Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2:04-cv-08425 #155
2:04-cv-08425 #155
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DAN WOODS (State Bar No. 78638) PATRICK HUNNIUS (State Bar No. 174633) EARLE MILLER (State Bar No. 116864) AARON KAHN (State Bar No. 238505) WHITE & CASE LLP 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Telephone: (213) 620-7700 Facsimile: (213) 452-2329 Email: dwoods@whitecase.com Email: phunnius@whitecase.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity, Defendants. Case No. CV04-8425 VAP (Ex) APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: April 26, 2010 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom of Judge Phillips
March 5, 2010 Deposition of Aaron Belkin, Ph. D. .................................0001-0019 February 26, 2010 Deposition of Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D........................0020-0034
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents ................................0051-0113
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission ........................................................0114-0158
Defendants Objections and Response to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Admission ...................................................0171-0189
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents ............................0190-0204
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories ................................................. 0205-0211 -2LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission....................................... 0212-0217
Deposition Exhibits 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 (Crittenden Report) (Ex. 4 to Frank Deposition)......................................0218-0290
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment (RAND Report) (Ex. 8 to Frank Deposition) .....................................................................0291-0838
PERSEREC report entitled Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability (Ex. 5 to Frank Deposition).........0839-0887
Defense Force Management: DODs Policy on Homosexuality (1992 GAO Report) (Ex. 6 to Frank Deposition).....................................0888-0971
Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries (1993 GAO Report) (Ex. 7 to Frank Deposition) ......................................................................0972-1024
Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DODs Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated (2005 GAO Report) (Ex. 9 to Frank Deposition) ......................................................................1025-1072
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military (Zogby Poll) (Ex. 11 to Frank Deposition) ......................1073-1099
Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces (Ex. 13 to Frank Deposition) ....................................................................1100-1128
Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer (Ex. 22 to Frank Deposition) ....................................................................1129-1280
Government Production Documents Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members (Bates stamped DMDC 000011-000022).................................................1281-1292
Memorandum from Craig Alderman, Jr., Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, to PERSEREC (Bates stamped DoD LA 2-6 042450-042451) .......................................1293-1294
September 21, 2006 letter from Undersecretary of Defense to Senator Ron Wyden (Bates stamped 13 LC 057312-312) ........................................................1295-1296
Draft Memorandum DOD/GC Homosexual Conduct Implementation Memo and Service/GC Response (Bates stamped OSD OEPM 013347-378) ..............................................1297-1328
Memorandum from Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (Bates stamped DOD LA 2-6 042466) ............................................................. 1329 -4LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Draft of PERSEREC report by Michael McDaniel (Bates stamped DOD LA 2-6 042467-042496) .......................................1330-1359
PERSEREC report entitled Homosexuality and Personnel Security (Bates stamped PERSEC 007818-007863) .............................................1360-1405
Successful Integration of Stigmatized Minorities Into The U.S. Army (Bates stamped ARI 059823-908) ...........................................................1406-1491
U.S. Army Research Institute (AIR) Research Report 1657 (Bates stamped ARI 60206-272) .............................................................1492-1558
November 1, 2006 email from Franklin C. Pinch to Paul A. Gade (Bates stamped AR 062002-04) ..............................................................1559-1561
Charts entitled Homosexual Separations by Service and Reason (Bates stamped OSD P&R Plans 007171-72) .........................................1593-1594
Memorandum to the Vice-Chief of Naval Operations (Bates stamped NAVY 058930-31) ........................................................1728-1729
Comparative International Military Personnel Policies (Bates stamped ARI 0060755-060779) ...................................................1730-1754
Future Organizational Changes U. S. Army Focus Army Task Force, Documentation Book (Bates stamped ARI 062124) ........................................ 1755
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Active Duty Separations By Service & ISC FY 2008 (Bates stamped DMDC 000003-04) ........................................................1756-1757
Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios for Commanders and Personnel Involved in Recruiting, Accession Processing, Criminal Investigations, and Administrative Separations (Bates stamped Navy 058969-74) ...........................................................1758-1763
Summary Report of the Military Working Group (Bates Stamped OSD P&R 007428-007454) ..........................................1764-1790
Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan Under Dont Ask, Dont Tell (Bates stamped OSD P&R Plans 058910-11) ..................................... 1790a-1790b
LCR Production Documents February 2, 2010 transcript of Admiral Mike Mullens and Secretary of Defense Robert Gatess testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee (Bates stamped LCR 03452-03467) ........................................................1791-1806
November 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces (Bates-stamped LCR 4706 to LCR 4775) ...............................................1807-1876
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2003 Report by Aaron Belkin entitled Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity (Bates stamped LCR 3367-3378) ............................................................1877-1888
September 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Armed Forces (Bate stamped LCR 4666-4705) ..............................................................1889-1928
2009 article by Col. Om Prakash entitled The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell (Bates stamped LCR 4776-4782) ............................................................1929-1935
2010 report by Gary Gates entitled Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Men and Women in the U.S. Military: Updated Estimates (Bates stamped LCR WI 1013-1050) ......................................................1936-1973
June 29, 2009 remarks by the President at LGBT Pride Month Reception (Bates stamped LCR 3999-4002) ............................................................1974-1977
October 11, 2009 remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner (Bates stamped LCR 3995-3998) ............................................................1978-1981
March 24, 1995 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The First Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4013-4044) ............................................................1982-2013
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1996 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4045-4080) ............................................................2014-2049 1997 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4081-4120) ............................................................2050-2089
1998 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fourth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4121-4199) ............................................................2090-2168
1999 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4200-4284) ............................................................2169-2253
2000 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Sixth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4285-4371) ............................................................2254-2340
2001 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Seventh Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4372-4474) ............................................................2341-2443
2002 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Eighth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4475-4531) ............................................................2444-2500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2003 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4532-4592) ............................................................2501-2561
2004 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4593-4648) ............................................................2562-2617
Other Documents February 24, 2010 Los Angeles Times article entitled Navy Moves to Allow Women on Submarines ..........................................................................2618-2621
August 28, 2000 New York Times article entitled Military Reserves are Falling Short in Finding Recruits .......................................................................2773-2775
March 31, 2010 Washington Post article entitled A Dont Ask, Dont Tell Rules Complicate Survey of Troops on Policy Change .......................................................................2776-2777
Balancing Your Strengths Against Your Felonies: Consideration for Military Recruitment of Ex-Offenders .......................2778-2820
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence ..........................................2837-2878
March 14, 2007 Washington Post article Bigotry That Hurts Our Military ..........................................................2879-2881 Department of Defendant Instruction Number 1332.14 ..........................2882-2895
March 18, 2010 transcript of testimony given by Major Michael D. Almy to Senate Committee on Armed Services ................................................................2896-2936
January 30, 2010 transcript of CNN Interview with William Cohen .................................................................................2937-2945
September 15, 2004 report by Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D. Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan under Dont Ask, Dont Tell ...........................................2946-2993
March 29, 2010 article in Roll Call entitled Wesley Clark Backs Cunningham in North Carolina ..................................... 2994
August 1992, Update of the U.S. Army Research Institutes Longitudinal Research Data Base of Enlisted Personnel ........................2995-3093
February 3, 1020 New York Times article entitled Powell Favors Repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell .......................................... 3094
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
-28rfurther discourage reporting. A message of "zero Eol-erance" may have limited effecE if it is clear that most incidents will never come to the attention of J.eadership. The message must. be coupled with a message that leadership will monitor the occurrence of antj--homosexual violence through some form of a tracking sysLem.
Tracking the Incidence of Anti-Homosexual Vlolence range of options is availabLe for moniLoring the occurrence of anti-homosexual violence. The F.B.I. sysLem developed as a result of the Federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 is one model based on official- reports, Another form might follow models used for bracking communicabLe diseases and child abuse, by mandating hea-th care personneL to repqrt cases. The most severe cases of anti-homosexual violence wiLl resul-t in conlact wiLh a health professional even if the individual initially does noL wj.sh to be identified as homosexual, Heafh care providers are a common contact point for victms of violence (e.g., in emergency rooms) and can be used to identify cases. However, in order to play this iclentifier role, they require addi!ional training, which may be integrabec into exisbing miliEary programs to identify military personnel and their famlies at risk for domestic violence (e.g., McNelis ancl Awa1t, 1986). The American Medical Associa!ion also has devel.opecl eclucaLional materials aimed aE identifying domestic, child, and elcler abuse that mighL be used as a model (AMA, 1992'). The miliary might also consicler a program of anonymous reporting to obtain
Disposition of Victlms of
Victims of anti-homosexual violence suffer from significant physical_ and psychological sequelae resulting from Ehe violence and might. aLso be aE risk for aclclitional violence. For example, failure to identify cases might lead to a victim's being maintained in a setting in The military which he or she is at risk of further victimization, should make every efforL Lo ensure Ehat victims receive the appropriale care to minimize the negative consequences of t-he injuries, by developing guicleines for healEh personnel and commanders in responding
282
to potential cases. Specificalty, the military should develop guidelines so that, when soldiers who are or are believed to be, victims of anti-homosexual violence are released from health care facili.ties and obher proEected settj.ngs, care will be Eaken to avoid sending them into siLuations where Lhey are aE risk of being further vicEimized.
ONCIJUSIONS
The evidence on anti-homosexual violence is al-most exclusively resEricted Eo its occurrence in Ehe civlian popuJ'aLion and is of limited guality. However, there is sufficienE evidence Eo conclude that it occurs with some regularity in the cvilian communiEy. IE afso occurs in the miJ.ilary under current pol-cy, although there are no data
on the rel.ati-ve frequency of r.haE occurrence. Experience in Ehe civilian secLor shows that there is a high rate of failure to report anti-homosexual violence. The ban on allowing homosexuals to serve, wib,h the significanL penalties for discovery, provides a further disincentive for vicLims to report anti-homosexual- violence. To the extent. thaL changes in policy resulted in changes in Ehe number of acknowledgecl homosexuals in the military, Ehe rate of antihomosexual vioLence mighE change. since acknowledged homosexual-s are more readily idenCifiecl targets for such violence, The experience of foregn miliEaries and police and fire departmenEs suggests thaE if leaders make it quite cl-ear thaL violence wil-l- not be tol-erated and slern action wilI be taken, viofence can be kept to a minimum'
-28310.
WIIT IS KNOhIN BOUT UNIT COHESIoN ND MrLrTRY PERFORMNCEl
OVERVIEW
President Clinton's memorandum of January 29, 1-993. directed the Secretary of Defense to drafE an Executive order that would end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military "in a manner tha is practical, realistic, and consj.sEent wiEh the high standards of combat effectiveness and uni cohesion our Armed I'orces must maintain."2 t present, there is no scientific evidence regarding Ehe effects of acknowledged homosexuals on a unib's cohesion and combat effecEiveness, Thus, any att.empt to predicE the consequences of aLlowing them to serve in the U.S. miliEary is necessarily specu"ative. During the SenaLe Armed Services CommitEee hearings on the topic in March-June 1993, there was a division of opinion among niliEary sociaL scientists as Co Ehe ikely effects of lifting the ban. Retired ColoneL William Darryl Henderson, (former Commander of the rmy Research Institute), Dr, David Marlowe (Chief of MiIiLary Psychiatry ab WaIber Reed Army Institute of Research), and Professor Charles Moskos (epartment of Sociology, NorthwesLern University) predicted that the presence of acknowledged homosexual-s would significantly dsrupt unit cohesion. oEhers, including r, Lawrence Korb (Brookings InsLitution), Professor David SegaI (Departmenb of Socioogy, University of Maryland), and Professor Judith Steihm (Department of Political Science, Florida International University), disagreed. IE is important to recognize at the outset that the mi.Iitary's concern about cohesion and unit functioning is not new. Cohesion is not 1989; now--and probably never has :een--uniformly high (e.9., Griffith, Henderson, 1985, 1990; Manning and Ingraham, 1983; Scu11, 1990; Siebold and KeIly. 19BBa) , and the military intervenes whenever a uniL becomes
Andrew
lThis chapEer was prepared by Robert MacCoun, John D, Winkler, Cornelf, and Susan Ad1er assisted in Ehe background research. Bryan HalImark, Susan Hosek, and Bruce Orvis provided construcLive
revaews
.
for the Secretary of Defense, Ending Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual OrienEation in the Armed Forces, January 29, 1993,
2Memorandum
284
seriousLy dysfunctional for any reason. Because of this longstanding concern, there is a fairly szeable research liEerature on unit cohesion--its nature and ts correlaEes. This chapEer provides a criical review of this research literature and its impJ.icaEions for the currenL policy debate.
ssumpElorE and Focua
of the Chaper To narrow the focus, the analysis in chis chapEer is premised upon three assumptions that appear to be widely shared by both sides of the current policy debate:
evidence, and no compelling reason to that homosexuals are inherently less capable of believe, performing miliLary tasks Ehan are heterosexuals ' There is considerable evidence that homosexual-s already serve in Ehe U.s. military, and always have, albeit most have not openly acknowledged their status, or have acknowledged it only !o some colleagues, Thus, concerns about cohesj.on perEain Eo acknowledged homosexuaL status, not sexuaL orienEaLion per se, and to how an individual's acknowledged homosexuality would affect the group. If allowed to serve, homosexuaLs in the military would be held to standards of conducL, appearance, demeanor, and performance at l-east as stringenL as t.he standards for heterosexuals.
There is no scientific Given these assumptions, the central- quest.ion of the chapEer is:
effecE wi7l Ehe presence of acknowledged homosexua-Zs on the cohesjon and performance of a given niTitary unit?
What
hare
The Litraure Revfew The Iiterature revj.ewed in this chapter was identified by an exgensive search of the research Jase, including computerized literature searches n Psychological bstracts and Defense Technicaf Information Cener (DTIC). The review covers afmost. 50 years of scientific research
285
published by mititary, academic, and industrial-organizational researchers, supplemented by conversations wiuh a variety of experEs. The research was conducted in a variety of setEings and examines a varieLy of different types of groups: military units, sports teams, industrial work groups, and participans in laborat.ory experiments. IE shouLd be noted thaL military agencies have funded a large share of the academic laboratory research on smal1 group performance; indeed, much of Lhe academic literaLure was stimuLated by military research questions. over 185 research articles and books were consulEed, including studies by the Army Research Insbitute, Che Wal-Eer Reed rmy InstiLuEe of Research, and other military sources; experimental studies of small group behavior; research on sports teams and industrial-organizational vorkgrroups; and Lheoreticaf and empirica] analyses of stereotyping, inLergroup contact, ancl aEEitudes and their relationship to behavior. rn addiion, many of the nation's leading experts on these topics were consulted. complete lisL of references and interviewees is conLained in the Bibliography at the end of this reporb. A few caveats regarding relevant research are in order. FirsE, anecdotes and impressionisLic sEatements are a powerful source of hypotheses about unit cohesion, but by themseJ.ves they cannot provide scientific evidence as to Lhe validity of those hypotheses (Garvey and DiIulio, l-993). AnecdoEal informa!ion is difficulE to verify, can be distorLed by memory loss or other factors, cannot determine cause-andeffect relationships, and may provde an unrepresenLa!ive sample of the phenomenon in guestion (NisbeLt and Ross, 1980). In this chapEer, anecdotal or impressionistic information is cited only as a source of hypoEhesesr or as a means of illustrating cerLain phenomena esEablished by more systematic empirical research' Second, as in most socia] research, there tends to be a tradeoff in the cohesion liEerature beEween the scientific rigor of a sEudy and its generalizabiliEy to combat and other "reaI-worId" settings. ForEunaEely, bhere appears to be considerabJ-e convergence beLween the findings of laboratory and field studes on group cohesion and iLs effects, although known discrepancies are identified in the chaper. However, even the rniliLary field sEudies generally only simulaLe acEual
-2e6conditions. Thus, existing research on Lhe cohesion-performance relationship is most readily generalizable to noncombat conditj.ons, which characEerize the situation of most military units, most of Lhe time, The tikely effecbs of the sLresses of combat on cohesion and performance are discussed laLer in the chapter '
combat
Key Issus ln the Review To address the central question of how lhe presence of acknowledged homosexuals may affect uniL cohesion, the chapter addresses the
princples of unit cohesion imply about Ehe consequences of allowing acknowledged homosexuals to serve in the miliEary. This examination indicates that some Eypes of cohesion axe more likely to be affecLed Lhan others. and this has important implicaEions for military performance. The tke1y prevaJ,ence of acknowledged homosexuals in military uniLs. This has important implicatj-ons for the scale of the phenomenon, the ways in which cohesion might be affected, and Lhe likelihood of concacL wiLh acknowledged homosexuaLs. The conditions of intergroup conbact that can bring about a reduction in hostility and stereotyping and Ehe extenE to which these conditions are likety Eo be me in the milibaryFaclors that may enhance or deter behavioral expressions of negaEi.ve attiEudes. Concerns about whecher heberosexuaLs will obey an acknowledged
homosexual leader.
287
T'NIT COHESION ND
ITS
EFFECTS ON PERFORI.fNCE
filha
fe
Cohesion?3
military researchers (e.g., Marlowe, 1979; Siebold and Kely, 19BBa) draw a distincEion between horizontaf cohesion--the bondj"ng among members of a unit--and verjca7 cohesion--the bonding between unit members and their leaders. While ths disEinction is useful, it can become somewhat cumbersome when each Eype of cohesion is furLher subdivided. Thus, Lhis chapter v,ill use Lhe term "cohesion" to refer to horizontal cohesion. ancl the Eerms "J.eadership" and ufollowership" to refer to downward and upward vertical cohesion, respectively' Deflning Coheslon. The most popular definiLion of gloup cohesion was offered by Leon Festinger in 1950. FesLinger defined cohesion quite broadly as,,the resulLants of all Ehe forces acting on all the members to remain in Ehe group" (p. 214), Festinger's definition grew ouE of his study of the cohesion of voluntarily formed social groups. As a resulL. it seems overnclusive in the military context, since miliLary personnel have only a limited role in choosing Eheir unit memberships. others have definecl cohesion more narrowJ.y by emphasizing the guality of the relationships among group members z " " 'LhaE group property which is inferred from the number and strength of mutual positi.ve aEtitudes among the members of a group" (Lott and LotL, 1"965, p.25g), "...members'posi.Live valuation of Ehe grouP and bheir motivation Eo continue to belong to it" (Janis. 1983, p. 4), or "...a positj-ve expressive relationship among two or more actors" (Etzioni,
some
1975, p. 280). Undersbandably, military definitions tend Lo define cohesion in the context of Lhe combat mission; for example:
define milit.ary cohesion as the bonding together of members of a unit or organization in such a vlay as to sustain
u. . .we 3The terms "cohesion" ancl "cohesiveness" are used interchangeably in the research Literature , Since the former term is more common in mililary parfance we wiIl, use it except when directly quoting aulhors who use the l-aEter lerm.
288 -
their will ancl cornitment Eo each other, their uniL, and Ehe mission" (Johns et al-., 1984, P. ix); '...cohesion exists in a unit when Lhe primary day-to-day goals of the individual soldier, of the smaLL group with which he identifies, and of unit Leaders, are congruenL--with each giving his primary loyal.ty to the group so thaL it trains and fighs as a uniE with all members willing to risk death and achieve a conmon objective" (Henderson, 1985, p' 4); "Unit cohesion Iis the] result of controlJ-ed, inLeractive forces that Iead to solidarity wiLhin military unts, directing the soldiers oward common goals wiLh an exPress cofiunitmenE to one another and Eo the uniE. as a whole" (DicEionary of United S\ates Army Tems, 1986, p. 174. quoted in oliver, 1990a, p.
4)
",.,cohesion is a unit or group state varying in the extent to which the mechanisms of social control maintain a structured pattern of positive social relationships (bonds) between unit members, individua)-Iy and colLectiwely, necessary to achj-eve the unit or group's purpose" (Siebold and KeIly, 19BBa, p' 1)'
Measurlng coheEfor' Many authors have commented on the difficulEies of translating definitions of cohesion j-nto scientifically useful measurements (e.g., Beeber and SchmitL, 1986,' Carron, 7982;
Carron, Widmeyer, and BrawJ,ey, 1985; Cartwright, 196B; Hogg' 1'992 Mudrack, 1989a, 1989b; Oliver, 1990a; Stein, 1976). Although cohesion might. seem inherently ,,intangible " some investigalors have been able to is, develop measures of cohesion that have adeguate reliability--Lhat quesEionnaire iEems (e.9., Carron et consistency over time and across f,, 1985; Siebold and KeIly, 1988a; Yukelson, Weinberg, and 'Tackson, 1984), A more persistenL prolclem invol-ves the frequenE failure to dis!inguish a variety of concepts that are often listed as aspects of cohesion,4 including:
4In the jargon of psychometrics, Ehis is the problem of construct vaTidity (campbelI and Fiske, 1959; NunnaIi.y. 1978)--do the instruments actually measure the abstract construct we want Eo measuxe no more and
289
moraLe
esprit de corPs mot ivat ion sabisfaction mutuaf friendship, carlng, interpersonal attraction shared goaJ.s, teamwork, coordination group pride, group prestige, group stafus wriLers use the terms "morale" and "cohesionn interchangeably in the military literaLure, but others distinguish morale from cohesion in two ways. First, while cohesion is generally viewed as a characLeristic of small groups (see Mu1len and Copper, 1993; Siebold and Ke11y, 1988a) some view morale as a characteristic of individuals as well as groups (e.g., Gal and Manning, 1987; Gross. 1954; Ingraham and Manning, 1981, cited in Bartone, 1989, p' 4) ' Second, morale is grenerally vewed as a more general. diffuse, and inclusive concept bhan cohesion; moral-e is thoughE to refLecE the general leveL of motiva!ion and satisfaction among members of a group or organization (Bartone, 1989; Motowidlo and Borman, 19?8). Indeed, "moraIe" is sometimes used as a caLch-all term ,,Apparently any mental state which bears on a soldier's performance rerlects his morale, anything at alI in his environment can affect his morale, and any aspect of his performance indicaEes quality of his morale" (Motowidlo et aI., t976, p. 49, cited in Gal and Manning, 1987). Although scientific measures of morale have been deveLoped (e.g., Motowidlo and Borman, 19?g), it is sometimes
Some
no less? lt is particularly difficult bo esEablish the construct vaJ.idity of hypotheticaL aEtributes of groups, rather than individuals (see Longley and Pruj.tt, 1980; Park, 1990). For example, although cohesion is defined as a characterisEic of groups, it is frequen!Iy As measured by averaging togeLher Ehe relationshps among individuals. shown below, this practice can obscure imporLant differences in the is pattern of cohesion, because it does not lake into account Ehe variability in ra!ings across members (Carron, Widmeyer. and Brawley, 1985; Cart.b/right, Ig69; Evans and Jarvis, I980; oliver, 1990a) ' On the other hand. some clirecL measures of the perceived cohesion of the group as a whole--e.g., how welL cloes the group "work together to get the job done?,,--inadvertenLly tap boEh cohesion and performance, thereby exaggerating their intercorrelation'
-290to empirically distinguish morale from cohesion (e'g', Ga1 and Manning, 1987). Another term, "esprit de corps"' is sometimes used synonymousJ.ywitheithermoraleorcohesion'butcohesionisclearlythe preferred term among most military and non-military researchers' socialCoheslonvs.TaskCotesion.AsweShal}see,usingbhesame ,,muEua]. friendship, " "caring,,, berm--coheson--to refer to concepEs Iike goa1s"' and 'interpersonal aEtraction," on the one hand' and "shared ateamwork, " and "coorclination, " on the other' accounts for a great deal of confusion about the effects of cohesion on group performance' In the earlyyearsofcohesionresearch,Festi-nger(1950)'Back(1951)and Gross and MarLin (1952) each noEed the possibility that chere are different types of group cohesion. AIEhough some auLhors acknowledged his idea throughout Lhe 1960s and 1970s (Davis, Ig69; Mikalachki, t969 exclusively on Shaw, 19?6,. Steiner, tg72), most research eiLher focused difficult personalaEtracEion(e.g.,LottandLoLt'1965)'orefsehaphazardly mixedmeasuresofc]ifferenttyPesofcohesion,leavingtheliteraturein a fairly chaoEic staEe (see cartwright, 1968; Hogg' L992; Mudrack'
1989a; Shaw,
t9'7
6l
'
This situatj-on began Eo change in Ehe 1980s' with a renewed recognitionofLheneecltodistj.nguishdifferenLtypesofcohesion'The that can be most common distincLion is beLween two tyPes of cohesion Carron' labeled "socaI cohesion" and "task cohesion" (see Carron' 1982; Widmeyer, and BrawIey, 1985; Davi-s, 1969; GriffiEh' 1988; Mikalachki' 1969;Mudrack,19B9;MullenanclCopper'1993;sieboldandKelLy'19BBa' Weinberg, 1988b Tziner, 1982a, ].982b; Yoest and Trem}le, 1985; Yukelson, 1988);5 and Jackson. !984 Zaccaro ancl Lowe, I98B Zaccaro and Mccoy, tM"I1.r and Copper (1993) use the terms "inLerpersonal atraction" the Lerms and "commiLmenL Eo task'" Siebolcl ancl Kelly (19884) use(1982) uses the ,,affective bonding,, and "instrumental boncling." Tziner terms,socio-emotional cohesiveness" and "lask-oriented (instrumenbaf) cohesiveness.,, YoesU and Tremble (1985) use Lhe Eerms "inEerpersonal and cl0seness" and ,,quaIity of work refationshps." Yukelson, Wenberg' Jackson(1984)cistinguish.,aEtractiontothegroup.,fromtwoaspectsof purpose'" Zaccaro Eask cohesion: "quality f teamwork" and "uniEy of (1988) use the Lerms "interpersonal cohesiveness" and "Laskand Lowe to Ehe based cohesiveness'" This proliferation of terms has added in lhe literalure, on Lhe other hancl, it indicates thaE confusion --
-29L-
Social col:esjon refers to the naEure and qualiEy of the caring, and closeness liking, emotional bonds of friendship, among group memi:ers. A group is socially cohesive to the ext.ent that iLs members like each other, prefer Co spend their social Eime together, enjoy each oLher's company, and feel emotionalLy close to Task cohesion refers achieving a goal that group. A group wiEh one anot.her. to the shared commitment among members Lo efforts of the reguires the collective high Eask cohesion s composed of members who share a comon goaJ- and v,ho are motvated to coordinate Lheir efforts as a teaTn to achieve thaE goal.
