1. Revisiting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Gay Rights, Military Necessity, and Policy Alternatives Alyson Westby

2. Revisiting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell History of the policy and the law What is DADT? Results of DADT and exclusionary policy Objections to DADT: Repeal the ban Objections to DADT: Enforce an explicit ban Prospects for reform

3. History of DADT 1992: Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton announces his intention to end the ban on homosexuals in the military by executive order. January 29 th, 1993: “I would remind you that any president’s executive order can be overturned by an act of Congress.” March 1993: Hearings begin in the Senate Armed Services Committee, led by Sam Nunn.

4. History of DADT cont. June 1993: GAO and RAND Studies on the experience of analogous institutions delivered. RAND proposes a “not germane”/ conduct based policy. June 1993: In Senate debate, “There is no political cover on the battlefield. What we require here is a conclusion on the substance of the debate…Homosexuality is inconsistent with military life.”

5. History of DADT, cont. July 19 th 1993: Clinton presents the new compromise policy toward homosexuals at Fort McNair. Components of DADT: 1. Standard of conduct, not status 2. Don’t ask 3. Admission= intent…Don’t Tell 4. UCMJ applicable to all service members, regardless of orientation

6. History of DADT, cont. November 30 th 1993: Congress amends Chapter 37, Title 10 of the United States Code, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces”: The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts 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. Thus, the product of the hearings, studies, legislation, and the compromise between the executive and the Joint Chiefs of Staff was a codification of the existing DoD ban on homosexuals in place since 1981. Only the practice of inquiry changed.

7. Results of DADT and Exclusionary Policy GAO 2005: 9,500 discharged, usually honorably. 8% held “critical occupations,” such as fluency in Arabic, Farsi, and Korean. The cost of replacement per individual is $10,500. Since 1994, a total of $95 million. DoD 1998: “Women have been discharged at rates exceeding their representation in the force.” Note the decline in discharges since 2001.

8. Objections to DADT: Lift the Ban

9. Why Lift the Ban? Manpower The average active duty force during 1980s was 2.1 Million. Today, it is 1.4 Million. DADT creates a loophole for those wishing to discontinue service prematurely.

10. Why Lift the Ban? Moral Arguments CRS 2005: There are an estimated 22,400 homosexuals in uniform. Log Cabin Republicans: “One’s sexual orientation is no reflection of their courage. Those who fight for freedom shouldn’t face discrimination from the government they protect. Furthermore, the military should be promoting honesty among its service members, not secrecy.” The ban perpetuates stereotypes and harassment. Ending segregation will allow soldiers to challenge homophobic beliefs.

11. Why Lift the Ban? Inconsistency in Enforcement Lesbian baiting: Women comprise 14% of the active duty force and 30% of those discharged under the policy. Discharges have dropped since 911.

12. Why Lift the Ban? Analogous Institutions The 1993 GAO and RAND studies found no adverse affects on foreign militaries adopting inclusive policies. Countries with no ban include France, Germany, Israel, Sweden and the UK. Only 6 of 19 NATO members exclude homosexuals. 60% of countries in the Coalition in Iraq allow homosexuals, including the UK, Italy, and Australia. The CIA, FBI, Secret Service, NASA and local fire and rescue allow homosexuals.

13. Public Opinion Gallup 2006: Public Says Go Ahead and Tell Gallup 2005: Equal Rights in Job Opportunities? Gallup 2005: Acceptability?

14. Objections to DADT: Enforce an Explicit Ban

15. Why an Explicit Ban? Incongruity with Law DADT misleads homosexuals, who are by law not eligible for service. Center for Military Readiness: “To discourage recruitment of persons who are not eligible to serve, the administration should consider reinstatement of the routine inquiry about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms.” Thomasson v Perry: “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.”

16. Why an Explicit Ban? Privacy, Morale, and Effectiveness Privacy Sexual tension undermines the integrity of rank, unit cohesion, morale, and readiness. Sexually transmitted diseases. Female and male soldiers are segregated for a reason. Including homosexuals is counterintuitive.

17. Prospects for Reform: Legislative H.R. 1059: “The Military Readiness Enhancement Act.” Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and 109 cosponsors. Stuck in Committee. H.R. 2054: “The Anti-Hypocrisy Act.” Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. No cosponsors. Stuck in Committee. An explicit ban requires no statutory change. Gallup 2006: “the overall sense of urgency regarding policies about homosexuality is not high in either direction.”

18. Prospects for Reform: Judicial Courts traditionally defer to executive and military judgment on defense matters. Ban upheld under constitutional challenges based on Bowers v. Hardwick 1986. Unclear whether Lawrence and Garner v. Texas 2003 will impact future rulings.

19. Prospects for Reform: Administrative/Institutional Boston Globe: The Pentagon may be softening its stance. In 2003, 12 of 107 stayed in without renouncing their orientation. In 2004, 22 of 125. In 2005, 36 of 120. New York Times: A 2005 memorandum from the general counsel at the Pentagon proposed decriminalization of consensual sodomy under UCMJ.