Time to Scrap "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Craig Martin is a lawyer and former naval officer, currently a doctoral candidate and visiting faculty fellow and lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, doing work in international and comparative law. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Truman National Security Project.
From banking to healthcare, looking to Canada has become fashionable of late. It is also an example on equality rights.
I served as an officer in one of the first Canadian warships to deploy with women among its crew. That was only after a spirited campaign waged by the military against the integration of women in combat roles, in part on the basis that they would undermine the cohesion and fighting effectiveness of combat units. There would be privacy issues, sexual tension, an erosion of the essential masculine warrior ethos, and ultimately a degradation of military effectiveness. All of this was proved false of course.
It was proved false again a few years later, in the early 1990s, when the Canadian military was again forced to adhere to the country's constitutional values and open its ranks to openly gay and lesbian members. To the extent there was any disruption (and most studies have found there to have been none), it was minor and temporary, as the military sub-culture adjusted very quickly to the new reality - a reality that better conformed to the values of the society the military is sworn to defend.
The experience of Canada, Britain, Israel, Germany, Australia and many other democratic allies of the United States (the troops of which are fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan) have demonstrated that there is no significant impact on military effectiveness by the integration of gay and lesbian troops. Quite the contrary. As with the admission of women, and racial minorities before that, it broadened the recruitment base and increased the number of highly skilled personnel available to the military. Moreover, to the extent that some think there might still be some disruption of cohesion, it is important to note that the cause would necessarily be the underlying prejudice and homophobia within the military sub-culture.
To argue against integration is to suggest that such prejudice should be protected and nurtured. That is profoundly inconsistent with the values of a democracy, and utterly untenable. It was rejected decades ago when the discrimination against non-white troops was terminated. Even putting aside questions of motive or rationale, the policy denying people the opportunity to serve in the military because of their sexual orientation constitutes unjust discrimination that is entirely at odds with the fundamental right to equal protection.
The right to be treated as an equal, and not be discriminated against on the basis of shared but personal characteristics that are tied to one's sense of identity and dignity, is a right that is at the foundation of all liberal democratic systems, and a bedrock of international human rights. The violation of that right simply cannot be justified in this context.
Not only is there no important purpose served by the policy, given the compelling evidence that integration would have no significant impact on military effectiveness, but the disproportionate harm it causes is extreme. As compared to a marginal and temporary impact at the very most (and most studies of such transitions in other countries demonstrate that there is no impact at all), the discriminatory policy not only injures those gay and lesbian members who are denied entry or are drummed out of the military. Rather, the policy perpetuates the societal prejudice against all homosexuals. The policy effectively communicates to the entire society that homosexuals are less worthy of our respect and concern than the rest of Americans. It signals that gays and lesbians cannot be trusted to serve in the defense of the nation.
But the harm does not even end there.
It not only causes egregious harm to all gay and lesbian members of our society, but it erodes the normative power of the right to equality itself, and thereby undermines the very values of our democracy. It casts the United States as a backward nation relative to other liberal democracies in the protection of equality rights, and human rights more generally. We used to quip in the Navy that "we are here to defend democracy, not to practice it."
Nothing could be further from the truth. A military cannot defend a democracy while doing violence to the democratic values that constitute the very foundation of the nation.
By Craig Martin
Special to CBSNews.com
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved. From banking to healthcare, looking to Canada has become fashionable of late. It is also an example on equality rights.
I served as an officer in one of the first Canadian warships to deploy with women among its crew. That was only after a spirited campaign waged by the military against the integration of women in combat roles, in part on the basis that they would undermine the cohesion and fighting effectiveness of combat units. There would be privacy issues, sexual tension, an erosion of the essential masculine warrior ethos, and ultimately a degradation of military effectiveness. All of this was proved false of course.
It was proved false again a few years later, in the early 1990s, when the Canadian military was again forced to adhere to the country's constitutional values and open its ranks to openly gay and lesbian members. To the extent there was any disruption (and most studies have found there to have been none), it was minor and temporary, as the military sub-culture adjusted very quickly to the new reality - a reality that better conformed to the values of the society the military is sworn to defend.
The experience of Canada, Britain, Israel, Germany, Australia and many other democratic allies of the United States (the troops of which are fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan) have demonstrated that there is no significant impact on military effectiveness by the integration of gay and lesbian troops. Quite the contrary. As with the admission of women, and racial minorities before that, it broadened the recruitment base and increased the number of highly skilled personnel available to the military. Moreover, to the extent that some think there might still be some disruption of cohesion, it is important to note that the cause would necessarily be the underlying prejudice and homophobia within the military sub-culture.
To argue against integration is to suggest that such prejudice should be protected and nurtured. That is profoundly inconsistent with the values of a democracy, and utterly untenable. It was rejected decades ago when the discrimination against non-white troops was terminated. Even putting aside questions of motive or rationale, the policy denying people the opportunity to serve in the military because of their sexual orientation constitutes unjust discrimination that is entirely at odds with the fundamental right to equal protection.
The right to be treated as an equal, and not be discriminated against on the basis of shared but personal characteristics that are tied to one's sense of identity and dignity, is a right that is at the foundation of all liberal democratic systems, and a bedrock of international human rights. The violation of that right simply cannot be justified in this context.
Not only is there no important purpose served by the policy, given the compelling evidence that integration would have no significant impact on military effectiveness, but the disproportionate harm it causes is extreme. As compared to a marginal and temporary impact at the very most (and most studies of such transitions in other countries demonstrate that there is no impact at all), the discriminatory policy not only injures those gay and lesbian members who are denied entry or are drummed out of the military. Rather, the policy perpetuates the societal prejudice against all homosexuals. The policy effectively communicates to the entire society that homosexuals are less worthy of our respect and concern than the rest of Americans. It signals that gays and lesbians cannot be trusted to serve in the defense of the nation.