This general clisbincLion s supporLed by boLh experimental and orrelaEion eviclence (Anthony et a., 1993; Back, 1951; Carron e! aL,, 1985; criffiEh, 1988; David Marlowe, personal communicaton. April 6, 1993; Mullen and Copper, 1993; MuILen et aI'' in press; Siebold and Ke11y, 1.988a; YoesL ancl Tremble. 1985; Yukelson. Venberg, and Jackson, !984; Zaccaro and Lowe, 1988, Zaccaro and McCoy, 1988).6 Note that the military definitions lj-sted above tend to emphasize task cohesion. number of researchers have distinguished a third type of cohesion, variously callecl "group pride," "group prestige," or "group status" (e'g', Back, L951; Festinger, 1950; Mu]len and Copper, 1993). However, Lhere is relatively 1ittle research on this factor, and it appears Eo involve aspecls of both social and task cohesion. For example, Tziner (1982a) suggested tha! group pride appears to be another manifestation of Eask cohesion, rvhile Yukelson, Weinberg, and Jackson (L984) found considerable overLap between group pricle and social cohesion'? several clifferent research teams have more or Iess independently recognzed Ehe need for Lhis disEincEion. 6rn siebold and Kelly's (1988b) PlaEoon cohesion Index (PcI), affective and insErumental social cohesion l-oaded on a single factor, but the PCI inclucles only two items to assess each construct, providing very low resoluEion. Sie}o]d and Kelly's (19BBa) analysis of their more complete ?9-item Combat PLatoon Cohesion Questionnaire (CPCQ) found a cLear distinct.ion between bhe affective and instrumental dmensions of horizonEal cohesion. TAnoLher possibiliLy, suggested by social identity theory, is Ehat group pride is an anecedenL of socia] and task cohesion, raEher than a
-292What.
Effect DoeB Cohesion Have on Uni Performance? over the years, many reviewers struggled to make sense of Lhe conflicEing resu-ts across studies of the cohesion-performance relationship, in part because he relevance of the social-task disEincion was not fulty appreciated (carron and chel]adurai, 1'98!; creene, 1989; Lott and Lott, 1965; Mudrack, 1989b; Shaw, 1976; Stogdilt, :-g'72). while many st.udies reporEed a posiEive associabion, others were unable to deEect a relaLionship, and cohesion and performance l7ere even negaEively correlaEed in some studies. Some cJ-arity has been provided by recent applications of meEa-analyLic methods for statistically aggregaLing results across independent studies. Meta*analyses by ol-iver (1988, 1990b), Evans and Dion (1991). and MulIen and Copper (1993), using overlapping collections of studies, all indicate that, overall, Ehere appears to be a modesE positive refationship between cohesj.on and performance. alEhough as we shalI see' the effect varies with differenE types of cohesion. Ol-iver's (1990b) meta-analysis aE Ehe Army Research InstiLute included 14 field studies of exisEing working groups; she reporEecl an average correlationg of .32' Evans and Dion's (1991) meLa-anaLysis included 16 studies, !'/ith an average correlaLion of .36. The most complete meEa-anaJ.ysis was conducted by Brian MulIen and carolyn copper (1993) of Syracuse MulIen and University, under contract to the rmy Research Institute' Copper identified 49 studies conLaining 66 separate estimates of the cohesion-performance Iink, with an average correl-ation of .25' Iitoderating FactorE. The Mullen and Copper mea-analysis provides a detailed examination of a number of variales Ehat appear to moderate lhe cohesion-performance relationship--that is, Lhe conditions under
component (see Tajfel and Turner, 1979; also see Hogg, 1992; Mackie and
GoethaIs,
SThe
common measure of correlation is the Pearson correlation coefficient, r. A correlaLion of r = +1.00 indicaEes a perfect positive relationship between Ewo variables, a correlaEion of r = -1.00 indicates a perfect. negative relationship (i.e., one variable decreases with an increase in the oEher variable), ancl a correLation of r = 0.00 indicaes the compleLe "rlsence of a -!.elationship between the two variables' ln the behavioral sciences, = .10 is generally considered a "small" correlaLion, r = ,30 is considered a "mecium" correlation, and r = ,50 is considerecl a "Iarge" correlation (Cohen, 1-988' pp' 79-80) '
198'7 1.
most
-293which it j.s stronger or weaker. For example, the association is strongest for sport's teams (r = .54, n = 8 tests), significantly weaker for military units (r = .23, n = 10 tests) and other real- work groups (r - .20, n = 13 tests), and weakesE for artificj-aL groups (r = .t6r n = 12 tests).Thecohesion_performancerelationshipwasnotassociaLedv/ith Ehe degree Eo which Lhe task required high 1eve1s of interacEion among that members; according to che aut.hors, "this argues against the notion cohesiveness impacts upon performance by enhancing coordinaLion and 'lubricaLing' the group as a soci'al system" (p' 28) ' Janis (1983, p. 248) suggesEed that ,,the dualiLy of cohesj.veness may explain some of the inconsistencies in research results on froup effecEiveness." This argument is supporLed by Ehe Mullen and Copper
(1993)meEa-analysis'Foreachcorre}afionalstudy'theycoded(wiLh perfect nterraEer relialoiIiEY) the proporLion of guestionnaire iLems tapping social cohesion ("interpersonaf atraction")' tsask cohesion For experimenEal studies' four ("commLmenL to Eask"), and group pride' judgeseachratedthemanipulat'ionsofcohesionwibhrespecELothe Ehree types of cohesion. Because Lhese Ehree dimensions of cohesion of were correlaled,g Mullen anc Copper (1993) computed residual measures socj-af cohesion, task cohesion, and group pride, partialling out Eheir was shared variance. These analyses indicatecl Ehat only task cohesion cohesion and group independently associatecl with performance; social pridewerenoLcorre]-aEeclwithperformanceafterstabistica}}y conLrolling for task cohesion' jt js task Thus, Mullen and copper's analysis suggests that cohesion, noE sociaT cohesjon or group pride, thaL drjves group Perform.nce.TheassociationofLaskcohesionwithperformanceis entirelyconsistenbwiththeresultsofhundredsofstudiesinthe industriaL-organzational psychology LLerature on Ehe crucial role of goal seLLing for producEivity (see Locke and Latham' 1990) ' ReciprocaJ-Effects'ofcourse,findingacorrelationbetween cohesion and performance need noE irnply that cohesion causes
9Positivel-Y correlaLed (r = .49 for experimental studj-es; negativel-Y correlated (r = -'34) for correlational studies' MuIIen and Copper suggest thaE the negative correlaEion migh be artifactual.
-294performance: IE coulcl simply reflect the causal influence of performanceoncohesion(oItver,1990a)'Infact.Ehereisconsiderabfe evidence thaL successful performance is a powerful facEor n promoting group cohesion. Mititary training experts have long utilj'zed Lhis phenomenon by providing opportunities for group success experiences duringtrainj-ngexerciSes.AccordingtoDavis(1969,p'79)'"itis to ofEen said about rea]-l-fe groups Eha! there is noEhing like success increasemora}eorgroupspiriE.Anearuniversalfindingisthat
cohesiveness generally increases with success"'
Usingadjustedcross-}aggedpanelanalysisEechniques,MulJ.enand Copper (1993) meta-analyzecl claLa from seven different correlationaf st.udies that assessed both cohesion and performance at mul-tiple time periods. The results suggest that "while cohesiveness may indeed lead the group to perform betLer, bhe tenclency for Lhe group Eo experience greaEer cohesiveness after successful performance may be even scronger"
(see increasecl group cohesion by providj.ng groups wlEh success feedback Lott and LoLE, L965, pp, 277-278) ' Unfortunately' Lhe existing
1p.32).ThisconclusionsbolsteredbyexperimenLalstudiesLhathave
literaEuredoesnotexaminereciprocal.effectsseparaL'elybysocialvs. lask cohes i.on . DeleteriousEffec!sofCoheson.IntuiLionsuggesEsthatpeople who like each other should be able to work together more effectively than people who do not' Thus, Lhe lack of an independent effecL of socialcohesioninexperimenEalstudies,andEhenegativeeffectof social cohesion among correLational sCudies, may seem somewhat counterintuiL.j-ve' AcLuaIIy, it has Iong been recognized Ehat social cohesion has complex ancl someLimes deleterious effects on various aspectsofgroupperformance.Bothmilitary(DriskeII,Hogan,and Salas, 198.7; Kahan et al', 1985; Manning, 1985; Tziner and Vardi, 1982 and Wesbrook, 1980) ancl non-military (Davis, |969; Janis, 1983; Lott this phenomenon' Lott, 1965; Stogdil], 1972) research reviews have noted For example, in t.he miliEary conEexE, Adams (1953; also Roby' cited in group harmony Mudrack. lgggb) found no association between a measure of andperformance}:ybombercrews;TzinerandVardi(1982)foundno associationbetweenameasureofsocia].cohesionandtheperformance
-295effectiveness of Israeli tank crews;10 and McGrath (1'962) found zero Eo negat,ive correlations between measures of the quality of social relationships and Ehe qual-ity of performance in experimentally composed 3-person ROTC rifle teams. Janis (1983) argued that uncler some concitions' high social cohesion actually undermines bhe effectiveness of group decisj-on-making processes,promotingasateof'groupLhink''AccordingtoJanj-s'the probability of groupthink is stronger "when high cohesiveness is based primarilyontherewardsofbeinginapleasant,c].ubby,atmosphereor of gaj.ning prestige from being a member of an elite group Ehan when it isbasedprimari]-yonLheopporEunitytofunctioncompeEentlyonwork j.s of tasks with ef fecEive co-workers., @, 247) . A recenE meta-analys nine studies of groupthink (MuIlen et aI" in press) supporEed the j-nterestingly, task prediction Ehat social- cohesion promotes groupLhink; cohesion appeared to prevent it from occurring' Highsocia]-cohesioncanalsoresultinexcessivesocializingthat interfereswithtaskperformance(seereviewbyLotLandLobt,l965; ZaccaroanclLowe,lgSE).Davis(1969'p'79)notedthatthe"pleasure the taskfrom interaction iEself, in cohesive groups, sometimes exceeds specific motivation. and greater energy is devoEecl to interpersonal relations than to overcoming the task obsEacles. Hence performance sufEers," Accorcling to Steiner \tg72' p' t26) ' "people who flock together because bhey find one another attractive may or may not be inclined to work hard on a joint task. Perhaps they wi1 be conEenE to merely to savor the joys of intimate companionship' or be relucbant mix business wj.Lh pleasure. .sociability does noc necessarily breed product ivitY ' " ToarguethathighsocialcohesionsomeLimesunderminesperformance shouldnoEbet'akentoimpl-ythaLlowsocialcohesionisactually desirable;itisn,E.Janis(1983,p.248)proposesthat"formost froups,opEimalfunctioningindec-sj'on-makingtasksmayprovetobeat loTziner ancl Var-di (1982) did find an interaction of social cohesion and .Ieaclership style on performance' such that relationsorienLed leadership enhancecl performance in low cohesion groups ' discussion of leadership, elow'
See
-296a moderate leveL of cohesiveness" Iemphasis added]. The same principle seems likely to be Erue for oEher types of tasks' several auEhors have argued tha the relationship between cohesion (Bass, and productivity is moclerated by the goal adopLed by the group 1981.;Berkowitz,Lg54;Davis,:Jg69;Greene'1989;Mudrack'1989b; Schachter eE al-., 1951; Shaw, 19?6; SLogdilI, 79'72) ' According to Shaw do not seE Lhe same 1i-916, p. 205), "Lhe problem often is thaL groups goals for EhemseLves EhaE outslcle agencies'''seL for them' Hence a cohesive group may achieve its own goals, bu! be relatively unproductive with regard to the goals of Ehe researcher"' Describing one such examp}e,Shaw(19?6)notedthat"themorecohesivegrouPsseEsocial acLiviEyastheirgoal,andtheyapparenLlyachievedthisgoal|,,Davis (Ig69, p. 79) argued thac ,,..' Ian] increase in cohesiveness resuls in can an increase n pressures Lo uniformity. lf uniformity of response be achieved more easily on a t/trong or low-quality response, overall performancewlldecfinewhilesatisfactoryinterpersoralrelaEionsmay be preserved.,, According Eo Bion (quoted in Beeber and Schmj.tt, 1986), ,,a highly cohesive grouP wiII successfully complebe whatever goals are goals inherent to Es culture without regard for the desj'rabiliEy of the to Lhe supersEructure surrouncling the group'" Tvo earLy cohesion experiments(Berkowitz,l954;SchachtereEal.,1951)demonsLratedthiS process by experimentally varying groups' cohesion lewels and performancestanc]ards;EheyfoundaposiEivecohesion-performanceeffecL whengroupsoperatedunc]erhghperformancestandards,butanegative effect when groups operatecl uncer low performance scandards' fn Lhe fieLcl of organizational behavj-or, a conmon example of this phenomenon is rate-busEinEr--an agreement among workers, either Eacitly or explicitly, to maintain l-ow leve1s of performance (see Bass, 1981; Janis, L983; Seashore, tg54; StogdilI, I912ll ' fn the military context' there are many more serious examples involving drug use' insubordination, or mutj.ny (Ingraham, I9B4; I'farlowe' personal communication, pri] 6, 1993; Savage and Gabrie' 19?6; Wesbrook' 1980) ' Ingraham(1984)c]escribesthe,,anti-Armynorm,,thaLwasprevalentj-n barracks l-ife during his research in the 1970s' He suggests that a shared disdain for the organizaEion might have atua]Iy bound units
291 -
High cohesion can even create some problems in e1ibe, high-performance units. Manning (1985, p, 15) notes that among the "mnuses of unit cohesion" in the U.S. Army's Special Forces "Aleam" is the fact bhat "bhe abiJ-i-ty of the teams to operate as independent units J-eads Lo strong resentment of attempts at control by higher headquarters as well as oLher failures bo recognize them as
LogeEher
sociaIly.
special
"
Effecte of Coheeion on Psychological coplng According Lo MarLowe (19'79, p. 47), "whil.e cohesion and morale do nob correlate with Eechnj.cal performance..,they do correlate with miliary performance in Ehe sense of afiect,ively mainLaining Lhe organized group at its tasks even in the face of the severe sbresses of batt1e.,, Marlowe,s concJ.usion about technical performance was perhaps Eoo pessimistic.. as we have seen, task cohesion does indeed appear to promote technical performance, although the effect is modest. Marlowe's assertion of a cohesion-coping association is echoed by many other military schoLars (Henclerson, 1985; Marshall, 194'7; shils and Janowitz, i,948), alLhough it is often based on batElefield recollecEions and anecdotes. ll number of empirical stuclies (see Griffith, 1989; Manning and Fullerton, 1988; Marlowe, Lglg, 1993 testimony )refore the senate Armed Services Committee) report a positve correlation between unit cohesion and psychological coping, although the different types of cohesion have not been disLLnguishecl. This correl-ation has been interpreted as a causal inffuence of cohesion on coping. cl-inical and social. psychologists have hypothesized that. supportive social relations provide a,,buffer,,for those coping wibh traumatic 1ie events (see Marl0we, LgTg), although recent research suggests LhaL such efecEs might be attributable to aspecLs of social networks other than social support, per se (Coyne and Downey, 1991; House et al., 1988) ' At present, the
11An anecdote bY Kirkland (L987, p. 14) suggests one way in which high cohesion might impair coping; he reports Ll.at members of high1Y cohesive units have asked, '/we are so close, if one of us is killed in combat, will the uniL fa11 aPart?"
-298correlaEon beEween unit cohesion ancl coping is open to plausible alEernativeexp}anations.ResearchershavenotesEablishedLheextenL lo which Lhe correLation reflects the influence of psychological coping
skitlsoncohesion.orthejoinEeffectonbothcopingandcohesionof other facEors, such as superior ogiscical support' ideologi'ca1 commitmentorsErongunitleadership.onesuchfacEormightbestress itself; as we shalI see, there is evidence that under some condiEions' plausible shared Lhreas promoLe cohesion. Thus, while iL seems quite research is that cohesion might enhance coping under stress' furLher neededtoestalclishacausa.relationship,andEoassesswhichtypeof cohesion is most relevant. other Determinancs of Military Performance Whateverthebeneficialeffect'sofcohesion'iEisimporLantto bearinmindthatevenEaskcohesiongenera}lyaccountsforonlyasma]-I portion of Ehe toEal vari-ance in Performance' Moreover' there is only lirnitedempiricalresearchoncohesionanclmiliEaryperformanceunder actual combat conc]itions (see Garvey and DiIuIio, 1993; Sarkesian, 1980).EveniftheresItsofcombatexercisesgeneralizeEoactua]. are combaL. iE j.s clear EhaL a variety of non-psychol-ogical factors crucialtobaLtlefieldperformance,andcanbedecisive:suppliesand logistical support, the quality and guantiLy of information' Lhe (see Sarkesan' weather, geographical conscrainLs, and pure dumb Iuck 1980). As Moskos (in Henclerson, L985' p' xv) puEs it: In assessing who wins wars and vrhy, iL is easy to overweigh any one factor and neglec! obhers' Broad facLors such as objectives and strategies, weapons and materials' technology' numbers of sol-cliers, anc the human element must a'l be consiclerecl in determining who wins ancl why. . ' 'sing)'e-cause explanations must be avoided: Lhey claim too much for one facEor aC Ehe expense of others '
Henderson (I985, 1990) and others have spoken eloquently of the crucial role of,,Ehe human e}ement,, in combat' effecEiveness, but they j-s only one aspect of clearly recognize bhaL cohesion, while imporlanE'
-299Henderson. 1990; I(ahan et aL., 1985; Shaw, I9'16; Steiner, 1972) and individual motivation leveIs (e.g,, Kerr, 1983; Kerr and Macoun, 1984, 1985b; Locke and Latham, 1990 Sheppard, 1993). And of course, Lhe human element also includes the cohesion, abiliLies. and motivation of
the opponent (Henderson, 1985) An example of the importance of indivicluaL motivatj.on is provided by a recent Army Research Instiuute stucly of. 22 platoons in two lighe infantry baELalions uncergolng Eraining at the ,foint Readiness training center (JRTC) aE Fort. Chaffee, Arizona (Rf Nesletter, June L992, vol' 9,pp,1-4).PriortoLraining,thesoldierscompletedadetaIed guesEionnaire that assessed group factors, including platoon cohesion and pride in Lhe platoon, buE also a number of individual facLors, including moEivaEion to do weIl at JRTC, job satisfaction, job motivation, and bonding with ]eaclers, The strongest prediclors of JRTC performance, which was assessecl by trained observers, here Lhe quality of ]eadership ancl three inclividual-level factors: JRTC motivaEion, job motivatj.on, and job satisfaction.
WIT FCTORS INFI,UENCE SOCIL ND fSK COHESION?
Before introclucing the issue of homosexuality. it is useful to summarize what is anc is not known about the antecedents of cohesion' There is a sizeable research fiterature on the facEors Lhat promote cohesion (see reviews by Berscheid, 1985; Hogg, 1992; Lott and Lott, 1965; Summers eL aJ-., 1988). Unfortunately, many of the studies focus exclusively on socia] cohesion, or else fail Lo distinguish social from bask cohesion, so the antececlenEs of sociaL cohesion are somewhat better
undersLood Lhan Lhose oE task cohesion.
Propngulty and Group MemberahiP Based on his eLhnographic research on rmy barracks Iife, Ingraham (1984, p, 58) argued that'by far the mosL potent determinanb of social choice Iof frienc]sl was the company of assignment." This conclusion is amply supportec by Lhe research IiEerabure on social relationships. Tlhe role of propinquiLy--the sim>Ie fcrcL of spatial and temporal proximity-in formng relationships seems so obvious that it is easy to overlook' Tn Lhe electronic age, being j.n the same pace aL Ehe same Lime may no
- 300 longer be a necessary concition for a relationship t'o evolve' buL it greatl.y enhances that probability (Berscheid, 19B5; Lotst and Lott' 1965). Despte the adage that ,,familiarity }creeds contempE,,, conLrolled to experiments ndicaLe haL, everything else being equal' mere exposure a person or an object increases liking for that object upon subseguenE contact (Zajonc, 1968; Berscheid, 1985)' Of course' in social encounLers, everyEhing else is rarely equa, parEicularly when the person in question has disliked attributes ' This point will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter' Moreover,Ehereisapervasivetendencytoeva}uateandtreatone,s obngrouPmemlersmorefavorabJ.ychanmembersofothergroups,which social scientisLs call lhe ingrroup bjas. Many different explanations for lhis blas have been offerec, invoking hj'storicaf' economic' politj-cal, and even biologi.cat factors (see Austen and worchel, 1979) ' that However, even in Ehe absence of Ehese facEors' research indicates meregroupmernbership*-e.g',randomlyassigningindividua]-stoad-hoc groups--is sufficj.ent Lo create an ingroup lias (see Brewer' L979 caerEner et aI., 1993; TajfeI and Turner' 19?9; Iilder' 1986)' Thus, the simple face thaE individuals are assigned co a unit together predisposes Lhem to social cohesion, alLhough not necessarily to Eask cohesion. The miiEary has long recognized the effect of safienL group membership on bonding among members:
Symbols that inclicate comrnon membership n an organizaton reinforce sharecl experiences' Shoulder patches' uniE colors' campaign streamers, review ceremonies, and even informal function and symbols such as scat-ves serve Ehis imporLant j-n an appropriaEe supporEed as ong as Lhey are used should be manner. (Leadersip and Contnand aL Sellior LeveLs' Department of the ArmY, 1987, P. 64) Whether members susbaln a sense of cohesion will depend on whaL happens to them during their time togeLher, as discussed below' TurDover and Turbulence
Inthelg?Os,E'heArmygrewincreasinglyconcernedthatsits individuaL replacement system createcl Eoo much "turbulence" in combat units, unclermining their cohesion (see Henderson, 1985, 1990; Manning'
- 301 ' In essence' the argument was Ehat unj't cohesion was conLinuaJ.ly disrupted when individuals joined or left the unit in a consLant, haphazarc] fashion. s a response, in 1981- the Army was cafJed COHORT adopt.ed a new Unit Manning SysEem; its key component (Cohesion, OperaEional Readiness, and Training) ' In coHoRT divisions' first-Lerm soldiers were ralned togeEher as a group' and then assigned as a group to infantry, armor, and artillery companies; bhey were kep! together for three-year cycles. Ithough coHoRT stabilized firsL-Lermer turbulence.itdrc]notsEabi]-izeNcoorofficerEurbulence,sounits often saw several changes in le"rdership during a 3-year cycle' promise, Although Lhe coHoRT intervention was thought Lo hold great by1990ithac]Iargelybeenabandonec]asafailure.Thereareanumber of pubLi-shecl analyses of the cOHoRT experlence (Grj'ffith' 1989; Henderson,1990;Krklandetal',1987;ScuIl'1990)'Whilethereis someevidenceEhatunit-replacemenLunitswereinc]eedmorecohesivethan individual.replacemenEunits(Griffith,1989),WRAIRfieldevaluations conductedinlgS5andlg36documentedasignificantdropinboth horizontalandverEicalcohesionforSomecoHoRTunitsrelaLivetonon1990) 't2 However' COHORT's COHORT uniEs (see Henderson, 1990; Scu11, in Ingraham, 1984; Scull,
1990)
uniE-repJ-acementsysEemwasimp}emenLedinEandemwithLhecreaEionofa newlighbinfantryconcep!fortheTthlnfantryDivision,whichbecamea rapid depLoyment force expected to achieve high combat effecLiveness and personner' The sbandards with minimal supporb in terms of equipment decline in vertical ancl horizontal cohesion in coHoRT units was much (Henderson' steeper for 1ight. i-nfantry uniEs than for other coHoRT units
1990;Scull-,1990).Thus,someoftheproblemsattributedtoCoHoRmay be at least in part atEribuEable t-o the Iight infantry program' miliEary However, the effect of turbu}ence on performance in non-CoHoRT believed (see Dropp' units may be somewhat weaker than was originally 1989; EaLon ancl Neff, 1978; Kahan et a" 1985) ' ff so' the expectat'ionsforcoHoRTmighthavebeenunrealj.sticallyhigh. trR.-tl that verEicaL cohesion ref ers to the bonding leaders and their su):ordinates'
between
-302believe that coHoRT was poorly implemented, plagued by serious Ehat proved leadershj.p problems, ancl a uniE replacemenE process difficult to adminisEraEe. Accorcling Lo Henclerson (1990):
some
eighL concludj"ng one-sentence summaEion of the precedingr could reacl "The mediocre to average unib performance chapters that and the cliscouragi-ngly low numbers of combat Eroops deeply rooted characterize tocay'= it*v are a clirect result of in lhe Army's organj.zaLiona inefficiencies that are apparenE and manpower, personnel, ancl Lraining (MPT) organization policies." (P' 145)
ScuIl (1990) concludes that: TheideathaLsEa]ri}iLyisEhesinglemostimportantfactorin above the creating a well-irondecl uniL is suspect' In light of the LraciEional view persisLs Ehat cohesion among discussion, soldiersremainsprimarilyt'heby-procluctofgoodleadership combined rvlth important, f uJ'f il1ing vrork'
LeaderstriP
thequaliLyofleaclershipasakeyfactorinc]eLerminingwheLherunits et aI" 1987 i are cohesj.ve (e.g., Hencerson' L985' 1990i Kirkland Kel-y' 1988a' 19BBb)' This Mannng and Ingraham, 1983; Siebold ancl organizations as hypothesis is supportecl by research in non-military Latham' 1990) ' wetl (e.g., Bass. L981; Holtander' 1985; Locke and ResearchershaveidentifieclEwokeyclimensionsof].eadership(seeBass' 1981;Hollander,19B5):ReJaLi<;ns-orienledleaclershipinvolvesactive environment for workersi atLempts to provicle a warm, supportive' caring task-orje:Eed]eadershipemphasizestheimportanceofgoa}achievement These stYles are noE mutuallY and the sEeps needed to accomplish it cepending on Lhe exclusive, ancl goocl leaders can exhibit either style have leen shown to promote circumstances ' Both styles of leadership (see Bass' 1981' pp- 379' group cohesion in military and other settings 433).onemghteXPec!re]ations-orientedieadershipEopromotesocial Eask cohesion, but cohesion, ancl task-orientecr leacrership Lo promoEe unfortunatefy,mosEsEuc]iesoftheleaclership-cohesi,onrelabionshphave
- 303 not distinguishecl Ehe two forms of cohesion, so Lhis hypothesis has not ben tesEed syscematically. There is some evidence that leadership syles moclerate the effecEs of cohesion on performance, such that highly relations-orientecl eaclership promoEes high performance in low cohesion groups(Schrieshem,1980;TzinerandVardi,IgS2;butseeYoestand
Trembl.e, 1985). Group Size
Groupcohesionisinverselyrelabedbogroupsize(seereviewsby Hogg,1992;Mu1lenandcopper,1993;SiebolclandKelly'1988a;Steiner' 1972).AccorclingtoMarlowe,,,only40to50peopleareinasoldier's universe," roughly hi-s or her platoon, ancl perhaps a few others from Lhe same company (personaf communication, April 6' 1993) ' Thus' "only teams, squads, plaEoons, and companies possess coheson" (Marlowe, 7979' p.50).SieboldandKe}fy(1988a)suggestedthattheplaEoonisthe (1976' p' 364) opEimal size for measuring cohesion, savage and Gabriel argue thaE,,in conflict, Ehe unit of cohesion tends to be the sguad.,,13 The fact thac cohesion declines with group size suggesbs that largergroupsshoulc]haveweakercohesion-performancecorrelations. Mullenandcopper(1993)reporLEhattherelationshipbetweencohesion andperformancegrowsweakerasagroup,ssizeincreases,alEhoughthe effect was only statistically significant. in correlational studies, which have examned a larger range of group sizes'
Success Experienceg In aclditi-on to the importance of Ieadership, what happens to groups
duringtheirLimetogeEherobviouslymattersagreaEdeal.Asreviewed above,thereisconsc]era}rleeVidencethatsuccessfulperformance experiences promote cohesion; indeed, the effect of performance on cohesion appears Eo be sEronger Lhan the effect of cohesion on performance (e,g., Bakeman and Helmreich, 19?5; MuIlen and copper,
1993
13un1t szes and labels vary within and across the military services.IntheU's.Army,companiesvaryfrom50t'o200members' pl-atoons range from L5 Eo 40 members' squads generally hawe about 10 exact members, ancl teams ancl cre\'Js can range from 4 to 9 members' The uniE wi). I cepencl on its funcLion (armored, mechanj"zed, size or a airborne, etc') and wheEher it is fully manned'
- 304 is direct evidence that success can promote sociaL cohesion (see Loct and LotL. 1965), bur there is 1ittle direct evidence regarcli.ng the effect of performance on task cohesion. Given hat the cohesion-performance correlation is l-argeJ-y aLLributable to Eask cohesion, j-t seems Iikely that success afso promotes task cohesion, success experiences reward the group for teamwork and Ehe coordination of effort.
