2009, President Barack Obama advocated a policy change to allow gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the armed forces, agreeing with General Shalikashvili and stating that the U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops expelled from the military, including language experts fluent in Arabic.[37][38]
19 days after his election, Obama's advisers announced that plans to repeal the policy may be delayed until as late as 2010, because Obama "first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus, and then present legislation to Congress."[39]
Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to lift the ban.[citation needed] In May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara[40] concluded that, while "Legislative action is still required to permanently remove 'don’t ask, don’t tell', the President can issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges."[41]
In July 2009, the White House and other Democrats allegedly pressured Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings to withdraw an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) that would have prevented the military from using money to carry out the provisions of DADT.[42]
In spite of campaign promises to repeal DADT Obama's Justice Department is defending the policy in court, citing a duty to enforce and defend laws on the books.[43][44] Regarding the first reference, the government had argued before the Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco that the policy should have a blanket application, therefore negating a requirement for an expulsion review based on merit. Obama administration lawyers let pass the May 3, 2009 deadline to appeal, and the case reverted to the district court.[45] In court documents, government lawyers agreed with the ruling of the Federal Appeals Court in Boston that DADT is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." An appeal of this case, Pietrangelo v. Gates 08-824, was subsequently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.[29][46]
On the eve of the National Equality March in Washington, D.C., October 10, 2009, Barack Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he will end the policy, but critics noted that he offered no timetable.[47][48]
In January 2010, the White House and congressional officials started work on inserting a repeal of Don't ask, don't tell into the defense appropriation bill for the 2011 fiscal year.[49].
During President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010, he stated that he will work with Congress and the military to "finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." He had made similar statements during previous speeches; however, his State of the Union speech was the first in which he definitively committed to repealing the law on a set timetable. In response to President Obama’s State of the Union pledge, the Human Rights Campaign announced the Voices of Honor Campaign to make the President’s call for open military service a reality[50].
In the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.[23][51][52] The number of discharges per year under DADT dropped sharply after the September 11 attacks and has remained relatively low since. Discharges exceeded 600 every year until 2009. Statistics on the number of persons discharged per year follow:
| 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 | 114 | 358 | 573 | 177 | 1,241 |
| 2001* | 14 | 115 | 314 | 638 | 217 | 1,273 |
| 2002* | 29 | 109 | 218 | 429 | 121 | 906 |
| 2003* | — | — | — | — | — | 787 |
| 2004 | 15 | 59 | 177 | 325 | 92 | 668 |
| 2005 | 16 | 75 | 177 | 386 | 88 | 742 |
| 2006* | — | — | — | — | — | 623 |
| 2007* | — | — | — | — | — | 627 |
| 2008* | — | — | — | — | — | 619 |
| 2009* | — | — | — | — | — | 428 |
| Total | ≥156 | ≥889 | ≥3,158 | ≥3,650 | ≥2,477 | 13,389 |
*Breakdown of discharges by service branch not available
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.[53]
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 the United States Military Academy at West Point 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.[53] The commission report stated that the GAO didn't take into account the value the military lost from the departures.
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is a bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives with the stated purpose "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."
Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of sexual orientations other than heterosexual (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, Russia) permit gay people to serve openly, and two (United States, China) do not. Besides Greece, which bans homosexuals from serving, all other members of EU permit gay people to serve openly. The Greek discrimination policy has become the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[54] In 2009, Argentina, Uruguay[55] and Philippines allowed gay men to serve openly in the military.[54] Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation, including special units.[56] Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, stated, "It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time."[57]
To the north, the Canadian Forces lifted ban on gay members since 1992.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
   | Servicemembers Legal Defense Network - Servicemembers Legal Defense Network |
| | Chronology of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Chronology of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; The U.S military ban on gays |
| | Justices uphold military recruiting on campuses - CNN.com - Justices uphold military recruiting on campuses - Mar 6, 2006 |
| | The Real Story of Military Sociology and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - military-education.org |
| | Center for Military Readiness page on Gays in the Military - Center for Military Readiness | Homosexuals in the Military |
| | 10 U.S.C. § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces - US CODE: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces |
| | Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M - USATODAY.com - Report: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs $363M |
| | Thomasson v. Perry - Thomasson v. Perry Document Site |
| | Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Gays and U.S. Military Policy - CRS Reports at UNT Libraries -- Search Results |
| | Cosponsors to H.R. 1059 - Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) |
| | Thomasson v. Perry - Thomasson v. Perry Document Site |
| | The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain - The Military's Ban Against Homosexuals Should Remain |
|
|
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search