But the harm does not even end there.
It not only causes egregious harm to all gay and lesbian members of our society, but it erodes the normative power of the right to equality itself, and thereby undermines the very values of our democracy. It casts the United States as a backward nation relative to other liberal democracies in the protection of equality rights, and human rights more generally. We used to quip in the Navy that "we are here to defend democracy, not to practice it."
Nothing could be further from the truth. A military cannot defend a democracy while doing violence to the democratic values that constitute the very foundation of the nation.
By Craig Martin
Special to CBSNews.com
Research by US psychologist Prof. Adams of the University of Georgia suggests
_________________________________
Yeah, we saw that PBS special too.
Subjective and outdated research, suggestions, theory and postulation stated as facts, nothing more.
In Prof. Adams's test, homophobic men who said they were exclusively heterosexual were shown gay sex videos. Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a penile circumference measuring device (a plethysmograph).
Prof. Adams's research was published in the prestigious US Journal of Abnormal Psychology in
1996, with the backing of the American Psychological Association.
Prof. Adams says his research shows that most homophobes "demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", suggesting that homophobia is a form of "latent homosexuality where persons are either unaware of or deny their homosexual urges".
These findings support the theories that homophobia (fear and hatred of gayness and support for antigay discrimination) is often indicative of repressed, self-loathing homosexual feelings; and that many homophobes subconsciously use anti-gay attitudes as a smokescreen to disguise their own homosexuality
by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. &
Bethany A. Lohr
Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia - the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some heterosexual people hold for gay individuals - is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware or denies. A study provides empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic materials consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes. Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male erections.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by a video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by a video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed a video depicting male homosexual sex: "The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the non-homophobic men did not."
While their findings are consistent with the theory on homophobia, the authors note that there is another competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.
As the authors note, "anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection" so it is also possible that "a response to homosexual stimuli in these men is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se."
Reference:
"Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. & Bethany A. Lohr, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
This information received from the American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC.
Originally published 3/18/99
Revised 10/25/08 by Marlene M. Maheu, Ph.D.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So the fourteen year old study that involved a grand total of 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men is the basis of your post? The 29 non-homophobic men did not display arousal, and Prof. Adams also said that anxiety may be the underlying cause and not arousal.... so what was your point?
Changes in this policy do nothing to better our military. There is no place there for the promotion of agendas like this...
Gay men and women, Listen! If you push for these changes not only do you hurt our military but yourselves as well. You're not going to get the American people to go along with other proposals that you have if they feel animosity towards you.
I'm tired of all of these people that have have never served a day thinking that they know best. It will destroy unit integrity, discipline and camaraderie. And all of those complaints about discrimination and favoritism, that will be right on as well; it will be a no win situation for commanders. Sexual preference is a life style choice, period, and it has no place in the military.
HOW ABOUT ISLAM? OBAMA & THE LEFT WANT GITMO CLOSED BECAUSE OF THE "NEGATIVE PR IMAGE" IT GIVES THE U.S.....THEY FURTHER CLAIM THAT AL QAEDA USES GITMO TO RECRUIT.
THEY HANG HOMOSEXUALS UNDER SHARIA LAW. AL QAEDA USES THE PRESENCE OF U.S. FORCES IN SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER MIDDLE EAST NATIONS AS AN EXCUSE FOR JIHAD.
IT IS PROBABLY THAT RADICAL ISLAM WILL USE THE PRESENCE OF HOMOSEXUALS OFFICIALLY BEING PART OF OUR MILITARY AS A FURTHER TOOL TO FURTHER THEIR WAR AGAINST US.
++++++++++++++++
Wrong. The one thing about DADT is that they don't ask, and you don't tell - it's not spy games following people around while they're home on leave, my experience was that it's usually either an admission, declaration, or public statement, or the person in question was caught in some variety of misconduct (for example: a female E-6 was found in a sleeping bag with a female E-3 in a tent in South Korea). Were you saying that 'thousands' per year were being discharged? Where the number come from?
1) Ships will have to make accommodations (Birthing and Toilets) to allow for individuals that now belong to this special class of service member. On may ships this will just NEVER be possible, considering the manpower requirements and limited space avalible onboard ships. Gay men will not be allowed to co-habitate with women nor will Gay women be allowed to with men, out of fear of sexual assault.
2) Heterosexual members not wishing to go on deployment, will just "come-out" and declaring officially that they are Gay. Thus side-stepping deployments if their command isn't able to accommodate them at a particular mission location or duty station. In many cases this could lead to the seperation of the member from the service due to statement #4.
3) Advancement and evaluations will become a very muddled thing as individuals who do their jobs will be competing against gays who may not be due to statement #2. However Gay's will be "Entitled" to fair and competitive evaluations to keep the Navy's image from being tarnished by the puplic perception of inequality.
4) Those that are "officially" gay, may not be able to hold the security clearance required for some jobs or ratings. This is because they will maybe considered a greater security risk due to the fact that they could be an easier target for blackmail or personal issues.
5) Command moral will suffer greatly on long deployments due to statements 1, 2 & 3. The remaining Heterosexuals will have to work harder, longer, with fewer prospects of fair advancement, and far more restricted personal freedoms.
So in a nuttshell, we'll all to suffer, for the poor lifestyle choices of a few individuals.