Shard Threat ating back at }east to Ehe Eurn of the century (sumner, 1906)' many have hypothesized that externa! Ehrea1 promotes group cohesion'
greaE Henderson (1990, p. 724) is skepLical' of bhis notion: "It is a American myEh thaE cohesion wil-1 occur Ehe moment we go into battle'n But many stuclies sugges! thaE indeed, external threaEs can enhance cohesion, alt.hough the effecL is by no means universal (see Dion, 1979; Hogg, 1992; Schachter, 1959; Sherif eE aI', 1961; Stein' t976) '
Figurel0-IisanaEtemPLtomakesenseofEheconfliclingfindings (1976) regarding Ehreat and cohesion, adapEed from a discussion by sLein with some modifications, The figure depicLs a series of moderating condiEions that determine whaL effecL threat will have on cohesion' If individuals anticipaEe a threat, their response will depend on a number of conditions . First, are Ehe inclividual-s nlutua-lly threatened? If not, there will le no enhancemenE of cohesion. If inclividuals are mutally Ehreatened, Eheir response will depend on whether they perceive Lhe possibiJ.rEy of a coll.ective response thaL wiII eliminate the danger' Given a shared threat. and an interdependenE task with a feasible solution, research demonsLrates Ehat both social and Eask cohesion wilI
be enhanced (see Johnson et a}', 1981; Johnson' Johnson' and Maruyama' 1gB4; MiIler and Daviclson-Poclgorny, tg81 ,' sherif et aI., L96L; slavin, 1985; Stephan, 1985). However, psychological research demonstrales that
ttu"d"t special condiEions, groups acEually become more cohesive after a failure experience (Davis , tg69; Lott and Lott, 1965,' Turner et al,, 1984). This only appears to occur when the failure signals an external- EhreaL (see lelow), or when Ehe blame for the faiJure is shared equalIy, resulting in cogniLive dissonance reduction (Festinger et af"
i"956).
- 305 -
anxietypromotesaffiliaEionorsocialcohesionevenwhennocollective instrumental response is available--a "misery loves company" effecE effect Seems {SchachEer, 1959; Berscheic, 1985). BuL this affi]iative unlikelywhenthreaLorsca]:cityencouragesinEragroupcompeEiEionora conflict beEween persorral anc group interests (Harnblin, clEed -n stein,
1,9'7
6l
lnceased
lncreased
(divlslveness)
Fgure10-1-EffectsofExernalThreaLsonsocialandTagkcohesioD
SEein argues Lhat threat will' promote cohesion only where sorne cohesion (Eask or social) alre.rdy exis!s--in pre-existing groups' But while the pre-existence of a group uncloubtedly enhances the promotion of cohesion, SLeln's own review ancl oEher sources (e'g'' Miller and Brewer'
1984; Mi}ter anc] Davicjson_Poclgorny, 1987; Stephan, 1985; Tajfel and Turner, L979; Wesbrook, 1980) j-ndicate that iL is not a necessary condition, everything else being equal, j't appears thab strangers can in develop soclal and task cohesion amiclsL confl'ict when the condiLions Figure 10-1 are met. Moreover, sherif's classic studies (sherif et aI" and goal' 1-961) demonstrated thaL in the face of a superordinate threat even hosEile groups can mer-ge ogether to form a cohesive whole'
- 306 This social cohesj.on may sometimes be temporary. Moskos (quoted in Marlowe, L979; cf. Williams, 1989) has suggesEed Ehat earlier scholars fai]edEoappreciaLetheextenttowhichthebondingincombat situations is ,,instrumental and self-serving, " a temporary and situational adaptation to clanger' He writes thaL "in most cases' nothing more is hearcl from a soldier after he leaves the unit ' once a soldier,s personal siEuaLion undergoes a dramatic change--going home--he or no efforE Eo keep in contace with his o]d squad' makes little Perhaps even more revealing, Ehose still in the combat area seldom aEeempt to initiare mail conLacE with a former sguad member. The rupture of conununicaEion is mutual despiLe proLestations of lifelong fri-endship during the shalecl combat periocl." Thus much of what aPpears to be social cohesion on the babtlefield may have more to do wiLh ask you'11 cohesion and/or tacit psychologica contracEs--I',11 cover you if cover me--Ehan wiEh Ehe insErinsj-c l-j.keability of one's comrades' This poinE will be addressecl in more detail latser in the chapter'
s
larl tYl Homogene itY The conventional wisclom tel1s us that "birds o a feather f10ck Which is more accurate? logeLher," but also Lhat "opposites attract"' Theevidencec}earlysupportsLheformeroverthelaEter;thereiswellestablj.shed posiEive association between inLerpersonal" liknq and similarity with respect to attitucles, interesEs, and values (Lott and Lott, 1965; Berscheid, 1985). A meta-analysis of L? studies comprising 25 separate estimaEes (AnEhony eE aL. , 1993 ) yieLded an average similariEy-cohesion correl-ation of .24. Ilowever, the effect appears Eo be significantLy weaker in enduring groups--e.g', miJ-iLary units/ sports laboratory Eeams, work groups--than in Cemporary, artificially-created groups. The size of the simllarity-cohesion correlation decreases with group size, and with the percenEage of males to femal-es in the group'
imi
Thesimilarity-cohesioneffec!islargelycjuetosocialcohesionin artificialgroups,}rutsmilariLywasactuallyinverse].yrelatedto social cohesion--al,beit weakJ.y--in the sEudies of real groups in the Alexancler et aI. analysis, for reasons thaE are noE clear' Tn an imporEantoservation,Alexanc]ereLal.reporEthatsimitarityof
- 307 attiEudes and values appears unrelated to task cohesion in either type of group. 15 Thus,sirnilaritycloesnotappeartoinfluencetaskcohesion'Ehe typeofcohesionthatinf]uencesgroupperformance.Thisisconsistent with the research on the effects of group homogeneity on productivity (Kahan et al., L9B5; SLeiner, 19?2; Shaw' 1976\ ' on one hand' heEerogeneitycanbreec]socia]-tension,anc]c]uetoitseffectsonsocial cohesion, homogeneity ,,sometimes has ac]verse effects on task motivaLion, parcicularlywhenworkacEivitiesareextendedoverlongperiodsof tine" (Steiner, 1972, p' :l}"t). On the other hand' heterogeneity can enhancethequaliLyofgroupproblem-solvinganddecision-making (HoffmanandMaier,lg6?;Janis,L983)'andi'tbroadensEhegroup's co]-IectivearrayofskillsancknowJ.edge.BecauseoftheseconfJ.icting Eendencies, heteogeneity has no neL effect on performance'
FFECT coHEsIoN Ilohl woI'D AI,I,oWING CKNoWI,EDGED HoMosExUALs To sERvE AND PERFORINCE?
i' EY?
sharing a
commiEmen!
and
0B -
WiIl
Unlls Have Acknowledged Homogexuals aE l{embers? Inevaluatingconcernsaboutunj.tcohesion,itwouldbeusefu}to what percentage of uniEs of a given size wi}l acLualJ'y have know acknowledged homosexuaf. This question cannot be answered with
Many
an
scientificprecision.RelevantdaEaarescarceandtherearemany unknowns. For example, the prevalence of homosexuality in the populationaLlargeissti}Iverymuchindispute'Thereislittle reliable informaEion on whether the prevalence of homosexuality in the miliEary differs appreciably--in either direction--from the population
aE Large, The scienLific IiEeraEure on prevalence estimaEion for
homosexua}ityinthegenera}populaEioniSrevi.ewedin,,Sexual orientaLion, sexual, Behavicr, and the Epicemiology of sexually that Transmitt.ecl Dise"rses" (Eo be publishecl) ' Suf f ice it Eo say here in almost all experts agree thaE Lhe prevalence of homosexual behavior the adulE populaLion falls somewhere in the 1 percent to 10 percenE range(RogersandTurner.lggl).However,iEappearsthatmanyofthose whoengageinhomosexual:ehavioralsoengageinheterosexualbehavior' prevalence and may not consider bhemselves to be homosexual; if so, the of individuals wiuh a homosexual self-identity--whether overt or covert--isproba}rlynearertothelowendthanthehighendofthat range. Little is known abouE Ehe prevalence of homosexua self-identity among military personnel (see Harry, 1984) ' affect How might ending discrimination based on sexua] orientation the prevalence of homosexuality in the military? It is conceivable that thisprevalencemightincreaseSomewhat',)uEitSeemsimpJ-ausiblethaE itwouldsignificanElyexceecJtheprevalenceofhomosexualiLyinthe general population, parEicularly given the current level of hostility
- 309 personnel'16 Thus' the toward homosexuality expressecl by many miliEary preva}enceofahomosexua}orienLationamongU.S,militarypersonnel seemslikelyEofal}somewhereinthelpercentto5percentrange. smaler staEisEical Homosexuals are and wiIl probably remain a much minoritythanmosteEhnicanc]racialminoriLiesinEhemilitary. However,asnoEec]inthechapteropeningmanyoftheconcerns raisedinthepolcycle}rateinvofvenottheprevalenceofhomosexuality intheU.S'military,buttheprevalenceofindividualswhoopenTy jon. In reality, the ,,openness,, of acknowJedge a holnosexua-l or.jen tat one,ssexualorientationisnotadichotomousvariab}ebut'acontinuous friends' variable. Thus some homosexuals mighE be open only to close supporEers of by Such situaEj.ons are less germane to Lhe concerns raised of "openness" would seem Lhe ban. For them, an operaEional definition of the to be "acknowledged by the indiviclual' known by a majority individual's colleagues ancl by supervisors"' experiences of Given this ilefinition, it is useful to examine the domestcparamilitaryinstiluEionsthathaveadoptednon-discrimination po]ici-es,reviewec]nthechapteronU.S.policeanclfiredepartments' sstatedinEhaLchapEer,theseinstiLutionsdifferfromEhemiliE'ary seen j"n in many ways, ancl are by no means completely analogous' As 0 percent Table 10-1. Ehe insbiEutions we visited report Lhat between and0.5lpercencofcheirLotalmeml]ershipconsist'ofacknowledged percent, a median prevalence homosexuals, rvith a mean prevarence oE 0.12 Thus' Lhe of 0.03 percenE, ancl an upper quartile of 0'19 percenE'1? experiencesoftheseinstituLionssuggestthatacknowTedgedhomosexua-ls in the foreseeable are TikeJy to be quite rare jn he miTitary' at leasL future.Thishasseveralimplications.FirsE,recallthatgroup is an aggregale statement; even if lesbians are percent of the overrepresented tiay, 1gB4), mares constitute about 90 forces. active l?with Ehe exception of the HousLon Police Department and Ehe Los i-n inberviews Angeles Fire Department/ Lhese stati'stics were obEained of the insEituEions ancl were veri'fied when possible with representabives were by homosexual memers of the institutions (some of whom unacknowledged).ThenumlfersbJeresufficient}ysmallthatrespondents could ofLen list Lhe individuals by name'
16"Ihr=
31-0 -
rable 10-1 EsEimated Prevalerce of cknowledged Homosexuals in DomegtLc Paramflitary InEEitutione VIsitsed by RAND
Year
PoIicy
Inst. i tut. ion Locat ion
Changed
1988
Pofice
chicago
Hous Eon
0.06t
0.00* 0.09t 0.36t 0.25* 0.008 0.008
0
N/
t9"19
]-97 9
0 7
Fire
1990 1980
approx. L00
4or
0 0
0 0
t9B8 N/
t9'7 9
1,97 9
2,900
3, 136
.008
Los nge-es
New York
0
0
.00*
.008
11,300
845
9'l
5
0
1
San Diegoe
Seat. t l-ee
t-990 L9B0
0.128
Mean
0.51t 0.r2z
0.038 of relevant
Median
policies in
bA.knorledged homosexual officers are actively recruited for community polcing in heaviLy homosexual neighborhoods' cwe were unable to get a precse counL of acknowLedged homosexual-s' dw. *er" Eold there was an acknowledged homosexuaL in Ehe seattle police Department, but after our visit, the seatJe Tjmes reported his resignation (,,Gay officer Quibs, Cites HarasSment,,,Kate ShaLzkin, May 30, 1993, P. 1 )-
we
(16-40 members) and cohesion is mostly relevane aE bhe leve1 of plaEoons smaller unibs, like five-person teams or crews' It appears Lhat relatively few of these units r^ilL acEually have one or more
- 311 -
Thiswil]-limittheaggregateeffectsonunitcohesion,althoughthe potentialimpactonanygivenuniLmusEbeLakenseriously'Asecond impl.icationisthatacknowlec]gec]homosexualsmay}esomewhaLj-so]ated. creatingapoEentialforostracism.Athirc]implicationisthatmosL helerosexualsinLhemi]larywillhaverelatively}ittlecontactwith in more acknowledged homosexuals' These implications are addressed deLail in subsequent sections' WhyhaveparamilitaryinstiLuEionsencounLeredsofewacknowledged of explicit nonhomosexual-s among Eheir ranks, clespite the adoption individuals in these discrimination poricies? As in the miritary many ,,Coming out.,, organizations hold negaEive attitudes toward homosexuality. non-cliscrininatory atmosphere, is a risky choice; even in an officially homosexualscanfacehosLiliLyfromsomecofleagues,unegualtreatmenEfrom physical violence'19 In the some supervisors, and even the possibility of militaryfocusgroupscliscussedinthechapteronmilitaryopinion,bot,h Ehat few homosexual ancl heterosexual military personnel predicted were: homosexuals woulcl come ouL; two conments from heterosexuals
Those thaL are gay anc have served have accepEed ImiliEary] cause problems values ' TheY know thaL ii Lhey come out iE would IL's noE going to :e a mass of people coming out of the It's not going Eo happen ' closet. Senate Armed There was aLso general agreemenL on this poinE at Che Services committee Hearings (March 31' l-993) '
appears to acknowledge Eheir sexual orienLation unless the ]ocal climate may be tolerant' AS an envronment becornes more toleranE, homosexuals
Itwouldappea:thathomosexualsaregenerallyunw1lingEo
becomemorewi]-Iingt'oclisc}oseEheirorienEation,butthatsame}eve]. distributed, for any given aggregate prevalence rate' even fewer uniLs wilf have an open homosexual ' 19one might argue EhaE a homosexual indiviclual is more 1ikely to comeoutnanenvironmentrr,herethereisalreadyanopenhomosexual individual'However,thj'spossibtiEyisconstrainedbythefactsthat (1)thep::evalenceofhomosexualsisalreaclyLow'and(2)thehigh frequencyofEurnoveranclLransersmeanLhathomosexualscannoLcounf on Locally favoraLe conditions to last '
-3r2of tol-erance suggests that. their openness witl pose l-ess of a tshreat to the quaJ-ity of workng relaEionships'
How MlghE
the PreEence of cknowledged Homosexuals Influence cohesLon? Ithough there is no clirecL scientific evj.dence about the effects of acknowledged homosexuals on unit cohesion the established principles of cohesion suggest LhaL if Lhere is an effect. it is most likely bo involve social cohesion rather than Eask cohesion. As explained above. sj-milarity of social atLiEucles ancl beliefs is not associated with Eask cohesion, although it is someEimes associatecl with social cohesion' Task cohesion involves similarity, Iut of a differenL sort; it is found when individuals share a commiEment to the group's purpose and objectives.Thereseemsfi.ttlereasontoexpecLacknow]-edged The homosexuall"ty to influence this commitment, aE least not direcEly' values of homosexuals in the military have not been systematically comparecl to Ehose of heterosexual personnel' However' historicaL anecdotesandRND,sinterviewssuggestthaEhomosexualswhoservein lhemilitaryarecornmitLeclLoLhemIitary'scorevalues'which Henderson (1990, p' 108) IisLs as "fighting skilI' professional (seffleSs service), teamvJork, physical st'amina, self-c]iscipline, duLy This notion was accepLed by most witnesses and loyalty to uniL"' duri.ng the recent Senate hearings, and it seems likey' since despi-te homosexuaLs in the military are a self-selected group who enLer numerous obstacles anc personaL and professional- rj'sks ' ThuS, if the presence of acknov.].edged homosexuals has an ef fect, it is most tj.kely Eo be on socia] cohesion. Recal Ehat social cohesion involves Ehe emoEional bonds of friendship, liking' caring' and on miliEary l_oseness among group members. As documented in the chapter opinion, many mili-Eary members exPress negative aEtiEudes toward homosexualiE,y, anc it is likely Ehat many will continue to do so. at least in the immediaEe future, Thus, if a unit had one or more acknowledgedhomosexuals,ancloneormoreheLerosexualswhodis]j.ked homosexual-ity, a reclucLion in social cohesion would be likeIy. Aswehaveseen,itistaskcohesionratherthansocialcohesion that has a direct influence on performance, This suggests that it is
- 313 not aLrdays necessary for co-workers Lo li.ke each other, or desire to socialize together, to perform effectively as a Leam,' ndeed steiner (Ig72) noEes thaE ",,.iL s apparent Ehat people someLimes prefer !o work with nonfriends" (p. I2'7), Accorcing to Steiner (1'972, p' 1-61):
work groups sometj-mes persist !n the face of adversity even though members have Iittle affecEion for one another, and indusErial psychologlsEs ofEen oJEain low or even zero correlations between inter-member esEeem and measures of Ehe success wLh which groups cope with their environments' There are many examples of this phenomenon in the sports literaLure; nogorious examples include the 19?3-1975 Oakland A's and the tg7'l -Tg'7 8 New York Yankees . Aronson (19'7 6 , p. 193 ) describes how bl-ack and \,vhite coal miners in West Virginia "ceveJ.oped a patEern of living that consisted of Eotal and compJ.ete integration whiLe they were under the ground, ancl EotaL ancl complete segregation while chey were above the ground." Many military observers (e,g., Ingraham, 1984) have noted a similar tendency of black and white sol-diers to sociafize separaLely, In one of our focus gfroups, we despite worki.ng togeEher- effectvely. were told:
Ib,s al} about l-especE. when you develop a team, they develop a respecE that transcencls race ' Team members look beyond race, Utopia is team work- once yoLl get out of that, it breaks down back at the garrison when they're noE aE work'
However, there may be condit.ions uncler which a reduction in sociaL cohesion brings about. a reclllction in Lask cohesion. There appear to be few invariants in the research liEerature on small- group performance;
factors Lhat have one effect under cerlain Eask conditions can have a very different effecL under others (McGraLh, 1984). For certain types of tasks, some minimal level of social cohesion might be necessary for the group to accomplish iEs task (DriskeIl et al., 1987; Janis' 1983; zaccaro and Mccoy, 19BB). One migh! expect Ehj.s to be less of a concern in addjjrze tasks--r^/here Ehe group's performance is the sum of individual performances, ancl more of a concern in disjunctive and conjunctive tasks--where the group's performance is deEermined by the
- 314 most able member or tshe "weakesE 1ink," respectively (Kerr, 1983; Kerr and and Maccoun, 1985b; Seeiner, L972 Zaccaro and Lowe' 1'988 Zaccaro
McCoy,1988).However.MullenancCopper,s(]"993)meEa-analysisdidnot supportthisprediction;Eheyfounclnodifferencesj.nthestrengthof the cohesi-on-performance effect for Lasks with high vs. Low interactive requiremenEs. But one can imagine circumstances in which a group has so littte social cohesion that task performance becomes impossible, with potentially disastrous consequences for the group' Thus,muchmaydependonhowsocialcohesionisaffected.Figure
10-2 presents four qualiLative t.ypes of social cohesion in a five-person crew or team, where inclividuaL E has revealed his or her homosexual orientation. SociaI cohesion involves Ehe pairwise bonds among Lhese i.ndividuals.2c Strictly speaking, Ehere should be two direcEiona] bonds
for each pair of inclivicluals, but the figure depicts only one' for simplj'city.Simi]arly,inrealiLy,thesebondsvaryconcinuouslyin sbrength,butPigurel0-2EreaE'sEhemdchotomouslyforsimplicity.It pairwise bond assumes trhat if either inciviclual rejecEs the oEher, the
isbroken;thissapessj-mi.sticaSSumpLlonLhatpr:ovidesanupperbound on the loss of cohesion. uncer Ehese assumptions, Figure 10-2a depicts a group in which social cohesion has noE been disrupted' Pigure ].0-2b clepicEs the ,,comPleLe ]reakdown,, of social cohesion--a state of anarchy. A less extreme version woul-d depict a significant E's weakening in each bond. In eiLher case, this would imply thaE acknowledgmentofhomosexuali.Lywou}dacEuallyaffectthebondsof friendship among heEerosexua-ts in Ehe uniE; e'g" would Iike C less Lhis because E is a homosexual' Again, we have no direct evidence, but scenario seems unlikely in mosE instances' Figure 70-2c seems somewhac more plausi}rIe. In Ehis scenario, the creb is split int-o factions,'members A. B' and C are hosLIe Eo Ehe homosexual, while D befriencls Ehe homosexuaf-21 This is conceivabLe,
,oTask cohesion and group pricle would be depicbed differencLy, with group members boncecl to each oLher indrectly through a common node depicting "group goals" or "group idenbiy"' respectively' Schwarzkopf zlThis is Ehe situaEon cliscussed by General H' Norman during his tesEimoney before the senate Armed services commibtee on May' ,,the inLroduction of an open 11, 1993. General'schwarzkopf noted Ehat,
315
a. Social Cohesion
b. Anarchy
c. Factionalism
d. Ostracism
,2\ tr 7- tr
\
tr-tr
tr-tr
@'/
Flgure 1-0-2-Altsernae Models of coheslon in Flve-Pergon Unf Note: Node E depict an acknowfedged homogexual" linka depfcE poeitive bonds between ndividuale'
buL only if D is willing
to sacrifice his relationships wich the others in the process. D may be more likely Eo weaken his bonds with everyone rather than take sides with E afone, of course, may also be a homosexual; statisLically this wiIl be quiEe rare in five-person crews, but it maY haPPen '
homosexuaL
inEo a smal1 unit immecliately polarizes EhaL unit and destroys the very bond Lhat is so importanE for Lhe unit's survival in time of war. For what ever reason, the organizaEion is divided inLo a majoritywhooppose,asmallrninoritywhoapprove,andothergroupswho either clo noL care or just wi-sh the problem would go away"'
- 316 would If there is any breakdown in social cohesion' Figure 10-2d of compleLe or case appear Eo be more ikely than 2b or 2c' This is Ehe research (Levine, 7989 partial ostracism.22 sociaL psychological
schacher,1951)indicatesEhatopiniondeviatesinsmallgroups pressure initially receive irEense attention as Ehe group atLempts Co be the individual Lo conform to Che group' That research may not directlyapplicable;itinvolveclindividualsexpressingviewsdirectly in opposibion bo the majority view on a grouP-judgment task' whereas homosexualsdeviatefromthemajority,ssexualorienEationratherthan the the group's views regarding Eask accomplishment' NeverEheless' individual'ssexualorienEationmaycreatefearsof"stigmaby association,,--aconcernthcrtthegroupsreputationwi].lbeEarnished (MackieandGoethals,lgBT;sigelmanetal"1991)'Thus'thegroupis likelytopuEintensePressureonthehomosexualindividualtoconform values' Lo other group norms--conduct, appearance performance' opinions, anci aEEitudes.23 sEatistically small minorities--in particu}ar,loneminorj'ties--havedisproportionate}ylittleabilityto and WoIf' resist socj.al infl"uence (e.g', Kerr and Maccoun' 1985a; Latan the relevant unit 1981; Mul1en, 1983; Tanford and Penrocl' 1984) ' When shiftsfromLhefive-personcrewtothe40-personplacoonor200-plus company, the majority pressures may be even greater'24 If the group fails, Chey may react f,y parbially or completely ostracizingLheindivic]ua}'Becauseostracismprovidestheotherswth miqht a common enemy, Ehe strengths of Ehe bonds among the heterosexuals trD""td Marlowe also preclictecl that ostracism was the most like1y Similarly' scenario cluring his conversation with us on April 6, 1993' HeaLth of in our clj-scussions wiLh the Heacl of the Department of MenEaI thelsraelDefenseForces(May4,Lg93)thispoinLwasalsonoted: of homosexual ,,Homosexuals can become scapegoats if their manj.fesE.ations behaviorcausethemtoberejecLedorostracizedfromthegroup'This isnoEjustbecauseofhomosexuality,butforanysociafadjustment prob}emorpersonatiLyprobtemwhi'chdonotaflowhimtoadapLtothe group..'.(However),iftherevJerenodisfunctionalityintheunit,he (the homosexual) woulcl not currenLly be removed from the unit"' likely 23s discussed earlier, these same conformity pressures are ,,in Ehe closet,,,aE least within the group' to keep most homosexuals j-nfluence wiII reach an asympLote due to 2Hor".r"t, majoriLy marginal social influence, anc possibi-y, social or physical diminishing dist.ance (Latan ancl Wol-f , 198L; Tanford and Penrod' l-984) '
- 317 actuall-y increase; in a large enough group' the resul"t might be a neE to increase in social cohesion for the group as a whole'25 ThaE is noE suggestthaEostracismisinanywayanacceptablesLaLeofaffairs. ostracismhasacruelandpoEentallydangerouseffectonLheostracized individual, and it can seri'ously hincer the unit's performance if osEracism is maintainecl at the expense of the unit,S mission. Thus, ostracism cannot be toleraLecl' When cases do occur--as sometimes happens today for reasons other Ehan sexual orienbation--the military acEively intervenes Ehrough inEormal confJict resoluion, or if necessary, reassignment or disciplinary action' Thelikelhoodofcompleteostracismwilldependonwhatactually happens during contact between heterosexuas and acknowledged homosexuals. The effect on performance wj'1I depend on whether the individuals refuse Lo cooperate with each other to accomplish the group's mission. These issues are aclclressed in the next two secEions' Will Contact witsh Acknowledged Homosexuals fnfluence Attltudes? As discussecl earlier, everything eJ.se being equal, the mere facL of propinquiEyancgroupmembershippreclisposeSmemberstosocialcohesion. However, everybhing else is noL equal' if one member is an acknowledqed homosexual and Lhe others have hostile attiLudes Loward homosexuality' This creates the possibi].iEy of c]ivisiveness in the group--an,,Us vs.
Them" phenomenon.
Research on social caLegorization processes (e.g., Brewer, l9'79 Gaertner et af., 1993; Messick and Mackie ]'989; osErom and Sedikj.des,
1992.Iajfe}anc]Turner.1979;fJi1der,19B6)SuggescsEhatswhenever 'leEween sociaL groups. three ef f ects Lhere are salienL bounclaries generallyoccur.FirsL,Ehereistheingroupbjasdescribedabove: people evaluate their o\rn group members more favorably' simply because they are ingroup members. Seconcl, there is a beween'group conErast effect, such Lhat indivicluals exaggel:ate Lhe extent to which members of Lhe ingroup ciffer from members of the outgroup' Third' there is an
,''his uncerscores t.he 1:oirtt- ttrade 1n fooEnote 4 that averagingf acrossj-ndiviclualraLingsofoEhermemberscanobscureimporLant quaLititative differences n paLLerns of cohesion'
- 318 outgroup homogeneiEy effect, such that individuals exaggeraLe lhe extenb to which members of Ehe outgroup "are all alike'" The ingroup bias effect is a pro-ingroup effect' but noE necessarily an anEi-ouEgroup effect (Brewer, I979) in other words, it reflects special favorabiLity to\^/ard fellow ingroup members. noL special
hostiliEyEowarc]cheoutgroup'Thus,themerefacEEhatgroup boundaries exist appears to be necessary, but not sufficient, for hostility tovard outgroups (struch and schwartz, 1999). Other factors account for Lhe Level of hostility in attiLudes toward homosexuality' As reviewed in the chapter on public opinion, and elsewhere (e.9.' BriCton, 1-990; Herek, L991, Ig92'), attiE.udes Eoward homosexuality are complex. They can have several different origins, including one's socialization, religious beliefs, conformity Lo a peer group' and media influences. nd they can serve several differenL psychologlcaJfunctions: the evaluatj-ve functj-on of surnarizing one's experiences and expectations, the conformist funcLion of emphasizing one's unity wiEh other heLerosexuals, the value-expressive function of broadcasting one's own values or idenEiEy, or Ehe defensive funcLion of reducing anxiety
abouE
one's own sexuality' Each of us belongs The salience of group boundaries is very fluid' gender' our race our age to many diffeent social categories--our group, our naEionaliEy and region, our religion, our profession' our political party, ancl so on. PsychologisLs have demonstraEed at least three ways Eo clisrupL the potenEially clivsive influence of safient intergroup boundaries (see Fiske and Neuberg, 1990,' Gaertner et a1., 1989, 1990, 1993; Hewstone, Islam. and Judd, 1993; Miller and Brewer, L984; Wilder, 1986). The first approach ts deca|egorizaEion; break down the ingroup-out.group boundary by emphasizing the many feaEures bhat differentiate members of the same groups; e'g'i the fact that all The second approach is cross-caEegoriza|ion: homosexuaLs are not alike. emphasize the many ways in which inclividuals who differ on one dimension- -e.g., sexual orient,ation--share memberships on other dimensions--e.g,, you ancl f like sports but he doesn't, buE he and I like rock music and you clon't. The third approach ls recaEegorization:
- 319 a common superordinaEe idenEity thaL uniLes all- the indivdual-s--e,g', vre are aII Rangers ' DecaLegorization can be effective lecause between-group concrast and outgroup homogeneicy are generally sustained by a lack of informaEion about the cliversit.y of characteristics in the ouEgroup (Fiske and Neuberg, 1990; Miller and Brewer, 1984; Stephan, 1"985). In the case of homosexuaiLy, this is enhancecl by stereotyped media portrayals that. give the impression Lhat alI homosexuals are flamboyant, effeminate, promiscuous, or abrasive. Thus, actual contact with homosexuals--or any outgroup--holcls the potenLial for weakening stereotypes ancl thereby ::eclucing intergroup hostilities' Does conEacC with homosexuals enhance the favorability of attitudes toward homosexuality? SomeEimes, but not always' There is fairly limited research on this question. There is evidence (see the chapters on public and miliEary opinion; \IhiEley, 1990) thaE those vho know homosexuals have less negative aEtitudes Eowards homosexuals' This may be an indication Ehat posiEive ineracLions with homosexuals break down stereotypes. But it aJso seems likely Lhat homosexuals are more likely to acknowledge their sexual- orienbation to Ehose with more favorable
emphasize
aEEitudes, Research on the effects of intergrouP contact indicates that mere contactr per se, is often insufficienL to improve intergroup relations' ccordinsr to Allport
prejudice...may be recluced by equal staLus contacE. between majoriLyanc]minoriEygroupsinthepursuitofcommongoals' The effect. is greaLly enhanced j.f this contact is sanctioned by instituLiona.I suppol'ts...and if it is of a sort LhaL leads to the percepEion of common interests and conmon humanity between members of Ehe tv'o groups .
There is now a large bocy of research supporting Allport's analysis of the conditions uncler which intergroup contact brings about a reduction in hostiliEies (e.g,, MiLler and Brev;er. 1984; Stephan. 1985, 198?), For example, there is consi.derable eviclence that cooperative
learning inLerventons can brng about a reduction in interracial hostiliLies; Lhese inEerventons assign sEudenLs to mixed-racaf or
320 -
ethnic groups that musE pursue common goals whj-ch can only be achieved through cooperative effor-Ls (,Johnson and Johnson, 1989; MiIler and Davidson-Podgorny, 1987; Slavin, 1985) ' Some of Ehe conditions that promoEe harmonious ncergroup conEact to achieve. Research indicates Lhat contact is more may be difficult likely to be effecEive when inEeraction Eakes place among a mix of equal numbers of members of each sociaL group (e.g., Mil1er and Davdsonpodgorney, 198?). In inj-tial encounLers with members of an outgroup, our Eendency is Eo assimlclEe Ehem into our stereotype unLess their behavior is greatly cliscrepanL rrom our expecEations (see Fiske and Neuberg, 1990). It generally Eakes extensive exposure to a diversity of members of the outgroup Jrefore assimilation becomes impossible and our sEereoL.ypes :egin Lo break clown (see Jones et aL , L984, pp. 315-3L8) . But the very low prevalence of acknovrLedged homosexual-ity will limit this possibj-1ity. Because oPen homosexuals wilI be relatively rare, it for many heLerosexuals to acheve a "criti.cal mass" of may be clifficult inLergroup contacL. Moreover, minoriEy solo stat.us in a group tends to heighten the salience of the intergroup boundary (Taylor and Fiske, 1g?8). Thus, some conclitions may promote a perpetuation of stereotypes. But other conditions for effective intergroup contact are naturalfy met in the military contexL, Although decategotization might be difficult to achieve. the miliLary activeJ-y encourages recaLegorization' The military naLuralIy strives to diminish t.he salience of individuating characteristics ar:cl enhance the salience of the superordinate qroup idenEj.ty. As Dcrvicl Mal'Lowe put it in his testimony to the Senale Armed
Services Comrnj.Etee (Ma::ch 31 '
1993 )
:
If the individual insists upon being treated first and foremosc in cerms of a clifferenE primary identity, as hapPened in Vietnam in terms of drug-using, as has happened in any number of cases, Ehen I think we have a problem' milital:y gfoes co greats }engths to remincl unit members of their superordinate iclentibies: nrerican, Service Member, unit Member. This is emphasizecl and reemphasized Ehroughout the military socializaLion process, and iL is reinforcecl by Lhe use of uniforms and insignia' The
The
-32Lsuperordinate iclenEiEy is even more salient when units are stationed abroad. The military also strives to decouple social status--based on race, ethnicity, and socj.oeconomic facCors--from miLitary stabus; e'9'' through the use of standarclizecl apEiLude testing and rigorous performance criEeria. AccorcingtoHoIlanc]er(1958,1985),groupmembersmustfirstearn group idiosyncracy credils in the eyes of their colleagues before the wil] tolerate nnovations or deviations from group norms or culture' To earn these credits, members must firsE (1) demonstraEe their competence in pursuing t'he group,s tasks, ancl (2) demonstrabe their loyalty to the Eheir allegiance to Lhe group's group and its culture--i.e,, InterestingLy, research on social stigmas superordinate identity' (Goffman, 1963; Jones ec aL, 1984; Luhtanen, 1993) indicates that many In stigmaLized individuals intuit-ively understand these principfes' oEhers, they order to normafize their reLaEions with non-sEigmatized
oftenfeelcompelledtogoEogreaElengthstoesEablishcompeEenceand loyalLy ,,above ancl beyond.,, ', Invisible,, stigmas 11ke homosexuality provide an advantage in this regard; invisibly stigmatized individuals can establish their competence anc loyalty before revealing Lhe stigrma' Thesenseofsuperorc]inaLeidenEityj-sparticularysa}ientin Lhe comrat seL,tngs, where Ehere is a brighL psychological- Iine dividing presence of a shared uniE from Lhe enemy. s cliscussed earlier, the lhreat and a common enemy enhances task ancl social' cohesion' Thus, when members of a military group belong to different social groups, combat conditions can reduce intragroup tensions.26 Brophy (1945-1946) provided early evidence for this hypothesis in his study of whiLe searnen during the second worlcl war- He found thac prejudice against blacks was i.nversely associaLed wibh the number of voyages taken with blacks. and that "...those who have noL been under enemy fire are significantly more prejucliced than those who have beer subjected to eremy action" (p' 461) ' He concluded that ,,it woulcl apPear that many of our respondents could not. afford the Iuxury of an anti-Negro prejudice while at sea" (p' 466) ' in Figu::e 1O-1, the excepLion is when individual groupinterestsconflict,aswhengroupmemberscompetewitheachother for scarce resources
,6A= depictecl
and
-322A key factor in effective inLergroup conEact is institutionaL support, communicated by leaders at alI levels (Allport' 1954; Stephan' 1985). This is within the military's conErol, ancl is promoEed by the
miliEary's clear: chains of command' Allport's analysis of desegregaEion experiences suggests Ehat military leadership must demonstrate Ehrough their words and their actions Ehat intoleran behaviors are categoricaJ-Iy unacceptable (also see the chapter on organizational change) , chapEer 4 suggests thaE Ehe integration of blacks into the military 14as greaLly facilitated once military leaders aggressively implemented Lhe policy change'
Ehe
wllf Negatve Acitudes Toward HomosexualiEy Be Expressed Behaviorally? The widespreac expression of negative aLtiEudes toward homosexuality among heterosexual military personnel has raised concerns abou how they will behave if they find themselves working v/ith an acknowledged homosexuaf. Thus, there are predictions of soldiers refusingEowork,bunk,orshowerwithhomosexuals,andofwidespread outbreaks of violence against homosexuals. But there is Iittle reason to believe thaE negative atLitudes towarcl homosexuality are automatically translated into clestructive behaviors (see the chapters on domestic police ancl fire deparLments anc on foreign miliEary experiences). The effecE of atEitudes towarcl social groups on behavior is known to be j-ndirect, compLex, and for most people' fairly weak (Ajzen and Fshbein, l9B0; campbell, 1963; Eagl-y and chaiken, 1993; Fishbein ancl Ajzen, 19?5; LaPiere, 1934; Stephan, 1985; Wicker, 1-969) '2't For many years, researchers simply assumed that social attitudes were a major cleterminant of behavior. An early indication that this might not. be Lhe case was proviced by LaPiere (1934). LaPiere traveled across Ehe unitecl staEes with a chinese couple, and found that of approximately 250 hoEels and restauranLs, only one refused to serve Ehe couple. LaPiere then informally surveyed the proprietors of these institutions Lo ask if their establishments accepted members of Ehe ,rThfs aJ-so implies Chat people who express posiLive attitudes toward a social group nright behave more negati.vely; see Devine eL a1"
(1991).
-323Chineserace;ouEofthel2Sreplieshereceived'overg0percentsaid of t.haL they dj.cl noe, stephan (1985, p. 627) cEes severa] replications this finding invo.ving ciscrepancies between anti-black prejudice and behaviors toward trlacks. In Iight of these ancl other findings, wcker (1969) argued thaE attitudes have tittle or no association with behavior; across his review of over 40 studies, the attitude-behavior correlation was generally in the o,1o-0.20 range, and rarely gfreaEer than 0.30 . since wcker,s study (1969), Lhere has been considerable research on ways in which atj-Eudes acEually do influence behavior (see Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Eagly and Chaj.ken, 1993; Fishbein and Ajzen, ]-915) ' Figure 10-3 summarizes some o [he key findings of this IiEerature; it is adapted from Ajzen and Fishlein's (1980) theory of reasoned action and Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behavior, with modifications suggested by others (e,g., Cialdini eE al', 1991; Eagly and Chaiken' 1993;Triandis,7gl7),Accordingtoarecentchapterin?hennuaf ReviewofPsychoTogy(oIsonandZanna,1993,p'131-)'Ehisgeneral approach ,remains Ehe clominan! theoretical framework in the altEude(see behavior literature"; iC has received enormous empirical support EagleyandChaiken,lgg3),anditplaysacentralroleinapplied psychoJ.ogy/ consumer research, and organizaEional behavior' Figure 10-3 illustrates a number of important points about the relationship between atLjudes toward subjects--in this case, atEitudes toward homosexuals--anc behavior. First, the relationship between attitudes Loward subjects or objects and actuaJ behaviors is quiLe indirecL. A negaEive attitude toward homosexuality will only influence behavior va its nf].uence on attjtudes Eoward acEs; i'e', the atLibude towarcl working with this homosexual, Ehe aEtitude toward sleeping in the same barracks or Lent as this homosexual, the attitude toward showering in the same room as thls homosexuaL, and the atticudes Loward verbaLly or physically harassng this homosexual. Moreover, attiEudes coward homosexuaLiLy are only partiaL determinanLs of attitudes toward these acts; the latter are also determined by their perceived conseqruences. For exampLe, the aLEitude Lowarcl refusing Lo work vJith a homosexual is Iikely to be influencecl lcy the perceived bet'tefits of thaL action (I'11
aa
Perceived
What others
think I should do
What I see
others doing
Figure 10-3-ttitude-Behavior Link Is Indirect Note: arrows depicr caugal reLationships. avoid having to e arouncl. someone I don't. Iike; oLhers will know that I'm not homosexual.; etc,), but also Ehe perceived cosLs (we won't get the job done; I,11 interfere wiEh the unic's mission; I may end up in an unpleasanE confrontaton rvith the homosexual person; f may have Eo endure dj-sci-pllnary actions y my superiors). As one soldier said in a focus group, "if you can't get your job done, you'1I be in trouble' If you can't work with people you'11 be in troulle'" Moreover, the attitude toward the act is itseLf only indirectly relaEed t.o behavior Ehrough j.ts influence on the inention io engage in Ehe acE. IntenLions ae influenced by attitudes, but inEentions have other imporLant determinants. For example our inLentions to engage in a behavior are heavily influenced by our percepfions of the social norms of the people around us. There are two types of social norms, injunctive nonns and descrjptive nonnls (cialdini et aI,, 1991), Injunc!ive nor.ms refer Lo our beliefs about what we Ehink others want us Eo do--wheLher they wilJ. approve or disapprove of our behavior' For
-325example, in cleciding whether to refuse to work with a homosexual, I may anticipate the approva of my heterosexual buddies, but the disapproval of my supervisor. Descriptive norms refer Lo what we acEually see others doing n similar siEuations. Thus, if I see my heLerosexual peers working wilh the homosexual sol-clier, I wil-1 be more inclined to work wj-th him too; alEernativeLy, if I see a plurality of them refusng
Lo work with him, f may be more inclined to join them'
Intentions are also influencecl by seJf-efficacy (Ajzen. 1997 Bandura. lg82\, the perceived capabiJ'iEy of performing the act' Selfefficacy i_s partly a personal disposicion, buE iE also reflecLs immedlate environmental- consLraints--e.9., limited resources or opportuniti-es. In many situabions, it may be quite diffi.cut to refuse contact with a homosexual-: If I don't ride wiLh this guy, how am I going to geL there? If I refuse to sleep next to him, where am I going to sleep? Finally,behavioriEselfisonlypartlyintentional'Like intentions, behaviors are also consErained by the resources and opportunities afforded by the immediate envj.ronment. And our behaviors in many siEuations reflect wefl-learned habils EhaL we engage in with littIe or no consci.ous reflection. Norms and habits often combine to for how to behave in a given provide us with familiar'scripts" situaEion, and j.E can be very difficult Lo rorce ourselves to deviate from those scripts (Abel-son, 1981). Thus if is ofben the case that the besL precl-ct.or of behavior is the behavior of the actor in similar situations in the past (see EagIy and Chaiken, 1993; Triandis, L977). For example, in r^ork siEuatons, mosc of us have a well-Iearned and rehearsed scfipt which inclines us to cooperaLe with co-workers; iE s 'the path of least resisLance." organizatronal role theorists have shown lhat occupational roles ancl norms largeJ-y consLrain both workrelated and social ehaviors in organizational settings (Pfeffer, L9B5). In this sense, the miltary is a heavily scripted environment. The principles depictecl in Figure 10-3 help to explain why the effecb of diffuse attitucles toward objects or sociaL groups often has only weak effects on lehavior. This is not to say t.hat negative attitudes towarcl homosexuaLity will never be expressed lehaviorally;
-326history clearly suggests otherwise. But Figure 10-3 indicaEes that there are many facLors that mtigaLe agTainst serious behavioral expressions of anti-homosexual aEEitucles. It is imporEant bo reflect thaL the military has considerable influence over many of those mitigating facEors--the consequences of the action, the njunctive and descriptive norms, the environment.al constraints, habits and scripts-through its leadership, its regulaEions, its standard operating procedures, ancl its training and socialization process. If military leaders set and enforce clear standards for acceptable and unacceptable conduc, compliance is likeJ.y to be high. It will not be universa], however, and some individuals will test their leaders' resol-ve to enforce compliance. Leaders who display ambivalence a]out enforcement can prolably anticipaEe further probJ-ems. Because of their compliance, many indi.viduals may find themselves in a state of "cognitive dissonance"--a conflict between their atEitudes and Eheir conduct. ccording to Festinger's (1957) well-supported theory of cognitive dissonance (see Eag1y and Chaiken's L993 reviev'). this state of dissonance is utrpleasanL, and people generally resolve iL by either changing ther attitudes or changing their behavior. When an j.ndividual with negat.ive atLiLudes toward homosexuality finds himself cooperating with acknowledged homosexuas, there are a number of ways to resoLve Ehe sense of dissonance he may feeJ.: 1. Verbally harass the homosexual co-worker. 2. Do his job poorly ("passive aggression"). 3. OstenaLiously broadcast his own values (e.g., heterosexuality, machismo, religiousiby, conservatism) 4. Justify his behavior by invoking Lhe costs of refusal (my serec1nt woul-d kj-1l me). 5, Justify his behavior by invoking descriptive norms (everybody else is working wbh him, too) . 6, .TusEify his }:ehavior by invoking his sense of duty, professionalism, and the need for task cohesion. '. . Change his atEitude by adjusting his attiLude Eoward working with homosexuals.
32'7 -
The unit leacler can help the relucEanE heEerosexual. resolve bhis sense of dissonance in a manner that is in keeping with unit discipline and unit performance. It must be clearly communicated that route L (harassment ) and r-ouLe 2 (pass.ve aggress-on) are unacceptable and willnot be tolerated. Route 3 (symbolic displays of identity) can be
tolerated within the Iimits outlined in personal conduct regulations (see the chapter on legal issues and the chapter on change in large organizations). Route 4 (punishment avoidance) may be expedient, but in Lhe long run, route 5 (conformity) and rouLe 6 (duty and professionalism) seem more desirabe, The research evidence (reviewed by Eagly and Chaiken, 1993) suggests thaE route 7 (atEj.Lude change) may frequently occur, but iL should be emphasized Lhat lhe goal of compliance is to esL.ablish unit disciplne, cohesion, and effeciveness. Tolerance of homosexuality will promoEe those goaIs, but toLerance need noE require moral or religious acceptance'
W111
Heteroeexuals obey an openly Homosexua] Leader? Earler, it was suggesec thaE if social cohesion is adversely affected, j-L is most likely Eo be bhrough a process of partial or compJ-ete ostracism. l.^Ihat if the ostracized individual is the group's
leader? WiL heEerosexual soldiers respect an acknowledged homosexual, and comply wj.th his or her orders? Ths is Ehe question of "followership, " or upward vertica cohesion. rn one of the focus groups, one person said "I worked with a homosexual and not one man would do what he said." On the other hand, Ehere is anecdotal evidence that known homosexuals have served in leadership positions in the military v,/ith no deleterious effecLs. The organizational literature on J.eadership provides some hinEs as Eo when known homosexuals are likely to be effecEive leaders. French and Raven (cited in French, 1959) disEinguish severaL different forms of social power: Reward power, coercive power. expert power, inforntation power, Jegitinta:e power (the }eader's right to a position of auEhority), and referenE power (influence Ehrough sulordinates' identificaEion wth Ehe l-eader). Although miJ-iLary feaders generally have more reward, coercive, information, legitimate, and experE
torelysolelyontheseformsofpo!.]er;icleally,theleadershouldrely heavilyonreferentpowertomotivatetheLeam(seeHenderson,1985). onepathLoreierenEpoweristhroughexpertpower.Bass(1981)cites evidencethatt'heesLeemwithwhichleadersareheldisreliably this ssociated with the group's performance' Of course' Eo some extent correlation may reflect Ehe common influence of eader ability on both esceemandgroupperformance'AccorclingtoBass(1981,pp.161-163)l
A Leader's infl-uence is more strongly associated with one's sociometrically rated value or abilj-ty than one's sociometrically determined popularty or visibility'popular may . ' .whereas being likec, being visible, and being stillbeorsomeimportanceEoone'sinfluenceinplay situations, compeEence and value are of most imporEance to inffuence in Eask situaEions'
ThisisconsistentwiEhHollander's(1958,1'985)idiosyncracy creditmode}ofaccepLab]-ecevianceinorganizations,reviewedearlier. Recall- that HoIlander has clemonstrated that group members must iE demonstrate their compeEence and Eheir loyalty bo the group before leadership will accept deviations from group norms. Homosexuals in rolesmayhaveanadvantageoverotherhomosexualsinLhisregard becausesubordinaEeswilltendtoassumeEhataleaderiscompetentand 1oyal until proven otherwise (Bass, 1981) ' BuL a homosexual leader is likeIy to )e held to hi.gher informa] stanclards of conduct and compeEence than other Ieaders, aE least in the current attitudinal climate. Military].eadersobviouslybenefitfrombeingliked,butiEmaynot be necessary to get the jo: done. According to Bass (1981-, p. 209):
Lyndon Johnson wanted every American to love him' but Harry Truman opined thaE "if you can'L stand Ehe heat' stay ouL of
thekitchenl"Nationalleadersmustsettleforfessthan universal af f ection. They musL I:e wiIJ"ing to be unloved' ' 'No leacler can be successful if not preparecl to be rejected'
Military leaclers al-so get considerable mileage out of pure legiEimate power; many suborclinates will obey a homosexual leader simply because of a strong sense of cluly ancl allegiance Lo the military role,
-329regardless of their attituc]e toward the leac]er,s personal traits.2B up then, much may depend on the behavior of the nex leader Ultimately, wilh respecE the chain of command; if Lhe homosexual }eader is treaLed from above, he s more likely to be Ereated wiEh respect from beLow' If the relaLonship between a leader ancl a unit becomes completely According to it may be necessary to replace the leader' dysfunctional, p' 27): a l"g88 Army Research InstiLute reporE (siebolcl and Ke1ly, 1988a,
Very high or very 1ow IverLicaJ] cohesion seldom lasEs for long periods lecause the leaders causing ej-ther geE reassigned, perhaps more quickly than their peers' Therefore' ReplacemenL Ieacers are on Lhe average' average' whi]etherearedifferencesincohesionamongasetof platoons aE any given time, they tend to be wiehin a band seL by the genera commancl climate ancl post procedures and
condibi.ons
'
In addition Lo reassigning Ieaders' Ehere are many other interventions that can be used Eo resEore unit functioning to an accepEable }evel, including informal conflicL resolution; additiona]. traininq; Ehe reassignment of members co new units' new tasks' or new bunks; or even disciplinary acEion' To reinforce this inEervention process'ifhomosexualswereallowec]Loserve,formalstepsshouldbe takentosystemaEicallymoniLorEhecohesionandfunctioningofthose units with acknowledged homosexuals Eo ensure LhaL any problems can be identifedancmanagec]inaprompLandconstructivefashion.This monitoringshouldbeconductedinanunobstrusivemannerEoavoid calling undue attenLion to the homosexual's presence or implying special
treaLment
.
CONCIJUSIONS
The analysis in Ehis chapter suggests that concerns about the poEential effect of permitting homosexuals to serve in the military are
330
of There is no direct scienLific eviclence regarding the eflects cohesion or the presence of acknowledged homosexuaLs on unit unit performance, has a There are at leasE two types of cohesion ' Task cohesion cohesion modest but re1able influence on performancei sociaT for task does not have an ndependent effect after conerolling socaI cohesion is cohesion. Uncler some conditions, high actuaLly cleErimental- Lo unit performance; moderate social cohesion apPears most beneficj'aI' Research indicates thaE iE is not necessary co like someone to work wiEh them, so long as membersshareacommitmenELothegroup,sobjecEives. a The presence of acknowledged homosexuals may bring about reduction in social cohesion, alLhough it seems less 1ikely to underminetaskcohesion.Iflhereisareductioninsocia} cohesion, it will probably involve some degree of ostracism of the homosexual-, raEher than a compleEe breakdown of the unit' Whether this occurs will depend in part on Ehe conduct' in competence, and loyalty of the homosexual individua
question. If osEracism does occur, it can have poEenEiaIIy group, and dangerous consequences for the inclividual and the must be dealE with promptly by Leaders' It is possible that some heEerosexuals will refuse to cooperate with known homosexuafs. However, many factors will help to promote cohesion and performance even in Lhe face of hostility play toward homosexuals. First, research suggests that Ieaders cohesion' an imporEant role in promoting and maintaining unit Second, miJ-itary norms, rol-es, regulations' and disciplinary opEions each enhcrnce the likelihood Ehat heterosexuals wiIl work cooperatively with homosexuals' Third' external Ehreats group enhance both social crnc lask coheson, provided that Lhe possibiliEy memlf,el:s are mutua.LIy threatened and there is the thaE cooperative group action can elimj-naEe the danger'
Homosexuaf feaders
331 -
will neecl to earn the respect of their subordinates by proving their competence and their loyalty to radiLionaJ-miJ-ibaryva].ues.IntheabsenceofEhacrespect, power, which homosexuals will need Lo rely On other forms of }eadership' The behavior will hinder but noc prevent effective ofthenexE}eaderupthechainofcommandwillbecritical;if Lhe homosexual is supported from aJove' he or she is more IikeIy to be respecLed f rom bel'ow' rare' at Open homosexual military personnel are likely to be leasLintheforeseeablefuture.Homosexua}sinEhemilitary willbeunderenormousinformalpressureto,,Stayinthe so' As a closeE, " even without any expliciE requi'rement to do result, onLy a smal1 minority of uniLs plaEoon-sized or smaller arelikelyLohaveacknowledgedhomosexua].SaSmembers.This low prevalence wiIl help to IimiE the potential frequency of conflicts, alEhough it wilI also l-imit bhe opportuniEies for the kind of positive social interaction thaE overcomes sEereoEypes ancl improves intergroup relations' The military should noE, and does not' tolerate seriously dysfunctional units. Military leaders can and always have intervenecl whenever a uniE has been idenEified as dysfunctional.Carefu}monitoringofunitswiLhacknowledged homosexuals wilL ensure thaE any problems can be dentified be managecl in a prompE ancl construcLive fashi'on' It should clearlycommunicateclatallleve}sthatdisruptivebehaviorby anyone, whether heterosexua or homosexual' will not be
toleraLed.
and
???
11
INTRODUCTION
on.Ianuary2g,:-gg3,PresidentClintondirectedEhesecretaryof DefensetodrafLan,.Executiveorderendingdiscriminationonthebasis of sexual orientaEion in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces of the united sEates.,,? The President also directed that Lhere be a ,,sgudy . on how this revision in policy woulcl be carried out in a on April 1' 1993' the manner Ehat is practical and realisEic'" Ehat secretary of Defense asked RAND to plovide information and anaJysis wouldbeusefulj.nhelpingformulaEetherequireddraftExecutiveorder. ThischapEerexamnesthelegalissuesinvo}vedinadoptingand imp}emenbingsuchanon-discriminationpolicy.Wefirstprovideabrief overviewofanon-discriminationpolicythatisbasedonourempirica} research. we then consider the legaI background, including 1ega1''n-d.-.. policv' legislative trends regarding homosexuals and the currenL military towardhomosexua]-s.Weturnnexbtoadiscussionofgenerallegal principles that are imporLant for undersEanding how the courLs have approachedmiliEarycases.casesinvolvinggayrights,andchallengesto thebanonhomosexualsinthemilitary.Finalty,weanalyzeEhelegal raised issues raised by the non-discrimination option, incruding those bytheStandardofProfessionaTConduct,rtic}e].25,andspecific personnel-rel-ated issues'
THE "NOT GERIANE/ OPTION
]nlightoftheempiricalresearch.theRANDteamexaminedarange judged as either of potential policy options' MosL of the oplions were inconsistent with Ehe President's directj-ve or internally contradictory'
was prepared by PeEer D. 'Jacobson, who wishes bo ' Saltzburg "hapter acknowledge the outscaning advice and counsel LhaL Stephen providedthroughoutthisprojecLasRND'souEsidelegalconsultant' "Ending 2Memorandum from the president to the Secretary of Defense: Discrimination on lhe Bass of sexual Orientation in Ehe Armed Forces,,' JanuarY 29, 1993'
--
tTri"
- 333 OnIy one poJ-icy option was found to be consistent wiEh our research' Tha iolicy would consider with bhe directive, ancl wiEhin itself' j.tself, as "not germane" to determining who may sexual- orienation, by serve in the military and woul"d esEablish clear, strictly enforced standards of conduct for al1 military personnel. This single standard of conduct would be neutral regarding gender and sexual orientaEion' Decisions on miiEary accession and retention would be based on individual qualificaLions and behavior, not on a person's category' Homosexuals would no! be treat.ed as a separaEe class under Lhis option'
Enclosure3HoEDoDDirecLve1332.14wouldberescinded.To ensure that the ,,noc germane" opLion would be implemenLed in a manner Lhat minimizes any disrupton to miliEary morale and unit cohesion, DoD should adopE a standard of Professionaf Cottduct thaE would guide interpersonal behavior once the ban on acknowleclged homosexuality was removed. Appendix A conEans an illusErative standard' consistent with Ehe ,,not germane,, option and Eo guarantee that therecannoEbeunequalenforcementofthesodeomylaws,t'heDoDshould also modify sections of the ManuaT for CourEs-MarEiai (MCM) pertaining to rticle l-25 of Ehe unjforn Code of MiTitary Justjce (ucMJ) to exclude private sexual behavior beEween consenting adults. However, ths is not sErictly necessary to implement the "noE germane" opElon, as discussed
below, The ,,not germane,. option coufd be adopted by the President under his authority as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces' If challenged (and it is not clear who wottl-d have standing to challenge the polcy' short of congressional Iegislation) , it would most 1ikely be upheld as
an exercise of executive authority, supported by a principled and rational deermination of public policy. we conclude, as detailed below. that this opbion, including the standard of ProfessionaT conducE
andthechangesi-ntheMCM,cou}dbeadoptedaspolicywiLhoutbeing overturned by the courEs. To be sure, l-egal issues would not be eliminaLed by this policy, )rut there does not appear to be an insurmountabJ.elega).hurdle.Byandlarge,endingtherestrictionon homosexuals in the miliLary is a policy clroice, not a 1egal matter.
334 -
flhe gtandatd of ProfessionaT conduct The'standardofP.ofessjonaJConduc:wouldbethecenterpieceof lhe'notgermane"opEion'ForthemiliLaryEofunctionoptimally' individualdtferencesmustnoLlrepermiLtedtodisruptoperaEonal effectivenessorcombaEreadiness'Therefore'theprimarypurposeof of the Armed Forces from Ehe standard would be Eo prohilit any member callingaEEenEionEoindividualdifferences(suchassexua}orienEation) thatcouldreasonablybeexpectedtoundermineuniEcohesionormiJ.itary expected of all effectveness' By clarifying the conduct thaE would be in the military' once homosexuals were permiEted by Law to serve
members
the,9andardofProfessjonaTConducEwouldbedesignedtominimizeany disrupLion to good orcler and discipline' TheStandardofPt.ofessiolla].Conductstressesthateachindj-vidual musEshowrespecEforthesensibilitiesofothersandpracticetolerance also to be avoided' toward oEher members' Inappropriate conducE is at or offensive Inappropriate conduct is defired as "ehavior direcEed bounds of good goes beyond the Eo another individuar or a group that oughE to have judgmenE ancl common sense and that a reasonable :erson concept' we describe known would I:e unwelccme'" To expand that i'nappropriate categories of inappropriate personal conduct, incJ'uding displaysofaffection,whcharedefinedas"expressionsofapersonal or provocabive relationship that wourcl generally be viewed as unseemly of sexual in the conLext aE hand, " and the expliciL discussion practices,experiences,ordesiresdi'recEedatthosewhomightobject'to or be offended by such discussions ' Ehat would These standards of concuct' r"ould discourage behavior callattentiontoindivic]ualdifferencesandwou}dstaEethatevery and individual must behave n w"rys Lhac promote group cohesion operationaleffectiveness)ryrespecEingLhesensibilitiesofothergroup members.TotakedisplaysofaffecEionasanexample,Ehecommonsense generally viewed as and good judgmenE to refrain from conduct
personaL and sexual we also expecE. Ehat SLanclarcls of concluct prohibiLing regard to sexua] harassment and fraEernization woulc apPly without
inappropriateordisrupLvewouldbeexpecEedofallmilitarymembers.
- 335 the same way such orientaLion. MosE problems would be resolved in problems are resolved now, through command-level tntervention' and explicit The categories of inappropriaEe displays of affection to military service discussions of sexual exploits are as inappropriaLe harassment, or abuse as are sexuar harassment, fraEernization, personal ofauthority.EachofthesecategoriesisinherentlydisrupEiveLogood orderanddiscip}neandcannot}reEoleratedinthemi}itary.whether uould be a function of any particular ace would violate Lhis sEandard and purpose the act's consequences ancl Ehe time' place' circumstances'
under which the behavior occurred'
IJEGAIJ BCKGROUND
society' have For the pasE two decades' Ehe courts' no less than beenengagedindeterminingtheextenttowhichtheConsEitutionofthe Unitedstatesprotectshomosexualsaganstdiscrimination'Asdiscussed lirnited success in the below, so far, homosexua] aclvocaEes have had only we discuss below' courEs. Despj-te some noEable court victories bhat trend parEicularly in adoption and family law' there is no discernible as a protected class' In oward judicial recognitton of homosexuality particular, the Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v' Hardwick'3 sodomy statube' has been upholding Ehe constitutionalty of Georgia's and has been a major central to Ehe poJ.iticar cliscussion of gay rights Thus' staEe laws legal barrier to the jucicial expansion of gay righEs' from heterosexuals have and practices Ehat treaE homosexuals differenEly basis for generally l:een upheld as long as states can show a rational thedifferenLialLreatment.4SinceLhemajoriE'yculturetendstoview homosexualiLywithanyEhingfromindifferencetoouErighthostiliLy,it isnotsurprisingthatcourEshavegenerallydeferrec]tothestatej.n of gay rights challenges by homosexuals' From Lhe perspective acEivisEs.however,theErenc]isprobab}yviewedmoreproptious}y. sEartingfromvirtuallynorecognitionLwentyyearsagothevicLories onadoptionanc]familymatLerspresagegreaterjudicia}successinthe
34?B
- 336 future. This judicial success, coupled with generally imiLed legislative successr suggests that the courts will continue !o be primary battleground in society's sEruggle over gay ri'ghts and
homosexual behavior.
of how and retention of homosexuals must be clecidecl wi'thin the context in the courts will responcl to homosexual challenges to enter or remain Senate hearings the mitibary. The inLense public scrutiny of the recent onhomosexua].serviceinEhemilitaryensuresthabEhecourbswillbe calledupontoreviewwhateverdecisionEheAdminisErationmakes. ic is Before a final decision is macle on allowing homosexuals to serve, crucial co assess how Lhe courts might respond to the option chosen' Whilenoonecanpreclictwithanycertcaintyhowcourtswi].lruleona particular option, we can cerEainly anticipate the types of regar issues likely to be raised by any particular opEion' Asidefromthepo}itcalandpolicyquestionsregardingthecurrent issues have ban on homosexuals in t,he military, several underlying Iegal ban' First' and been raised by boLh proponents and opponents of the (as a viol-aEion of Ehe most imporEanc, will the courLs overturn the ban dueprocessclauseofthe5thAmendmenE,insofarasitincorporatesthe any policy equal proLect j.on cLause of the l-4t.h AmenclmenE), regardless of changesbythemilitary?Second,whaErestrictionscouldlegal].ybe p}acedonhomosexualsifthe}ranwerererr,oved?Andthird,ifEheban wereremoved,whatprivacyrightsmightbeasserledbyheterosexuals? ,rhe answers Lo Lhese guestions clepend on an anarysis of recent trends in thelawanclwhetherhomosexualswi}lbetreatedasaprotect'edc]-assfor purposes of equal protection, a concept we discuss n greaEer detail
below.
ForEhemiliLary,EhismeansEhatitspoliciesregardingaccession
l,egal and Legislatsive frends Regarding HomosexuaLs of As suggested above, recent trencls regarding the proLecLion In areas such as homosexuals from disparate Ereatment are mixecl'5
5For an exhaustve revew of Erends in legislaEion and case law' Law: Sexua1 see Editors of the Harvard Law Review, "DevelopmenLs in the pp' 1508VoL' 102, 1989' Orientat ion and the Law," Harvard Law Review, For an excellent, and more recent compendium' see Rubensetn' L6'1 1, .
- 339 heterosexuals' AllegaLions of unegual Ereatment notwithstanding' both availabLe data on prosecuEions under Article 125 show that for sodomy' However, heterosexuals and homosexuals have been prosecuted prosecution the reach of ArEcre 125 goes beyond thaE captured in the facing an Article s a practical matter, most homosexuals statisEics.ll (based on 125 charge are given the option of an aclministraEive discharge honorableconditions)inst-eac]ofstandingtrial.ThereiscurrentJ.yno exclusionintheMCMpertainingtoAr!icle125forprivaEe,consensual sex between adults.
GENERI, I,EGAT, PRINC IPIJES
Nunn's As indicatect by the lengthy testimony presenLed at Senator legal issues hearings by several legaI scholars' there are numerous in Ehis presenLed by reconsidering the ban EhaE could be discussed chapter.12Becausethiscliscussionislimitedtothe"notgermane" option,therangeof}egalissuesisnarrowec]somewhat'.NeverLheless, pertaining bo it is important to discuss some generar regal prlncipres in Ehe miritary before considering the legar implications of
homosexuals
his oPtion.
Deference to the MllitarY
PerhapsoneofEhestrongestdoctr-inesinthe}awist'hatthe courts generally defer to the military on maEters relaEing to military staLed service, organizaLion, ancl personnel' As the U'S' Supreme Court is ac its apogee j'n RosEker v. Goldberg,ti "Juclicial deference whenlegislatj-veacti.onunc]erthecongressionalauthoritytoraiseand governance is support armies ancl make rules ancl regulaLions for their that is premised cha}lengecl .,, This brocrc] def erence has a long history on the uncerst.ancling that military service is fundamentally differenf persons entering from civilian 1ife. It is Ehus generally accepteci that
11Burre11i, 1993, P' 10' 12For excellent discussions of the broacl range of pobential legal issues, see the testimony by Stephen A' Saltzburt and David A' Schlueter, ancl David F' BurreIl, presentecl to Ehe Senate rmed Services Connittee Hearings, March 1993' 11453 u.S. 57, 70 (1981).
- 340 the mititary give up certain constj'tuEional rights ancl have fewer privacy expectations than in civilian life' Given that premise, the courts are refucLant to second-guess the from and needs of the military based largely on principles derived appl-icabletocivIiansocj.ety.Po]iciesdeterminedbythemilitaryand for the military are gfenerally treated wiLh great deference' even when therestrictionsvoufdotherwj-sebeunconsLituLiona}wj.thinacivilian court refused to conexL . In Gol-dnan v. leinberger,lA for example, the prohibited uphold a chalJ.enge by an orthoclox Jew to a restriction that the facL thaE in him from wearing a yarmulke when in uniform' Despite civilian SeLtng such a restriction wou}cl violate the First Amendment, the courE held thaE the neecls of the military for good order and disciplj-ne, as weIl as sameness of appearance' superseded Gol-dman's
righttowearwhaLwasadmitted}yanunob"-rusiveskullcap.ftisalso interestingtonoceEhatCongresssubsequentJ'yenactedspeci'fic legislation to overturn the Gofdman decj-sion' by As a general principle, therefore, any policy option consdered the secretary sEarts wiLh what amounEs to a presumption of In effecE, Ehis al-lows Lhe military greaE consEitutional valiclity. discretion in accession ancl reEention policies (Lhe issues of mosE interest to us righE now) , inclucling seLting the conditions under which consequently' courLs individuals may enLer and serve in the military. parentage' have upheld resErictions as to age, height, weighE, single previous drug use or crimi-na convction. and the like, Ehat might noL survive scrutiny unc]er civilian circumstances. ThaL is, Lhe military groups' Those may set conditions thaL cliscrimnaLe against various chalenging miliEary rules and policies have bhe J:urden of proving that theruleorregulationdoesnotservearabionalmiliEaryinterest.As burden to numerous courE cases have shown, that is a difficult
Egual ProEecion anil che One way E.o overcome challenge the regulation based on memlershiP in a
t44'1
overcome.
Militsary is to the burden of ceference to the military as a violaLion of equaL protection of the laws protectecl cass, such as a racial minoriEy'
- 34t -
Being recognized as a proEected class is mportant because of the level of scrutiny that the courts wiII therefore apply Co a governmental rule
or regulation. To shorten whaL woulcl oLherwise be a lengthy discussion of a applies if somewhat convoJuted area of jurspruclence, ecuaL protection the regulation contravenes a funclamenEal right, such as Ehe righE to privacy, or if the group subject Eo clisparate treatment constituEes a protected class. If homosexual soclomy were to be considered as a fundamenbal right of privacy, laws making such behavior a criminal offense woulcl be unconstituEiona]. But in Bowers v. Hardwick,15 the U,S. Supreme CourE helcl Lhat homosexual sodomy does not constitute a fundamental right, ancl so upheld laws making sodomy a criminal offense' Technically. because Bowers l^ras a due process challenge' some scholars have argued bhat Ehe result does not preclude a finding Lhat protection homosexuals should be r.reated as a suspect class for an equal challenge,l Most courts, however, have heLcl bhaE homosexuals cannot be a proLecEed class when such an importanE acLiviEy as sexual conduct can be treated as a criminal offense. It is important Eo add that even iE answer the Bowers were to be ver-burned, this woulcl noE definitively guesLion of whet.her open homosexuals could serve in the mill-tary, Ehough iE might unclermine Ehe policy reasons for reeaj"ning the ban. The issue to of.whaL kinds of homosexual conduct aIe disruptj've and can be subject sancEionswou}cremaj.n.IntheGo-ldnancase,forinsLance,Goldman could noL be cunLshecl for being Jewish bub coulcl be punj-shed for wearing a yarmulke in violation of Ehe regulations ' As an alEernative Lo reliance on fundamental rights' homosexuals canusetheegualprotectionlawscochallengeLhevalidityoftheban. governmental Over tme, courEs have cleveloped three levels for judging a requlation,s valiclity uncler Ehe egual protection laws. First, sLric! scruLinywillbeappliectoc}assifications,suchasrace,thatare inherentlysuspecE.AnyregulaLionofasuspectclassmustServea
s478 U. S. 186 ( 1986 ) 16see, e'g-, Sunstein, Cass R', "sexual orientation and the Consertution: A Note on the RelationshiP Betwecn Due Process and Egual Protection, " lJniversiEy of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 55, 1988, PP' 1-I61-L179'
.
-342compelling sEate inEerest anc be narrorvly tcriLored t'o meet Lhat inEerest. Very few regulations can survlve this test'17 Second' intermediateorheighEeneclscruEinywill}:eappliedEoclassificaLions. such as gender' that are usually invalid lut for which some jusLification can be presented' Under heighLened scrutiny' any governmental regulation must be substantially related to an important interest, Thrd, where no suspect class is determined, the regulation will be reviewecl on a rational basis EesL' This test presumes the validiLy of governmental regulation as long as the classification is rationallyrelatedEoalegiLimatestaLeinterest.Underpassive raLional basis, courLs generally rubber sEamp the regulation' most any typically economic ancl socjal legisJ-ation' so l-ong as it serves an emerging reasonable sEate interest. Under active rational basis' doctrine,courtswillrequireadditionaljustificationforany .lusE what leveL of proof is requi.red Lo satisfy active restrictions. rational basis is noE clear aE this point'
Sofar,federa}courtshavenottreatedhomosexualsasasuspecE provided class for equal protection. although some scate courts have challenges to the such protecEion under the state constitution.lS Thus, validity of miliLary policies by homosexuals will be decided on the has been ratsional basis Eest. In Ehe pasL' passive rational basis apptiedwhenconsideringdeferencetothemitit'ary.RecenEly,some lowerfederalcourtshavebegunLoapplyactiverationalbasisEo military cases. iE EhaE trend continues, Ehe continued sustainability ofEhebanwilldepenclonwhaLleve].ofjustificaLionisneededto is satisfy the acLive rational basis test' In Lhis regard' if the ban mainLainedorifcertainresLricEionsagainsthomosexualsinthe
a ''B"""-ingaprotecteclclass,however,iseasiersaidthandone' Courts have appli. rht"" principal criteria to determine whether parEicular class shouLd be proEected uncler the equal protecLion laws: (1)hisEoryofdiscriminationagainsEadiscreLegroup;(2)classifica- (3) ack tion based on immutable or distinguishing characEeristics; and that of political power. No Fecleral appeJ'late court has heldon which aspects although courts differ homosexuars meet these criEeria, are noL satsfied. r8see, e.g., Baehr v. DirecEor af the DeparEment of HeaJth' Hawaii' Supreme CourE of Hcrwaii, No' 91-1394' 1993'
-343military are imposecl, Lhe Congressionaf hearings and Lhe RND findings might play an important role in determining how courts respond to the military,s jusLification for ics policies toward homosexuals. The extensive empiri-cal rvork provided for Lhe Secretary couJ.d form the basis both for any restrictions imposed against homosexuas and for defining a coherenE rationale thaL can be defended in court.
Reepondlng to tshe PreJudices of others T\so relaiveLy recenE Supreme Cour cases , PaJmore v. .9jdoLj19 and City of CTeburne v' Cfeburne Livittg cellter, Inc.,2a have held that
private biases and potenLial injuries resuLL.ing from Lhose prejudices are j.nsuffcient grouncs for policy cleterminaLons' As the court stated in the PaLmore case (aC p. 433): "The Constituti'on cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. PrivaEe biases may be outside the reach of the 1aw, but the l-aw cannot, direcbly or indirectly, give them effect." At this poinL, it is uncerLain how this principle wiII be applieci in the conLext of a homosexual challenge to certaln restrictive mifitary polices' The reality of military cases such as Gofdman v, weinberErer is thab the milLtary can regulate what members do or say preciseJ.y because certain acLions are IikeIy Lo disrupt morale and undermine uniE cohesiveness. No one could ban wearing a yarmulke in civilian ]ife; yet, it could e anned in Ehe military as emphasizing indvidual dfferences over group ident.ity. And the Palmore and CTeburne cases may have litt1e bearing on military regulaLons that rest upon a judgment thaE certain beh"rviors are immoral. Even so, the 9th circuit, in Prujtt v. Cheney,21 required the government to prove on Lhe record Lhat PruiEt's discharge did not rest on the prejudce and bias of other soldiers against homosexuals, The courE specifically statecl that the miliLary's justification wouLd be
re466 U.S. 429 (1984). This was it might noL le broadlY aPPIied' 20473 U.S. A32 (1985). This has applied to a parEicul-ar seL of facts' 2t963 F.2d 1160 (9th cir. 1991-)'
a
so
-344examined in light of the Palnore and C-le.burne ca=es-22 In the contexE of an active rational basis analysis, a courc mi-ghL use Lhe PaLmore
principle to negate previously accepted reasons or justifications for adopting a particular restricEion. As a result, miliEary policy made on the basis thaE some people are uncomfortable with homosexuafs might not survive a PaJ-nore/Cleburne challenge, absenE an independent rationale.
Homosexuals
ln the Mitltary: current stsate of the Law Given the above legal principles, it is not surprising that most challenges by homosexuals to the military ban have been unsuccessful. ExcepE for cases brought in the 9Eh CircuiE CourE of ppeals, few challenges have succeeded. And no successful Disbrict Court case has survived a Circuit Court of Appeal-s decision outside of the 9th CircuiE.23 No appellate courtr even in the 9th Circuit, where the ban has been under sustainecl attack, has ruecl that restricting homosexual conduct is unconstitutional or has accept.ed an equaJ- protection challenge. T\^o cases now on appea1,24 one in the 9th Circuit and another in the D.c, circuiL, present cl"ear equal prolection challenges to the ban, which Lhese cout-ts must confronL' A typical case is Dronenburg v. Zech,25 where Lhe D,C, Circuit held that the Na.vy,s policy of mandatory discharge for homosexual conduct did not violaEe the equal protecEion l-aws or Lhe soLdier's right to privacy. the court sLated that any change in the ban shoufd MosL significantly, be made by electecl officials, noL by the courts. Taking basically a passive rational basis approach, the court added Lhat (at p. 1398): "The effecLs of homosexual conclucE withi.n a naval or military unit are almos! certain to be harmful to moraLe and discip.ine. The Naqz is noL required to procluce social science clata or the results of controlled
homosexuals basecl on Pa-lnore and C]eburne is being waged in Steffan v. Aspin, now before the D.c. circuit courL of Appeals (Bref of PlainEiffAppellant Joseph C. SLeffan, May 1993).
224 sustainecl
po'icies against
23see, for example, Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, BB1 F.2 454 (7Lh Cir' 1989); GoLdnan v. lleinberger, 4?5 U.s' 503 (1981); and, PruiEc v' Cheney, 963 F.2d I160 (9th cir' 1991) ' 24Meinhold v. U.s. DeparLrenc of Defense, B0B F. Supp. L455 (C,D.cal . 1993), and Steffarr v, Cheney, 780 F.supp. 1 (D.D'c. 1991)' 2574L F.2d 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
345 -
experimenEs Lo prove what common sense and common experience demonstrate. " To clate, homosexuals have not had much success in using oEher constitutional provisions bo challenge the ban, For instance, First Although mendment chalJ.enges Lo Ehe ban on sEatus have al.so failed. courts have held that soldiers may discuss homosexuality, read homosexual materials, and even advocate a change in policy, the courts have held that there is no righE of expression in tshe military
to state join homosexual "I'm gay," no right of free associ.ation to organizations, and no righb just to be hornosexual-.26 These cases were decided in the conL.ext of a ban on open homosexuality. under Ehe "not germane,, opL|on, the circumsEances and consequences of the acEion would deEermine the outcome ' What may be changing, however, is the standard of review for jusEifying Ehe military,s ban on homosexuals. t least in the 9th Circuit, Ehe standard has already shlfted to an acbj.ve rational basis analysis. Relying on Prujtt v. Cheney, the Disbric! court, in Meino.|d v. U,S. Depar;nlent of Defense, expIiciEJ-y rejecEed deference Eo military juclgment as a ratj-onale for cischarging homosexuals. If followed in other cases, thj-s woulcl subjecE Lhe ban or ot.her restrictions against homosexuals to greaLer judicial scrutiny by forcing the military to jusbify any restrict.ions. Despite Lhe currenL state of the law, there are now some lower court decisions and some powerful dissents, including Justice Blackmun's dissent in Bowers w. Ha-dwi.ck and ,fudge Norris's dissent in 9atkjs v' u,S, Army,27 th.t coulcl provde a roadmap for overturning Ehe ban. As shown in the Hawaii Supreme Court's recent decision to treaE homosexuals as a suspect class (ancl therefore a protected class) under Ehe sEale's consEitution, the litigation context s dynamic.2s WiEh the projecLed appointment of more Iiberal judges during the clinton dministrabion, restrictions against homosexuals may be overturned. But even if the
26See, e.g., Ben-Shalorrt v' Marsh, BBL F '2d 454 (7th Cir- 1989), and Pruitt v. Cheney, 963 F.2d 1160 (9ch Cir. 1991). 2?875 F.2d 699 (9rh Cir. r9B9). ZSBaehr v. DirecEor of the DePartnent of HeaJ.Eh, Hawaii, suPreme court of Hawaii, No. 91-1394, 1993.
- 346 rigorous in appLying equal protection for homosexuals in civilj.ar cases. the question sEill remains how far judges will go in scrutinizing miliLary regulations' Thus, while he courts may eventually overturn the ban, iE is unlikely to occur in the shorL judiciary
becomes more
term.
TJEGAI' CONSIDER:TIONS FOR THE '9TNRD
OF
PROFE9STONAI CONDVCT
If Ehe "noE germane" option were adopEed, including the rescission of 1332,14, Ehe revisions Eo the MCM, and implemenEing the.9tandard of Professionaf Conduct, we anLj.cipate few legal. challenges' By no means do we expect Ehat adopLing the 'noE germane" option would elimj-nate Iitigation, only Lhat the Iitigation would most l-ikely revolve around chalenges to punj-shment of j.ndividual behavior raEher than, as is now Ehe case, challenges to the ban itsel-f or to sj-gnifi.cant categorical restricEions. None of these potential LegaJ. chalLenges appears to be a Ehreat to successful implementa!lon of this opEion. In Ehis section, we ana.yze the legal implicaLions of adopting Lhe SEandard of Professiona).
Conduct.
Implementing the Standard of Professional Conduct The ,gLandard of Professional_ conduct, as discussed above, would set forEh the behavior Ehat wouLd be expecled wiLhin the miliEary once open homosexuality was permibted. For mos! issues j.nvofving inerpersonal relationships, mil-itary custom would IikeIy deLermine what behavior is considered punshabJ.e. The Ewo situations Ehat v/ould most Iikely create problems under the SLandard of Professional ConducE are sam-sex handholding and dancing, both because there is nothing in military cuseom to guide behavior and because our j.nterviews suggest that these are among t.he homosexual acts considered most provocative. If the Standard of Professional Col:duct were overinclus-ve, by specifying thaE same-sex hand-holcling and clancirrg are pr-ohibited, iL would create the risk Lhat an equal protection challenge would succeed (especially if homosexuals were trea|ed as a protected class) or that a double standard would be codified. If t.he standard were underinclusi-ve, an action againsE cerain behavior rnight ]e overEurned as a denial of due process based on inadeguate pre-notificabi-on Ehat Ehe behavior is covered by the code.
- 347 a J.ega perspective, therefore, mpJ.emenEing the standard of Professional- Conduct raises severaL potential issues, FirsE, is the sEandard iEself sufficiently specific to wiLhsLand a void-for-vagueness challenge? Seconcl, how specific must a Standard of ProfessionaL ConducE be to provide adequate notice lhat cerLain behavior violates good order and discipline? Thircl, would Lhe code's Lack of specific exampLes make it susceptible to challenges }asecl on unequal enforcement of similar situations? Ancl fourEh, if specific examples were to be included, would Ehe standard be susceptible to an equal protectsion challenge? For Ehe reasons discussecl below, we conclude thaE lhe Standard of Professional Conduc1' wouLd likeIy I:e upheld against Ehese potential challenges. ThaE is, the standard of ProfessionaJ. conduct as drafted woud provide sufficient specificity Eo satisfy pre-noLice requiremenLs, but bhaE more specific provisions could also be sustained.
From Background;
By way of backgrouncl, n Parker v. Levy,2g Lhe Supreme Court upheld Articles 133 ancl 134 of the UCM.I against challenges that they were "void for vagueness" ancl hence proviced no noEice of what wouLd be punishable conduct, Article 133 proscribes conducC unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, whle Article 134, the General Article, makes punishabl-e "aLl .disorders ancl negLecLs to the prejudice of good order and discipline in AlEhough the court ruled that military law Forces need no be as precise as civi-Iian crimna] statutes' an accused must sti11 be on notice that the parEicular conduct at issue would be punishable under the UCMJ, In most instances, adequate notice wlll be provided by military cusf,om, ruIes, and regulaEions. Other courts have noted that while rEicle 134 is not a catchall for punishing any improper act, Ehere is no reguirement thaL an Article 134 action must resE on an existing orcler, rule, or regulation.l0 ccording Eo professor schlueter, ,,As a resulL of this approach, only in a few cases have miiEary clefendants been able to establish that they were
the
Armed
2e4r7
3cU.^s.
M.J
34
- 348 reasonably unaware that heir conducE mighE subjecE them to prosecuL ion , r' 31 The milj.tary courEs have established criberia for debermining whether a parEicular action gives rse to an Article 134 offense. For Ehe mose part, the emphasis in Ehe ucMJ is on the consequences of the behavior, particularly conduct thaE is prejudicial to good order and discipline, rather than on Ehe act itseLf.32 To determine f the parEicular conduct might be prejudicial to good order and discipline, the courts consicler four elements: (1) the time, (2) the place, (3) the circumstances, ancl (4) the purpose of Lhe activity'33 In reviewing a conviction for cross-clressing, which was not specified as a violation of Article 134. the Court of MIltary Appeals, in U..9. v. Guerrero,34 held thaE the context of the action, rather than the action iEself, rendered the cross-dressing punishable, even in the absence of specific notice' The court stated Ehat the time, place, circumsEances, and purpose of the acgion form the basis for deEermining wheEher Lhe conduct is prejudicial to good order anct discipline. Thus, cross-dressing in private would be Lreat.ed dj-fferently from cross-dressing in publc. DespiLe the lack of specific notice, the court decided thaE cross-dressing in front of another soldie!- (even in private) violaLed good order and discipline. dissenting judge (Guerrero was a 2-1 decision) stated tha! the conduct
was too indirect Lo the miiLary's interest to justify The Standard' s Specif icitY
a guilty verdict'
It follows from the al>ove discussi-on that the standard itself rf this should easily wiLhstand any legal challenge to its specificity. standard is vulnerable to a void-for-vagueness challenge, the same could be said for the tatus of military cusEom, simj'lar codes on sexual harassment ancl fraLernization, and indeed, for UCMJ Articles 133 and 1-34. ThaL vul-nerability is unlikely'
31See
Justice:
che cliscussion in Schlueter, David A., Military Criminal Practice and Procedure, pp' 346-348. 32See, e.g', Article 134, Par. 60b' 33u.5, v. Guert:ero,, 33 M.J. 295, 298 (cM 1991) ' r433 M.J. 295, 298 (CMA 1991).
349
lficat ion pplying the Guer-ero reasoning bo the issue of pre-notification for sanctioning unspecifiecl concluct, such as same-seX hand-holding and dancing, it woulcl appear that Ehe draft SEandard of Professionaf Conduct would provj.de sufficient noEice to withstand a due process challenge. For one thing, such public behavor could consEituEe reasonably direct and palpable prejudice to good order and discipline as required in the Explanation to Article 134. For another/ iL is hard to imagine a situation involving same-sex hancl-holding or dancing while in uniform that would not constitute provocaEive behavior as stated in the SEandard of professionaT cond.ucE. An analogous situation might be flying a Confederate flag n a uniE wit.h a substantj.al number of black soldiers, an acLion that is noL specifically covered in Article 134. It seems likeIy ChaE a court woulcl determine that Lhis action is disrupEive of good order ancl discipline ancl Lhat current standards of conducL would be sufficient noti-ce thaE the acLivity would be punishabLe under ArticLe
Pre-Not
1,34
.
The question of pre-notification for same-sex hand-holding and dancing is a cfose call ancl could easily go either way, as t.he 2-1decision in Guerrero Suggests. ConsisEent with Ehe "not germane" option and the .gtandard of Professionaf Conduct, the risk of non-notifcation is outweighecl by the conceptual approach that commanders should dea
wiLh poEentaI clisruptions on an inclivj.dual ]asi.s. A centraL tenet of this option is the military's abilj.ty to deal wiEh individuals and individual stuations within Ehe command struclure and the many informal ways the military conveys to iEs members what is acceptable conducL. Rules governing every siEuation cannot be specified. The Standard of Protessionaf Conduct woulcl rely on milrtary leaders to effectively apply
the standards of conduct ' The secret.ary, however, might clecide that the disruptive effects of same-sex hand-holcling and clancing would be so paJ-pable as Lo outweigh the risk of establishing a clouble st.andard or of being subject to an egual protection chall-enge. To Eake a more cautious approach, the secretary might want to specify Ehe offending behaviors. If so, the Standard of Professionaf ConducE should specify thaE Lhe behavior (same-
350
sex hand-holclinq ancl clancing) is equivalenE Eo disorderly conduct, an ArLicIe l_34 violation Lhat carries a lesser punishment than other ArEicl-e 134 vj-ol-aLions.35 Bu! as noEed, Ehe risk of overspecif ication is that courts would be presenEed with an easier target for a d-sparae treatmenE analysis. Equal Proection
ShouId Ehe Secretary opt for greater specificity of certain behaviors EhaE the mi).iEary considers to be most provocative (namely' pub).ic same-sex hand-holcling and dancing whj.le in uniform) , an equal
proEection challenge is ikeIy. Tf homosexuals were to be a protected cLass, j.t could be difficulL. to susEain the resulting differential Ereatment, In thaL case, same-sex ru).es migh[ be struck down as a sham designecl to restricL conduct by homosexuals bhat is permitLed for heEerosexuals. But if homosexuals were not a proEected c1ass, deference to the miliEary suggesCs that same-sex policies could survive legal scruEiny, as Ionr as Ehe military arEiculated a justifcaLion designed to protecE morale ancl cohesion' Under an active rationa] basis standard, the military could sustain the disparate Ereatmen! as long as ,,the prejudice or Lhe cliscediLing naEure of the conducL is legiEimateJ.y and is noE solely the focused toward good orcer and discipLine result of Ehe personal fears, phobias, liases/ or prejudices of the witnesses."36 ]'.hough this, too, would be a close c411. a rationale for the policy based on a narrowly defined set of behaviors could withstand an equal proEection challenge. An alternative might be to provide guidance t.o commanders in the form of quesLions and answers regarding how the standard might be applied to certain specific lehavior without codifying the military's response, In this way, maximum flexibility would remain with the command strucLure to enforce the code, while providing minimum exposure to an equal proLection chaflenge to the Standard of ProfessionaT Conduct
itself.
l5This was the recomnendaElon of Lhe Iower courE in U..9, v. Guerreto, 31 M.J ' 692, 696 (NMCMR 1990) 35U.s. v, Guerret-o, 33 M,J, 295, 298 rnM 1qg'l \
.
351
Unegual Enforcement under the standard of Professjonal- Conduct, lhe circumstances and consequences of an act woulcl form the basis of a possible violation. over time, we anticipate that milicary cusLom woul-d evolve to resolve most of these occurrences in a consistent manner. until Ehen, it is inevitabe that the same lehavior in different circumstances would be commanclers woulcl Iikely differ in how they might treated differently.
respond to certain behavior, and might view Ehe consequences to morale and discipline of a particular acL differently from other cornanders' And commanders vroulcl likety vary in how they would weigh the time, place, crcumstances. ancl purpose of an action relative to its consequences. For example, the statemenE of "I'm gay" mights be accepEable in one conexL but inherently clisruptive in another.3T Thus, some degree of differentiaL enforcement, of Ehe SEandard of Professional Conduct shoulcl be expectecl, truL this alone would not render the standard
unenf orcealf,le.
In general, it is noE easy to sustain a challenge to unequal enforcemen! of Ehe law. No! only is prosecutorial discretion often a deterrent to such a challenge, but it is very difficulc to prove bha! conducE that is otherwj.se punishable is being unequally enforced. rt rnight be easier to susLain an unequal enforcement chaJ-]enge to a general ban on something like same-sex hancl-holding that is enforced only against acknowlecged homosexuals (ancl ignored when cone by heberosexuals) than to pr-rnishment. for the consequences of an individual act. NeverEhel-ess, homosexUafs have not had greaE Success in unequal enforcement challenges to sodomy statuEes that appl,y equal-ly to both heterosexuals ancl homosexuals. Perhaps more important, the standard adopEed by Lhe Guerrero court explicitly recognizes that differential enforcement of the current milibary policies is inevitable because the consequences of an acE will be viewecl clifferently under varying
circumstances
,
3? civilian analogue woul-d be to consider shouting Lhe word fire. In a crowdecl theaLer, Lhe consequences are so disruptive that courts have sanctioned such )ehavior. BuE the same word shouted in a park The circurnstances and conseguences would be treaLed ver-y cifferently. of t.he behavior deEermine the oulcome.
-352the standard of Professionaf conduct to existing to see why this miJ.iEary cus|om, cocles, ancl regulations, it is difficult differential enforcement han shoul-d present any greater likelihood of does any oEher military policy. ft should be no more or less vulnerable than existing military coces to an unequal enforcemen! challenge. For in the exampJ-e, applying ArticLe 134 is inherently situation-specific, same way that Lhe standard of Professionaf conducL would be, The military is grant.ecl great ceference to monitor and enforce its sLandards of conduc accorcling Eo military needs. The result of providing maximum discretion to commanders uncer Article 134 is that not all cornanders EreaE the same sit.uaEions a]ike, a resuLL we would also expect under the Sandard of Professional ConducE. By way of example, Ehere might be some homosexuaLs whose imperative j-s to Lest the limits of [he scandards. Suppose, for insLance, a homosexual sol-clier appearecl at Lhe General',s house wiLh a same-sex partner, or insisted on "in your face" behavior toward those not toLerant. of homosexuality, BoLh could be considered violaEions of the standards of conduct, subjecting the offending soldier Eo reprimand or punitive action. For the mosL pare, such disruptions would be handled at the command leve1, and a commancler would determine whether the consequences of such an action would jusbify appropriate sanctions. Different commanders coufcl weLL reach disparate conclusions depending on how they viewed the circumstances and consequencesAs anoLher exampJ.e, sLating "I'm gay" Lo draw attention to oneself would clearly be an j.rrtanL that might justify command intervention. But suppose the behavior continued despite warnings to stop. under the ,gtandad of Professionaf Conduct, the sofdier would be expected to stop once warned by the commander. I Lhe conduct continued, the connander could deEerrnine wheCher it hacl adverse consequences to good order and discipline under Ehe cj.rcumsEances.
when comparing
on-Bage
/of f -Base conduct As noEecl above, the time, place, circumstances, and consequences of the conduct determine if an acL would be punishabLe as disrupEive
- 353 conduct.. The same logic woulcl apply wheEher the conduct takes place on or off base. Thus, Lhe sEcndard of POfessjonaf conduc| would be applicable to behavior Lhat is disruptive to morale or uniE cohesion regardless of where the behavj.or takes p1ace. In Solorio v, unted SEates,38 th" courE helcl thaE a memer of the Armed Services can be disciplined for off-base conducL withouL the necessity of showing a service connec!ion, This cloes not require the military to discipline off-base behavior, but it is a recogniEion that off-base behavior can have a disrupLive effect on military morale' where Lhe concluct occurs, its context as well as its consequences' woul-d be important in determining whaE could be considered as provocative. Fo:: exampJ-e, same-sex hand-holding on-base woul-d most likeIy be consiclered as an inappropriate display of afEecEion, and hence provocative, while Ehe same behavior off-base and oub of uniform wouLd probably not be disruptive of moral-e and unit cohesion. But conduct such as sexual harassment ancl abuse of authority would violaEe the sEandard of Protessional conduct regardless of where Ehe offense
occurred.
JEGIJ ISSUES REGRDING THE UCM,]
The "nob germane" opeion requires the rescission of Enclosure 3H of DoD 1332.L4, ut it could be implemented without al-tering provisions of the McM relating to Article L25 of the UCMJ. However, it would be necessary Eo resolve clifficult egaJ. issues regarding the disEinction
between staLus and conduct. In this section, we analyze the legal consequences of both policy alternatives--changing the MCM and leaving iL unchanged. We also analyze each lega1 issue basecl on whether homosexuals would be treated as a protectecl class or as inclividuals. Even though few courts have held so far tha homosexuals are a protected class, aS discussed above, tbe possibility remains EhaE courts may decide thaE homosexuafs should
be a protected class,
i8483 U.s. 435 (1947)
- 354 -
Reecind Enclosure 3H of DoDD 1"332.1.4 wichout Mocllfylng the ucM Ending the ban wiLhout revising MCM provisions perLaining to Article 125 would be problematic.3g As a poinE of deparEure, if the courts decide Eo treat homosexuals as a protected c.l-ass, a restrict j-on Iike this would probably not survive close scrutiny, given that sodomy sEaEuEes are rarely enforced against heterosexuas. Even short of hat
protection. it would likely be under sustained atback. to clefend, we expect that for the reasons Though perhaps diificult discussed below, the courts would nevertheless uphold the sEatus-conduct disLinction as a rational policy choice. However, the courts might rule Ehat once acknowledged homosexual staEus was permitted in Ehe military, an absoluEe ban on sexual conducb could not be maintained. Thus, an undersEanding of how the courts might approach the staEus-conduct distinction is important in the context of the Secretary's decision. At ssue is whether the policy choice to distinguish between staLus and a parEicular form of sexual conduct would be a rational one based on miJ..Lary consiclerations, and hence acceptable under the deference to the mi.itary princple, or wheEher the distincLion could not be defended as a rational means of achieving a polcy goa1. The legal argumenE against its constitutionality rvould be that the premise of Ehe distinction, that status is separable from conduct, j-s inbernally inconsi.st.enE and unsustainable. When confronted di.rectly by Lhat confradicEi.on, courEs would rul"e that once staEus is acknowledged, a ban on conducL violates egual protect ion , 4t)
39From the perspectj-ve of a homosexual member of the Armed Services, rescinding Enclosure 3H of L332.l-4 wiLhouL changing bhe provisions v,oul-d have both positrve and negaEive conseguences. positive ouEcome would be the abiJ.ity to serve openly in the military. But a negabive consequence could be that the only way for the military to discharge a homosexual would be throuh c1n Article 125 prosecution. Under current pol.cy, many homosexuaJs are given administrative discharges and are not prosecuted under rtj-cLe 125. Not modifying t,he MCM provisions would put homosexual-s at greater risk of an ArticLe 125
prosecut ion aoArguably, the 9Lh CircuiL is tle appe].laEe court most likely to seize on hese arguments Eo ovcrt.urn Ehe ban altogether, As noted above, some judges on the 9Lh Circuj.t would 1j-ke to overturn the ban even if Lhe military makes no policy changes. But even Judge Norris's dissent n WaEkins. one of the strongesE statements opposing bhe
.
- 355 To the best of our knowledge, there are no cases hoding Ehat policies based on the status-conducL distincEion are unconstituLional, and there are cases expticitly rejecLing this position as applied to homosexuals.4l WhiIe numerous courts discuss the safience of the disbinction. no court. has ruled that recognlzing homosexual staLus requires equating staLus wif,h conducL. or thaL recognizing status requires a change in policy regarding conduct. And some courts42 have ordered the reinstatemenE of acknowledged homosexuals wiLhout quesEioni-ng the ban on homosexual conducE. In most areas of Lhe law, wha! is prohilited i"s certain conduct, not the sLabus of Ehe actor. For the argument equabing status and conduct !o be tenable, a courE must equaLe staLus wiLh concluct as a matEer of law, someEhing that fert courts have done j-n the past.43 NeverEheless, lhere is language in the Ben-shaLott case suggestj-ng
thaL the distinction beEween status and conducC defies common sense' The court staLed explici.tly on page 464 bhaE: "PlainEiff',s lesbian acknowledgment, if not an admission of its practj.ce, at least can rational,ly and reasonabty be viewed as reLiable evidence of a desire and tllt is compelling propensity to engage in homosexual concluct. evidence that pJ-ainLiff has in the pasL and is likely to again engage in
miitary,s ban on homosexuaLs, focuses on sexuaL orientation. without making the connecton to conduct presumed by this argument' 41See, e.g., Pruit: v, Cheney, 963 F.2 ]-t60 (9th Cir. 199L) and Meinhoid v. U.S. DepartrtenE of Defense,808 F'Supp. 1455 (C'D'CaI' 1993). n SEef fan v. Cheney, 920 F'2cl' '74, 76 (n.*) (D.C' Cir. 1990), the court rejecEecl the government's argument that steffan's sexual orienLation created a rebuELable presumpLion lhat he had committed -J.54I , t542 homosexual acts. see also, Jacobson v. u.s., 112 s.ct. 1535, stated thaE, "evidence that mereLy indicates a (Igg2), where Lhe court generic inclination to act wilhin a broad range, not al-L of which is criminal, is of litLle probaLive val-ue in estabLishing predisposi. Furthermorer a person's inclinations and 'fantasies tion. are his own and beyond the reach of government ' ,'u 42see, e.g., Watkins v. u.S. Arny, 875 F -2d 699 (9th Ci'r' 1989)' 43The argument thac sLatLls is equivalent to conduct is further undermined by DoD Directive 1332,14, which itself disEinguishes between conduct and status. uncler this Directive, a person committing homosexual acts nay still be retained in the mJ.litary if these acts were a deparLure from usual and cusLomary behavior'
of this situaion Although primarily a Fj.rsE Amendment case, the Ben-Sal.om court also ruled on Lhe pJ-aintiff's equal prot,ect.ion argument. The Lower court viewed Army Regulation (AR) 140-111, banning reenlistment for homosexuals, as a cLassificaion based entirely on sexual orientation (status). The Lower court Ehen decided that homosexuals constibuted a protected cl.ass, and ruLed that the ban on staLus was unconstituLional. To be valid, the lower court ruled, the regulation must be targeted at. sexual conduct, not jusL sexual orienEation. On appeal, the ?Lh CircuiE rulecl thaL Lhe ran on status couLd remain because the admission of staEus is tantamount to an admission of conduct, Since Lhe courE determj.ned that sEatus amounted to conduct, the regufation's l:an on conducE could be enforced. The court ruled bhat he regulation was consEitutionaL because the Army did noE need tso ignore Ehe connections between status and conduct. lhus, the court based its ruling on the prohibited conduct, regardless of whether status realities
i.
banned
Even though the courE rejecCed Ehe dscinction beCween status and conduct, the court upheld the ban on conduct. As a resulL, there would noL appear to be a conflicE bet.ween the court's holding and implementing the "not gernane" option wiEhouL revising the MCM provj.sions perLainingi
to Article 125. JusL because Lh.is opL.ion acknowledges staLus does not mean that a court will- Eherefore rule that the military cannot continue !o ]an sodomy where the military chooses as a policy not to equaLe status with conduct.l'1 The acknowledgment of sexual orj-entation need not have an effect on how the military enforces its ban on sodomy, Mre importanLly, Lhe "not germne" option explicitly eliminates the definibion of homosexuaJ.LEy that equaLes homosexual bendencies with
homosexual behavior. AlEhough this means that the tension between the "not germane" option and rticle 125 is noL unconstj.tutional, it does not mean that the Eension disappears, To see why, imagine the tsension between Article 44In an ana.logous siCuation, courts have held that the status of drug addiction does noE imply illicit drug use, absent actual conduct.
- 357
125 and Lhe "not germane,,opLion in a heLerosexual conEext. Given that most married heterosexual coupl-es engage in oral sex,45 an act prohibited by ArLicle L25/MCM, should they be presumed Eo be in
vj.olaton of Article 125 simply lecause of their marital sLatus? If Ehe answer is no, Lhe argument LhaE Sbatus alone constitutes a vol-ation of ArEicle 125, ancl hence mandates Ehe unconstj-tutionality of this option' musE fai I . There are three aclcliLional reasons for this concLusion. First, Lhe Ben-ShaTom court was not confronted by the specific question raised above. what it rulecl on l^ras whether the rmy was required to target sexual conduct in order to sust.ain Ehe ban on boEh status and conducE, noE whether Ehe Army could, as a matter of policy. permit status while prohibitj,ng cerLain sexual conduct. The mitary can legitimately deEermine thaE dj.sruption to good order and discipline emanabes from sodomy, and that resL.ricting sexual conduct rather than status is a
legitimaEe polJ.cY objecLive. Seconcl, as noLecl above, the weighb of the cases is that policy choices made by Ehe military will be given great deference by the courts. As J.ong as the policies are not irrational, courts are likely Eo defer Eo military jucgment.a6 At one point (p. 461). the Ben-'ghafom court stated flatly: "If a change of Army policy is to be made, we should leave it to Ehose more familiar wiEh rnilitary matters than are judges not seLectecl on the iasis of mliary knowledge." Even if Ehe Lhe "no! germane" distinction betveen status and conduct is artificial, option would sEart with the presumption of validity based on deference This remains a difficuLt sEandard to overcome. Lo the military. Third, Ehe lower courE applied a heightened scrutiny analysis after hotding that homosexuaLs consLituted a suspect class. As discussed above, reJ.atively few courts have so held, and the appellate courL in rejecEecl this finding, As a result, a homosexual Ben-ShaLont explicitly
45see lhe chapter on sexual orienEaLion and sexuaf behavior for indings on E.his Eopic. 46For instance. in Beller w- Middendotf, 632 F'2 788, 812 (gth cir. 1980), the corrt upheld the Navy's rule requiring discharge based on any homosexurf concluct, cespite stating that the rule is uperhaps broader Ehan necessary to accomplish some of its goals." f
- 358 -
challenge to the "not germane" option wouLd sti1l,, aE mosE' be judged under an active rational bass test. The use of Lhe rationaL basis Lest, when combi,ned wj-th traditional deference Lo miliEary policy' suggests thaf the milLEary shouLd be abLe to defend its policy choice of acknowledgingr status while prohibiting sodomy, especially 1f iL treaEed heterosexual sodomy in a similar manner'
cbangfng tbe UcM Even though it would be constitutionally viable Lo rescind EncLosure 3H of DoDD 1332.14 without modifying the McM provisions in question, Ehe siEuation could possibly undermine the orientaEion-neuEral principle of t.he "not germane" policy. Several considerations sugges! lhaE it wouLd be beEter t.o modify the MCM provisions pertaining Eo
Article
125.
principi.e that sexual orientation is not germane to military service has been accepEed, the fact tha! some members of the miliLary have private, consensual sex with members of Lhe opposite sex while other miltary members have private, consensuaf sex ttith members Of the same sex would also not e germane. In other words. it would be difficult to undersEand Lhe argument for punishing private sexual acLs once the military had determined that sexual orentation was noL germane to military service.4? In addiEon, historically, sEate sodomy statutes have been widely perceived as being the tegal basis to exc.Iude or punish homosexualiLy (see, e.g., Bowers v. Hardwick, dissenting opinion by Justice Blackmun). Even where Lhe statutes are sex-orienEation neutral, they have not been enforced equally against homosexual and heterosexual- behavior. In the military, there are inclications fhat Art.icle 125 has been used for homosexuals ancl heterosexuals.4B To understand how, differentially
Once Ehe
47As an example of th!s difficulty, suppose tha! acknowledged homosexuality was acceptable, lf,uL any homosexual conduct was In some cases, the dj.stinction between Lelling (probably unacceptable, proLected conduct) and doing (prohibited conduct) becomes very difficulb Suppose. for example, a soldier sEaLes Ehat he has to determine. Is this telling engaged in anaf sex while a member of the armed forces. Por discharge? or doing? fs Ehs grounds for an investigation? 48Burre11i , 1.993.
- 359 if is importanL Lo recognize thab DoDD 1332.14 and Article 125 have been used Eogether in the pasL. Threats to homosexuaLs of prosecutions under Article 125 have been usecl Eo elicit confessions of homosexua.iLy and then acceptance of adminisErative discharges under DoDD 1332.L4' Thus, ret.aining Article 125 ancl the present rel-evant provisions of the MCM, afcer rescindj-ng Enclosure 3H of DoDD 1332,L4, would make the Cgnsequenges Of UneqUaI enforcement. mgre serious: Homosexual-s who practice oraL or anal sex would be exposed to the risk of court-martial proceedings without Ehe avaiLability of an adminisEratve discharge as an option. An approach Eo clealing wiEh the conceptua] tension that eliminates all possibiles of unequal enforcement is to modify the MCM so that it permits private sexuaf behavior betireen consenting aduIts.49 Together with Ehe rescission of Encl0sure 3H of DoDD 1332.]].4, this would )ce the most sEraighLforwarcl way of eliminaEing a Iink between sLatus and
conducE
.
AtLhough the Presiclenc may not redefine Ehe elemenbs of a crime, the President has consi.derable discreLion as commander-in-chief in
promufgating bhe
specifying rules for courts-martiaI, and deEermining maxinum anc non-judicial punishments.50 Neither the phrase unna]ural carna-l copuJctEion nor the Lerm sodomy is defined in the UCM.I. In the current MCM, these concepls are defined ry Lhe Executive Branch through the Elemenls of the cr|minal charge and the Explanation of the punitive arLicLe. one or- two minor revisions Eo the Elements and ExplanaLion accompanying ArLicIe 1,25 would achieve Lhe goals of Ehe "not germane,' opEion. For- examtr)Ie, the current Elements read as follows:
MCM,
b.
EIemenLs.
(L) That the accused engaged in unnaEural carnal- copulation with a certain other person or with an animal '
50Schlueter, David 4., MjljEary Crintinal .TusLjce: PracEice and Procedure,2ncl ecliEion, CharlotEesviLle, V: The Michie Co', 1987' pp' 5-6. See also, "The 1984 Manuaf for Courbs-MarEial: Significant Changes ancl PoLenEial fssues," Deparement of Ehe Army Pamphlet 2'7-50t3g, in The Arny Lawye-, July 1984, pp' 1-58, and U.S' v. Cur|is,32 t4..J, 252 (cMA 1-991),
4gsee Appendix c
appl icable l
INote:
Ac]d
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16. (3) That Ehe act was clone by force and without Ehe consent of the other person.
If element (3) were movecl above the Note and renumbered as (2), !o read as shown below, Lhe effect would be Eo exclude private, consensual het.erosexual and homosexual oral and anal sex between adults: (1) That the accused engaged in unnatura] carnal copuJ.ation with a certain other person or wiEh an animal-; and, (2) That the acc was done by force and wichout the consent of the other person ' INote: dd Ehe follorving element. if applicable] (3) That Lhe acE was done with a child under the age of 1-6' (similar behavior in public could be punished under several oEher punitive articles, including Articles 133 and 134. fn fact, a reconmendaEion could e included in the MCM Eo make it clear Lhat carnaL copulaEion in public oughE to ire prohibiEed for boEh homosexual and
heEerosexual behavior. ) 51 A second possible revision woufd be to add the phrase "nonconsenting aclult" in the ExplanaEion, where appropriater Lo indicate Ehat private, consensuaL sex beEween adults would be excluded from lhe
phrase "unnaf,ural carnal copulation." Or, preferably, both revisions could be macle simulEaneously, for the sake of consistency' Given Lhe jnherent auEhoriEy of the ExecuEive Branch Lo define the Elements and Ehe Explanation, iE seems cfear that the President has the 1egal authority to make these revisions. This is not to suggest that Congress mighE not attempt to overricle the Administrat.ion by codifying the current Elements and ExplanaLion nto Ehe statuLe. It is simply Lo suggest a legal means of avoding the potenLial. tension beEween Article 125 and homosexuals serving openly in lhe miliEary'
51Indeed, we anticipaEe lhac the standards of conduct adopted would cLear that Lhose who oppose such behavior would not be forced Eo witness iE or to be reminded that some of Eheir fellow soldiers desired conduct trhat caLls aLLenEj"on Eo sexual to engage in such lehavior, would be inherently inappropriate' activity
make it
- 361 A legal objection to chese revisions mght le that Ehey actually constiEuEe a change in the elements of the crime of sodomy, and thus rest with the legislaEure, not the executive.52 We think Ehis argument fails on several grounds. First, there is no change to the crime of sodomy--the revision is a procedural one that specifies who will be subjecE to prosecution. Ths change lies rvell wEhin the leeway ordinarily accorcled for prosecutorial discretion. second, the MCM already permits the mj-Iitary to adcl the Element of nonconsenL Lo Ehe crime as a matter of cormand discretion for targeting criminaf charges or investigations. The revision simpLy makes it an Element of t.he criminal charge in alL. instances. Third, the military made similar changes when the MCM vas revised in 1984. For insEance, the 1984 MCM revised Articles 124 and l-28 to reguire specific intent to injure rather than general intenE, despj.te case law to Ehe contrary. Under Article 93, the MCM aclcled sexuaL harassment to the Explanation of the crime. And certain offenses were dropped alEogether from rticLe 134 because /they were so Itt1e used that Ehe drafters decided they did not require aEention in the Manua]."51 As a practcaJ- maLter, the only way to chal-1enge Ehe revisions would be through an acE of Congress, which would noL be necessary if Congress ivere Lo accept Ehe "not germane" option. AnoEher potenEial legal probl-er, thaE might emerge if the McM were revised to exclude privaLe sexual conduct between consenting adults is with Lhe enforcement of state law. Some 23 sEates stiLl treat sodomy as a crime, and if enfo::ced crt all, the law is most likely b.o be enforced agansL homosexuaLs. A member of the military may well be prosecuted for con-'nitting socomy in viol-acion of staEe Law. Cl-earJ,y, the state has
52s notecl below, even i-f a courL were to ruLe bhat the proposed revisions were unlawful, the President has ample authority to determine The what the punishment shoulc.l be for an Article 125 violation' PresiclenL could specify thcrE nonjudicj-a1 punishment is appropriale for sodomy betrveen consenting adults, Ehus avoiding a Lhreatened discharge. This approach, however, still makes the conduct impermissible and may wel- have other adverse effects. 53he 7984 ManuaL fo Couts-MarEial: Significant Changes and potenEiaf -f,ssues, Department of the Army PamphLet 27-50-139, n The Army Lawer, July 1984, p. 3?. In reality, sodomy prosecutions against consent ing aclults are calreacly rare, used rnainly as leverage to convince homosexuals to accep! an adminisErative discharge'
362
a right to prosecute the case' For our purposes, the guestion s whether the soldier should also be discharged for conduct bringing dj_scredit o the Armecl Forces. Presumably, thj-s should be handled in the same manner that oEher violations of state law are handled. If similar state law violaLions resuLt in discharge, this should be no exception, If similar violations are treaLed with less severiLy, so In eiher case, this is noL a compelling argument for shouLd this. reEaining he relevant provisions of the MCM in their presenL form, especially since Lhe general Lrend in state law is to repeal sodomy staEutes as applied to consenting adulLs' Assuming that politic.rl realities preclude the above revisions, lhere are several olher regulatory means avaj-lable Eo encouragre equal enforcement of ArEicle 125, As a matLer of even-handed regulatory and enforcement policy, the "not germane" option wouLd sLress that Arbicle L25 should be equally applicable to heterosexuals and homosexuals, with appropriate investigatory guideJ.ines. The President coufd also redefine t.he punishmenL for sodorny between consenting adulEs to be a nonjudicial punishment. Thj,s would avoid the threat. of discharge now hanging over a homosexual member of the military, buE iE vouLd not, in and of itseLf, eliminae the possibility of investigat.ions. Therefore, investigative guidelines and enforcement proriEies should indicabe that private. consensual sex between adults would be a low enforcement prioriby.54 As commander-in-chief, the President, through Che MCM, can state that, as a maLter of prosecuLoriaf discreLion, cases involving private, consensual behavior will noL be prosecuted.55
54civen t.he evidence of contemporary sexual lehavior thab the overwhelming majoriLy of heterosexuaLs and homosexuaLs engage in some form of proscribed sexual conduct (prmarily oral sex) , riqorous enforcement of ArEicIe I25 would certainly have an adverse effect on the miliEary. Thus, there are serious quesLions as to whether rticle l-25 can be enforced fairJ-y. FurEhermore, if Lhe trend toward Ehe elimination or overEurning of sodomy statutes continues, it may be difficult Lo sustain Articl-e 125 in iEs current orm. 55one reason for not prosecuting these cases is to avoid giving a spurned lover, eiLher homosexuaf or heLerosexuaL, a bargaining chip bo hurE the other parLy. Such matters are esE IeE ouE of che criminal jusEice system. In short, a policy of prac!ical and realistic equal enforcement suggesls that private, consensuaL sexual behavior belween aduls should not be prosecuLed.
363 -
lfhab Prlvacy Rights can HeEerosexuals ssert? An imporLant policy consideraLion is Eo baLance Ehe privacy rights of members of the miJ.itary who object to homosexualty with the principle LhaE sexua] orientation j.s not germane to military service'
Through flexible command policy, privacy concerns could be alleviated by ensuring freeclom from personal ancl sexual harassment and maximizing flexibiliEy in sleeping and l:athroom facil-ities, where feasible. As a legal maEter, however, there appear to Je few ways in which a
heLerosexual could assert a privacy right sufficient to bar adoption of tshe "not germane" oPtion.56 For one thing, it is generally understood that a soldier yields For anoEher, courts full privacy rights upon entering the military. privacy righEs with the would be likely to balance individual courts may \^IelI rule opportuniE.ies of oEhers to serve in the military.
in an indivicluaL case that the asserbion of a privacy right is suffj-cienEly compeJ.ling to jusCify rescildng the contract between the soLdier and the miliLary (Lhat is, E.o a1Iow an early discharge). And an individual commancler might aEEempt !o accornodate an individual soldier who had deep moral objecEions aqainsE rooming with a homosexua]. But courEs wouLd be unlikely Eo override the military's policy choice to allow homosexuals to serve based on heterosexual soldiers' privacy rights, This would be especa1ly Erue if courts were t treat homosexuaLs as a probected class ' Just as importanL, granting a privacy right to heterosexuals who objecE to serving wiLh homosexuals musE be justified on grounds other than privaEe biases or prejuclices againsE homosexuals. As discussed above. the Pa-Zmore and Cl-eburne cases send a strong message thaL
56For example, a heterosexual mi.ghL asser a privacy right agai-nst sharing inEimate quarEers with homosexuals. To take this argument seriously as a constiLuEional matter, courts would be required to consider a range of public accommodaLions for heterosexual privacy where homosexuals and heterosexuals have long interacted, such as in public schooLs (which sEuclenhs are requirc Eo aEEend), pr.rblic recreation and the l|ke. No one has seriously suggested reguiring such facilities, actions. In these sicuations, society is concerned wlEh certain offensive behaviors, not sexual orienLation'
364 -
policies based on privabe bases wj.11 not be sancLioned by the courts. Thus, it might be clifficult to construcL a general heterosexual privacy right that satisfies the Pal.more/Cieburne test.
ccesgion and Relnstsatemene Righte for Previously Excluded or Dlecharged
Homoeexuals
once the "not germane" policy was impl-emenEed, some previously discharged homosexuals mighL seek reinsLatement while others previously Some might also seek damages for their excluded might. seek Eo enlist, miJ.itary rejecLi.on or cischarge, For several reasons, it is unlikely that these challenges would be successful. First, the "noE germane" policy would be expticitly prospective'
courts would be likely to allow the mifiEary to look to the tuture wiEhout providing a remecy to those afected by the ban. In fact, the Supreme Court has granLec Congress great leeway to make laws prospecbive, without provicing remeclies for Lhose harmed by previous policies, Second, courts wouLcl be IikeJ.y to alLow the niliEary in rnplementing Ehe new policy' Congress has considerabLe flexibilty authority uncler the Constitution Lo set the terms and conditions of military service; its agreement or acguiescence with this optLon would be a sErong statement to Ehe cours that prior actions based on the ban should be disregarcled. Thircl, Ehe ban was legally valid aE the time of discharge or enListment rejecLion. Fourth, numerous legaI proceduraL ars. such as staLutes of l-imitaEj.on, aiLure to exhaust remedies, and res judicaa. might be )ariers Lo any individual acEion for reinsEaLement or damages.
Bene f
The ,,not germane, option ivoulc noL af ter current policies regarding benefits for non-marriecl cohabitanLs. \e anticipate Chat enefits policies and stanclarcls woulcl remain consistent bhroughout the federal government. Under fhis option, homosexual marriages v/ouId not be recognized, anc same-sex cohabitants would Jtre treated like heterosexual
coh,abitantso.
sooner or later, Lhese policies would likeIy be challenged. since no sLate currently recognizes homosexual marriages, the challenge is
- 365 likely to be laLer rather chan sooner. But the Supreme Court of Hawaii recentLy ruled t.hat bhe stace must justify its ban on same-sex marriages.5T By treat,ing homosexual-s as a protected class, lhe court set a high standard for the sEaEe Lo meeE. If the Hawaii (or any other sEate) 1aw banning same-sex marriages is declared unconsLiLutional. or if a stae voLuntarily decides to approve same-sex marriages, at some point a homosexual sofclier wi1J. get married in tha stage and request benefits for the ParLner. under currenE poJ-icy, however, miliEary benefits are set. by federal 1aw, which now clefines spouses as married parLners of the opposiEe sex. In this example, the homosexual solclier married legaIly j-n Hawaii might bring an equal protecbion chalenge to the federal- definition of spouse. As Iong as homosexuaLs are not a protected cLass, Ehe question is whether the fecleral sEatute defining spouses as married partners of Lhe opposite sex serves a ratj-onaI governmental interes!. AlEhough the federal government cloes not generally seek to regulate marriage, relegating it pri.marily to the sEates, the federal government does have an inEerest in determining who qualifies for cerEain federal benefits and the basis on which those benefiLs are to be distrbubed. If many states begin to recognize homosexual marriages, it becomes harder to defend Ehe federa policy. But i only one state or a few states do so, lhe federal polcy would remain weIl within Ehe mainstream (it would not e irraLional), and thus would be defensible as promoLing socieEal and familial sEalri.litY. 5 Even if a court were to cletermine thaE the defj.nition as applied in a civil-ian context clicl not fuIfiIl a legitimate governmental inEerest, it does not fol10w Ehat a court would make a si.milar determination regarding miiEary enefits. For example, under current policy, homosexuals are not dismissecl from the cj-viIan federal governmenL based on staLus, r^'hile they ate clismissed from the military based on status aLone. And some benefit,s, such as on-base living arrangemenEs, may be
5'tBaehr v. DirecEor of the Department of Health, Hawaii, supreme CourL of Hawaii, No' 91-1394' 1993. 58see, e.g. , Lhe cliscussion in Editors of t.he Harvard Law Review, ,,Developments in the Law: SexuaL OrienEation and the Law, " Harvatd I'aw Review, Vo1. 102, 1989, pp, 1508-1671, at pp. 1603-)'628'
- 366 inherently disrupLve to morale so that deference to the military would permit the military to withhold such lf,enefits. If homosexuals become a protected class, Ehe denial of benefits Eo a lega1ly married homosexua] couple may noL. survive a cnstitutional challenge. In EhaL case, the issue would be whether the government has a compelJ-ing or subsLantial intserest in limiting certain benefits, such as on-base same-sex housing, to justify the differential treatment. As standard to meet' we have seen, thab is a difficult
CONCLUSIONS
To a certain exEent, Ehe threat of lega] acLion, either to overturn the ban or to unclermj-ne any policy shift regarding accesslon and retention of homosexuals in Lhe military, j-s a red herring' Legal issues would neecl to be adcllessecl, and implemenLation of Lhe "noL grermane" option would not be wiEhout legal challenges' BUL the fundamental issue of whether to end the miliCary's ban on homosexuals is a policy choice, not a legal imperative' The "not germane,, policy option is ent.irely defensible from a Legal perspective. As a compromise policy position, adopting this option wiEhout revisi-ng the relevcrnt provisions of the McM wouLd also be 1ega1ly defensible. Although such a compromise may be difficulb Eo sustain adminj.straLively, courLs are IikeIy to defer Lo the miliEary's poJ.icy choice. Besides Ehese genera] conclusions concerning the J.egal viability the,,not germane,,option. our specific i.egaI concl-usions include the
f o1lowi.ng
:
of
There is no reason to expect that the courLs wilL overLurn the current ban on homosexuals in the near future. Court rufings on hornosexuals in the civilian sector do noE suggest that such
a result is imminent ' courEs generally clefer to Ehe miliLary on a broad range of issues, The fact thab courts have been relucEant Eo Ereat homosexuals as a protecEecl class makes it even more dfficult
Legal and legislalive trends regarding gay rights are mixed' No appelJ.ate fecleral court has ruled thau homosexuals should be treatecl as a proEected class for purposes of the equal protecLion laws. However, there has leen solre movemen in the courts from a passive to an active rational basis test that might at least compel bhe military Eo provide a more persuasive justification for conLinuing bhe ban. If the active raLional basis becomes the stanclarc, prejudice against homosexuals would not be sufficient grounds for sustaining the ban' If the "nou germane" policy were adopted, it should be accompanied by a change in the provisions of the MCM pertaining to Article 125. This could be accomplished at the President's discretion, Absent Ehis change, the unot gfermane" option would stiLl !e legally valid' courts are likely o defer to the military's policy choice if it wants to make a distinction between status and conduct. The ,9ta:dard of Pt'ofessional Conducr is sufficent1y specified to withsEand a legal challenge of being void-for-vagueness' The SLanda rd of Professionaf Conduct could also survive Iegal scrutiny iE more specl.fic examples of prohibited conduct were
added.
Other potenEial legaJ- challenges, such as Ehose based on the assertion of heterosexual privacy rights, are also wiLhout meri. [ .
- 368 L2. IN
TNTRODUCTION
Whatever its form or content, any new policy Lhat would allow acknowledged homosexuals to serve in the U.S. miliEary would have to be implemented j.n an organization Ehat, like mosE organizations, resisLs changres in those strucEures, policies, and practices Ehat have contributed to their past success. Even though military orgnizations are accustomed to rapicl changres in Eechnology and battle Ehreats, they
are usually highly averse Lo socjal changes--bhat is. changes in their traditions, customs, and culEure (Builder, 1989). In the case of allowing acknowledged homosexual-s to serve in tshe mititary, the resistance to change Eouches not only on deeply heLd attitudes but., for a large portion of Ehe rniliLary, on moral. beliefs as wel1. For many, it makes no difference if a service member ever comes in contact with an acknowledged homosexual: The change in policy itself alters their perception of thejr organization in a fundamental way' (See the chapter on military opinion.) This chapter considers how such a policy might be effectively impJ.emented, in lighE of insEitutionaL culture, the current policy context, and what the liEerature Eells us about j.mpJ-ementing policy change in large organizaEions. To clo so, the chapEer first describes the implementation contexE, including the military culEure and the currenL policy context. Then, iL reviews facEors that consLrain and support policy implementation, including policy design, feaEures of the implemenatj-on process, and the loca1 contex| for change. Drawing upon this Iiterature review, the chapter ends wiEh a discussion of how the Armed Forces might. most, successfully lmplement a new policy concernj.ng
homosexuals.
rThis chapter i^ras prepared by Gail L. Zellman, Joanna Zorn Heilbrunn, Conrad SchmidL, and CarI Builder.
369
XMPLEMENSTION CONTEXT
ImplementaEion as an area of study was lorn of a need to understand why policy changes imposed from the Eop often did not find their way to the boEEom of large organizaEions, or if they did, why Ehey resided
there in substantj-alIy altered form, Moreover, organizaEions tend to overwhelm innovatj-ons, emerging unchanged from processes whose goa was expliciCly Eo change Ehem. These findings challenged the assumptions that organizationaL change i-s a relatively straightforward process wiLh predicEable ouLcomes ' The Literature on the impJ-ementaLion of innovaLions in large organizations focuses heavily on the introduction of technologicaf or organizationaf change (e'g', o'Too1e, 1989; Langbein and Kerwin' 1985; ProtLas, 1984; WiJ.ms, I-q82; Zetka, 1991; and WaLsh, 1991). To some exLent., a1I change follows the same process. But sociaf change, which inherenEly invol,ves much more deeply held aLtitudes abouL race, religion, sexuaJ.iLy, or va-Iues, J:rj.ngs added complexiEy Eo he change process. Externally imposed sociat change challenges an organization and its leadership to creaLe a blueprint for change that considers the institutionaL culture and incorporates useful implementation theory principles, a large measure of Ieadership, an understanding of the extenb bo which previous experience applies, and a keen awareness of the fears and limiLs of those at the boEtom, on whom the success of policy
implementabion uLtimately depends.
Mllitary CulEure The military is viewed organizationaly as a hj-erarchical, ruleHowever, it is al.so an institution with a strong driven instiLulion, culture and sense of itself in relation to the external social and political envronrnent. This culEural sense is sufficientJ-y sErong bhat policies that seen at odds wiLh iL may meet considerabJ-e resistance. .from the top Eo the bottom of the hierarchy. The American miLj.Eary is a web of organizational and parEicipant cultures aL many differenL levels, and including a participant cuLture comprising the aLEitudes and val-ues of Lhe indviduafs who serve, Mititary subcultures have been described by Builder (1989), who notes
- 370 thaE military organizations and their suborganizations (Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines) have distinctive culbures that have a significan effect on the way the organizations operaLe and react in a varieLy of situatsions. DespLte Ehis variability across and within services, on a]ance, the military can be described as an organiza!ion that is based on a formal, hierarchical, and rule-driven sErucbure, which values efficiency, predictabiJ,iy, and stability in operations. This strucLure is supported and reinforced by organizat.ional and parEicipant cultures that are conservative, rooted in hisEory and tradiEion, based on group loyaLty and conformicy, and oriented toward obedience to superiors. Any policy change must take place in thaE miliEary environment' Many observers have noEed Ehat. to the extent that a conservative military organization values predj.ctabiJ.iEy and sLabiJ.ity, it i.s implicitly averse Eo change and explicitly averse to change dictated from outside
the organization (e.9., Builder, 1989). Militaries have always seen themselves somervhat apart from the larger socieLies that support Lhem and thab they are constituted to proLect, Part of Ehe separateness sEems from Lhe military mission and its burdens. Buc the American milieary has, during the Cold War, by its rapid rotation of people through assignments and posts and by its substanLiaf fOrward presence overseas, enhanced that separateness and fostered a separaLe military family and society. The demographic gap between the American mj-litary and he resE of society has been cJ.osing during the last decade wibh increasing numbers of Ewo-career families and the decline of the "officer's wfe" as an occupaEion, Nevertheless, many of Ehe values of military families sti11 refLect those of small Eowns and of several decades pasE, which may reffect the selective enl-isLment inherent in the all-volunteer force. For many of Ehe more senior military people now in leadership positions, there remains a egacy of Lhe hostility between the merican military and the rest of society that reached a peak during the war in Vietnam. For those people, Ehe imposing of unwelcomed aspects of American socj-ety on the military--often referrer t. as "socia'l experimentation"--evokes familiar and hostile feel-ngs, (See the chapEer on mificary opinion for more discussion of these issues. )
371
The Policy context The military has seemed parLicularly averse to removing the restriction on homosexuals because that policy threaLens its culEuraI values and because i! is exEernally imposed. Many people have argued
that it. was similarly averse to racial inEegration and Lhe admission of r^romen, However, five facbors make the inEegration of homosexuals particularly problemaEic. 2 FirsL, a majoricy of miJ.itary personnef, and a sizable portion of he general public, feel thaL homosexuality is mmoral' For many, allowing honosexuals to serve wouLd put the military in the position of appearing to condone a homosexuaJ. lifestyle. Second, the debaEe is occurring in a context characEerized by drawdowns and uncerEain[y. In response to the end of the Cold War, the military's role and mission are being wideJ.y guestioned. Reduced rnilitary budgets have created considerabl-e anxiety among mi-itary personnel. Many believe that wiLh base closings, drawdovns, and reductions in benef its, t.he mI j.tary has viol.aEed the psychological contracL between the organization and its memers (Rousseau. 1989). The resulting anger and resentment have made members disinclined to Lolerate addiEionaL threats Lo miliEary culture n the form of allowing homosexuals to serve. Third, the policy clebate is occurring in a conLext where norms of deference are significantly eroded. Thls lack of deference serves to restrain support for nev; pol,icies and, ultimately, for change. MiliLary members and leaders appear to feel IiLtIe consLrained Eo wthhold crilicism of the Commancler in Chief or his policies.s Their outspoken opposition to permitting homosexuaLs Eo serve is a cause for concern because it sends the message Lhat. the new policy is bad for the miJ.itary
2These five factors clearly emerged n focus groups that vere conducted l:y study staff a! military bases in the united states and Germany. (For a clescription, see Ehe chapter on mifitary opinion.) 3A recent speech by Air Force Major ceneral Harold N. Campbell in which he referrecl to PresidenL Clinton as "drafE-dodging, " "poEsmokinq,', ,'womanizing," and "gay-loving" is a particularly egregious example of the fraying of these norms. His subsequent dismissaL was meant eo sencl a strong signal Ehat such flagrant violations of deference norms wiLl not Jre toleraEed'
- 372 and wouLd have no support among op mil.itary leaders. NeverEheless, norms of obedience remain and some observers argue Ehat Lhey would carry
the
day.
Fourth, the current budgetary conEexE may resLrain change if implementat,ion planning fails Eo ake iC into account. Since budgets are not growing, all new programs are viewed as coming at the expense of old and sometimes cherished ones. We can expect that the more the integration process costs, Ehe more it would be resenEed' Fifth, Lhere is no sense thaL the change woul-d serve any legitimate objections thaL the policy is not based on need need of Lhe military, are reinforced by Ehe sense among many military members that even the President is not comrniEeed to the change. Rather, they beliewe bhat his support simply reflects commitments made during the.Presdential campaign in exchange for elecEoral support. (See the chapLer on military opinion for more detail on these attitudes.) Ithough miItary sCructure and culture and key features of Ehe policy context are unique to the problems of implementing a policy Eo a1low homosexual.s to serve, every implementaLion process is to some degree unique. consequenLly, emprica1 finclings and general principles derived from studies of poJ-j.cy implementation and organizational change offer lessons for implemenLing such a policy. These l-iLeraLures and the lessons they offer are described I:elow.
FCTORS r{AT CONSTRAIN N SUPPORT POITICY IMPLEMENAION
is best defined as "the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a statute buL which can aLso bake the form of important executive orders or court decisions. Idea1Iy, hat decision identifies the problem(s) to be addressed, st.ipulates the objective(s) to be pursued, and in a variety of ways, 'struct.ures' the implementation process" (Mazmanj-an and Sabat.ier, 1983, p. 20). Po1icy analysts ofEen divide the change process inLo two
Implementation itself 4Indeed, on June l0 in a speech at Harvard University, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gnral Colin Powel1. sairl of a new pnlicy oward homosexuals' military service, "The PresidenE has given us clear whatever is decided, f can assure you that the direcEon, decision will be faiLhfully execuEed to Lhe very best of our abi1ity."
373
phases: acloption and implemenEation. The adoption phase begns with the formul-alion of a new policy proposa and ends when that proposal is The implementa!ion formalJ.y encoded in a faw, regulation, or directive. phase begins with the formal adoption of the policy and conLinues at some }evef as long as Ehe policy remains in effect (e'9., 9leimer and Vining, 1992). Those who study implementation generally agree that Ehree categories of variables conEribute nost significanEly to policy change, despite variations in how Ehey are described: poJ-icy design, the nature of t.he implementation process, and the locaI organizational conEex! in which the policy is impJ.emented (e.g., Mazmanian and SabaEier, 1983; Goggin, 1987), Each of these components is discussed in Lurn. Pollcy
Deaign
The design of a new policy and ils expression in a policy instrumen can substanLially affect both Ehe implementation process and Lhe extent to which bhe policy's original objeccives are me in practice. Those poli.cy design components Ehat bear most on ouLcomes incLude characteristics of the change reguired and t.he naLure of the policy instrument. Charact.eristics of bhe Required cbaDge. Some changes are inherently more complex than oEhers' For exampJ-e, a law whose goal is o reduce highway fataLities by lowering the speed limit contains wiLhin itself all Lhe informabion necessary to enabJ.e individual-s to comply (McDonnell and Efmore, L987). In contrasE, a courL order to create equal educational opporeunEy is less cl.ear-cut. Individuals must no| only read and understand the equality standard but must create a plan hat transl.aEes the goal inLo required behaviors, a more complex task thaL may faif because of unwiJ"lingness to compJ.y or, more likely, some failure of capacity to do so (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987). A policy's successful implementation also derives from Ehe validity of the causal theory that underlies ic. Every major reform contains, at least impJ.icitly, a causal Eheory linking prescribed acEions or inLerven!ions to policy objec!ives. Indeed, one of the major conEributions of implementation analysis is !,s emphasis on seeking to buil.d an
- 374 overal.l theory for obt.aining desirecl organizationaL chanqes (Mazmanian and sabatier, l-981). To the clegree that there is consensus abouL the validity of Ehe Lheory (Ehat is, Lhat most agree that by carrying out the ntervention, atbainnenE or policy objecEives s Iikely), poli-cy implementation is facilibatecl (Mazmanian and SabaLier, 1983). Anocher key characteristic of Lhe reguired change is the scope of change required. Scope can be measured in Eerms of the size of Ehe target group, Ehe percentage of the population affected, or bhe exEenE of behavior change requirecl. In general, poli.cies that require less change, in terms of nunbers and extent, are easier Lo implement (Mazmanian and SabaEier, 1983). Nature of Lhe Policy IntrunenE. McDonnell and E1more (198?) describe four generic classes of policy insEruments: (1) mandates, which are rules governing the acLions of individuals and agencies, intended to produce compliance; (2) inducements, the transfer of funds to inclividuals or agencies in return for certain agreed-upon actions; (3) capacity-bui1c1ing, the transfer of funds for investment in maEerial, intelleclual, or human resources; ancl (4) system-changing, the transfer of official aut.hority among incividuals and agencies to change the system through which public goaLs and services are delivered. The choice of instrument sLructures affects the implementat.ion process !o a slgnificant. degree, Expected ouLcomes, costs, and the extent of oversight all vary by Lype of policy instrument' For exampLe, whil-e mandages seek uniform but. minmal compliance, inducemenLs are designed to procluce suhstantial variabilit.y in outcomes because there is often a variety of ways Eo achieve high performance. Mandaes require a strong focus on coercion and compliance monitoring, while the implementation of inclucemenEs requires oversighE ]ut no coercion (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987), ImplemenEatlon Guidance. Implenentation guidance is built into some policies, e.g., a recluced speed limit, as noted above. In other cases, guidance is less inherenL in the policy, buE may be built in in seweral forms. Among Ehe mosts imporEanb ways Eo do so are by clcarJ'y rankng policy objectives and by stipulationg decision rul-es for implement ing agences '
- 375 A clear ranking of polJ-cy objecEives is indispensable for program eval-uation and for direcLing the acEions of implementing officaLs' SLatements about objectives may also be used as a resource for groups Ehat supporE the policy objectives. Formal decj.sion rules of implementing agencies, e.g., the sEipuJ.ation in a statute of the levelof support required for a specific act.ion (e.9., Lwo-thirds majority of a specified commission required for a license to be issued), reduce ambiguity and increase the Likelihood that a mandate wifl- be carried ouL as intended (Mazmarian and Sabatier. 1983).
Implementa1on Procees
Implementacion researchers (e.g,. E1more, L97B, 1980; Goggin, 1987; Mclaughtin, !987, 1990; Mazmanian and Sabatier, l9B3) view Ehe process through which a new poticy is implemented as a key contributor to understanding organizaEional change. From the implementation perspective, any analysis of policy choices or Ehe effecs of policy on
organizaEions matters little if implementation is poorly understood' WhaE emerged from the early implementaEion studies was a sense that while change was noL straightforward, the implementati-on process could be understood and ultimately managed. Several key noEions emerged (McLaughlin, l-990). First, changing practice through policy is a difficult undertaking, Second, policymakers cannot mandaEe whaE matbers--capacity and will- at the lower leveLs of the organizabion where the policy must find a home. Third, by focusing on policy implemenEation, certain processes and rules could be brought to bear that would increase the Likelihood that policy woufd find its way, relatively unscaLhed, into pract.ice (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1981). These noEions suggesE an implemenEation process strucEured around pressure and support, Pressure, argues Mcl,aughlin (1987), focuses abtenLon on Ehe new poficy and increases Ehe likelihood of compliance; support is necessary to enable implementatlon, Such support may include adequat.e financial resources, a system of rewards that recognize compJ.iance efforLs, and room for bottom-leveL input into Lhe process. Pressure. Studies of efforLs Lo reform education practice in classrooms revealed that myriad facEors intervene beEween Ehe passage of
3'76
a sLatute or Lhe signing of an order that affect, ofEen profoundly' the likelihood Lhat the new policy v"'il1 be recognizable at the lowest levels. In these sysEems, the key factors rvere at the bottom of the organj-zalion, among wtaL Weatherley and Lipsky (I91'7) caLled "streetleveL bureaucraLs." Here, a sense of ownership of the innovation, some adaptabion of the policy to fit l-ocal circumstances, and a perception that the policy was tractabLe and the change wouLd be both do-able and useful for staff and cl-ienEs (Mazmanian and Sabatier, L983) were key deLerminants of how pervasive the change would be and of the implemenEaEion's fidelity Eo the policy's original j'nlent. These sEudies viewecl toP-down implemenbation as "the noble l-ie" tha| persj-stecl ecause of the perceived lack of oLher alternaives (E1more, 1980). Early implemenEation studies provided some. For example, Elmore (1980) suggesEs that while formal authority is top-down, many organizations have, as wel1, a bottom-up system of informal authority or culture. To implement change in such organizatons, j.t is imporEant to find the correct mix of hierarchical control and subordinaEe discretion (Elmore, L9'78]). Often, Ehis mix represents a tradeoff between etticiency and frexibiliEy (Ermore' 1980) ' But for the nost part, the programs examined by early implementation researchers were inducements--policies that seek Lo achieve Eheir goals by transferring money or authorj-Ly to an individual or agency in return for something of value (McDonnefl- and Elmore, L98'7). MosE often, the agencies given Lhe new funds were looseJ-y coupled educational organizaLions. Given the naEure of the policy instrumenL and the Lypes of agencies pursuing change, consj.derable variability in outcomes was expected, crnd littLe pressure vJas necessary or applied. fn some contrast, any poJ-icy change with regard to homosexuals serving in the military vj,lI be presenEed in Che form of a mandate. The implementation of a manclate involves different dynamics. alEhough the considerable cliscretion accorded lower-Ievel military leaders argues thab the l"essons of implemenLaEion in loosely coupled educaLiona agencies can be brought Lo bear as welL.
3'7'7 -
Research on regulaEory policy has demonstrated that targeEs of mandates j-ncur cosEs from complying or from avoiding compliance. The choice Ehey make to comply wiE.h Che mandaEe or atempL to avoid dong so is based on the perceived coscs of each afternaEive. Targets decide whether or noE to comply by calculating two kinds of costs: (1) the
liketihood that Ehe policy will be sLrct1y enforced and compliance failures wj-11 be deLecLed and (2) the severj-ty of sanctions for noncompliance. ff enforcement s strict and sanction costs are high, compliance is more likeJ.y (McDonnelI ancl Elmore. 1987) 's To increase the likelihood of compJ-iance wiLh a mandate, the implemenEation plan musE include enforcement mechanisms and sanctions that lead targets Eo assess the costs of noncompliance as hi.gh, and thus increase the likelihood that. Ehey wiIl choose compliance. Such a plan is 1lkely to creat,e an adversarj-al reLationship between iniLiators and targets, particularly when targets do not support policy goals (McDonneLI and Elmore, 1987) ' support. Along wiEh pressure Eo comply, policy mandaLes should provide suppor! for implementation, Key aspecEs of support are a system of rewards that recognize compliance efforts, and room for bottom-leveL inpuL inEo the process. set of rewards for any movement that supports implementation of policy is key. The goal of Lhese rewards is for individual's Lo he perceive that their own self-interest lies in supporting the change. Such beliefs represenE Ehe energizJ.ng force for successful impJ.ementaLion of change (Mazmanian and SabaEier, 1983; Levin and Ferman,
r.986 )
.
note the importance of commibbed implementors as drj.ving forces for policy change. Conversely, ]eaders Indeed, they uncornitted to a new policy may restrain change efforts. suggest Ehat the inabilLy of policymakers or organizational leaders to
Mazmanian and SabaEier (1983)
5Targets essentially employ an expectancyvalue calculation in making these decisions, Such calculabions are a key component of models such as the HeaIEh Belief ModeL (Janz and Becker, 1984; Rosenstock. SLecher. and Becker, 1988) Ehat seek to predict the likelihood that an individual wil-l undertake a particular preventive measure, such as conEracepEive use (e,g,, Eisen and Zellman, 1992).
-378If choose implenentors is a major facEor in implementabion failures. be replaced, and often they cannot, the leader's job implemenlors canno is to changfe Lhe percepbions of Ehe implementors concerning the J-ike1y If implementors come to view the new policy ouEcomes of the new policy. as consisEent with heir own self-interest (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1"983) and with olganizaEional culture (Schein, :I9g7), t,hey will be far more likely to support t-he new poJ.icy and acL in ways that enhance its
i"mplementat ion
.
Local ContexE for C!ange To achieve successful implementatj.on of any policy, Ehe change process has Eo be both understood and carefully managTed' when an organization,s cuLure appears inconsistenL with a ne\ policy, leaders must attempt to creaLe driving for-ces by drawing on aspects of the exJ-sting culture Ehat are compaLible (AIlaire and Firsirotu, 1985; Schein, 1987). This requires a clear understanding of the organizational culEure (AlLaire and Firsj.rotu, 1985), Ehe perceived self-interest of participants (Mazmanian and sabatier, l-983), and the extent to which the change is likely to be perceived as consistent with both. It also requires thaL efforts be made Eo present. the change. and the change process, as fair. Procedural fairness has been found to increase compliance wiLh the r-rltimate outcome of a decision process. Tller and Lincl (1992) reporE Ehat fairness judgmenEs make compliance more Likely even when the final decision or new policy is perceived Lo be incompatible wiLh inciividuaL beliefs or self*interest.6 A new poli.cy is mosE ]ikeLy to cl.ash with organizational or participant culEure when it is lmposed from the outside, a common occurrence in government agencies. In such cases, the new policy may
6A key goal of the implemenLat.ion process is Lo promoLe percepLions of procedural fcairness. T\jler and Lnd (1992\ identify four factors These include voice, a belief that one's that promote such perceptions. views can be expressed freely and are being considered t even if the decision has aJready been ltrade (Lind, 1993); Erust, a beef that Ehe decisionmaker is rying Lo be fair; standing, a belief that one has been !reaEed respecEfully by policymakersi and neucraJjEy, a belief EhaL those making policy are clriven by facts raEher than emotions or opinion (ffIer and Lind, L992; Tyler , 1989 ; Lind, 1993 ) .
3'7 9
reflect the demands of constituencies outside the implementing organizat.ion, for example, the Suprenre Court's requirement thaE loca school districts cesegregate. Or it may be based on research findings or opinions that the organiza!ion could be accomplishing its goals more For example, the Military Child Care Act of 1989, which effectively. promulgabed new, more sEructured standards for child development programs on military installations. reflected Congresslonal concerns about the miliEary's ability Lo deliver adequate amounts of highqual j.t.y, developmenbally appropriate chil-d care. But whatever its source, the very fact that the change is imposed from Lhe outside creaEes significant chalenges to successful implemenEation' An externally mposed poJ.icy may be resisted as well, because of perceived jconsjstency wiEh organizational or parLicipant culture. Most conunonly, a new policy Lhreatens Lhe premium put on history and learning from experience in the organization (Schein, 1987; Levitt and March, 1988). In some cases such poficy changes are perceived Eo threaLen Ehe organization's very survival. The policy can afso Ehreaten deeply held beliefs concerning organizaLional autonomy, a key feature j-n Lhe widespread resistance of school disLricts to desegregation orders' A new policy can also threaEen the partjcipant culture. School desegregation posed such a threat Lo many schooL personnef in the Deep Souh, who were personally offended by the idea of integrated education. Change may be j.nconsistent wiEh organizationaL .gEructure as well as cufLure. Allaire and Firsirobu (1985) note that innovaEions that depend on a particular organizational strucLure are likeIy to fail if those slructures do not exist in the organi.zation. For example, it would be fuL.ile, they argue, to exhort t.he employees of a regulated monopoly offering a public service and requiring large capital investments to manage with a lean slaff and simple form. Or a top-down structure like the miLitary's may make mutuaL adaptation beLween an innovabion and the smallest units problematic. Such organizations trade adaptability for efficiency and increased likelihood that the change will spread througrhout the system (Ledford, Mohrman, Mohrman, and Lawl'er, 1989) ' key linding of implementation studies is that change is best accepL.ed and insEitutionalized when at least some people wiLhin Ehe
- 380 organizaion perceive the need for Ehe change and are persuaded that t is good for the ot-ganization and for themselves. Much of the liEerature on large-scale organizatonaI changfe focuses on change arising from organizational need, such as ceclining market share or reduced profits
aI. , 1989; Kanter, 1983 ) . change imposed from without lacks these builc-in advantages. The process of change must be much more carefully planned and managed if widespread implemenLation Ehat is consj.stent with policy goals and processes is to occur. Even v,rhen policy, culture, and structure are consisEent, implemenEation is far from assured' The natural conservatizing forces at work n most organizaEions tend Eo resisE change. People often have to be persuaded thaL the new policy will not be harmful to the organization or bo themsefves and may even result in
Mohrman eL
(e.g.,
gains,
IMPIJEMENTTNG
the Armed Forces implement a policy that is based on clear sEandards of concluct, strictl,y enforced. and LhaL considers sexual orienEation, by iCseIf, as "not germane/' to determining who may serve in Lhe miliEary? The nature of military organizations and our knowledge about the implementaEion process suggest a number of actions thae can facil-itate the implementation of such a policy, These actions are
How mghL
discussed beLow. Design a Pollcy That Facllitaes fmplemntation It is very imporlant to convey a new policy that ends discrimination as simply as possible and to impose the minimum of changes on personnel (Levin ancl Ferman, 1986) ' Further, the po'icy should be cleciclecl upon cand impJ.emenEed as quickly as possible and should
include both pressure and support for change ' Make Ehe Policy simple. MIiLary experience wi.th blacks and women argues for a sim:Ie policy under which homosexuals are treated no differenbly in tertns of rvork assigllments, J.iving situations, or promo|abi]ty. Indeed, the documented capabilities of homosexuals to perform aLI miliLary tasks enable Lhe policy to be simple.
- 341
fn conErast, the polcy message about women has been complex. This complexity has resulted in contsinuing strong doubts about the capability and appropriateness of women to perform cerEain asks, which are evident in military member attiLudes and in rules L.hat constrain women's full military parLicipation. (See Lhe chapter on miJitary opinion for additional information. ) Combined wiCh separate living accommodations that often are viewed as plusher (largely because t.he smal-l- numbers of women l-ower ratios for toiIeLs, etc.), these rul-es keep gender highly salienE. Lower trainnq standards, better assignments (to safer, noncombat jobs), and beEter accomnodations have continued to feed resenLmenLs cfnong men. These problems in integrating women argue for equal treatment of homosexuals, They should be assigned to serve in all positons and at "rl,L levels, according Lo their ski1ls; those who serve wiEh them will- be expecEec Eo treaE them equally as well.7 ct Quick1y, Lessons from the implementaLj.on lj.Lerature suggest lhaE the new policy regarding homosexuals in t,he miliLary should be decided upon and impJ.emented as quickly as possible, for three reasons' FirsE, the waiting period is one in which milj.tary personnel are unsure, and therefore anxious about, whaE t.he final- outcome will be and how it will affect their personal military experiences. The change in policy wiI] not appreciably affect Ehe vast majority of heterosexuaLs, who will not be working or iving with an open homosexual. (See the chapEer on cohesj,on for a discussion of the probabiLlties of Lhere being acknowledged homosexuals in groups of varying sizes,) Once they discover bhat nothiug has changed for them, they wiLJ- feel more comfortable and the issue wj-ll be l-ess disruptive generally, That 7lL has been suggesLed l-hat, grven Lhe need f or a sma.ller force, lhose who would find it a):horrent Eo serve with open homosexuals should be given an option to leave, This wi}, by implication, make those who stay more commiLted Lo the new policy because they chose to serve under However, such a policy deparEure creates two problems he new policy. that could impede impJ.emenLation. Fir:sc, an escape policy signals t.hat the policy is abhorrent, which contradicts any messages of leadership support. Second, L.hose who leave for other reasons but cl-aim they left because of moral objections to homosexuals may sv;elf the ranl<c of thocc who appear !o object to the policy,
382
ouEcome, however, will reguire Ehat instances of open homosexuaLity not be aLlowed to resul-C in serious, rumor-j.nspiring conflicts. Second, any waiEing period aso permiLs restraining forces to consolidate. UnEil the policy is decided upon and impJ"emenLation has begun, those opposed will feel free L,o speak out against it, increasing the perceived strengt.h of milit.ary objections. Third, fast and pervasive change wil, signal commj.Ement t.o t.he policy. Any incremental changes would likely be viewed as experimental; commiment to Lhe new policy would therefore be weakened (Lawler. 1989). fn addition, phased-in implementation might aIow enemies of the new policy Eo intenLionally create problems to prove the policy unworkable. Convey the charge fn Terme Compatlble with Military Cultsure. To the exent possibJ,e, the policy should be conveyed in terms compatible with military culEure, For example, leadership should focus on Ehe organizat.ional culture of hierarchy and obedience and minimize discussion of Ehe inconsiscency between the new poJ.icy and a very conservative participanc cuILure. Leaders can become role models by conforming behavj-oraLJ.y Eo Ehe new policy because Ehe President is bhe Commander in Chief, who musE. be obeyed. Other consistencies between successfu i.mplementaEion of the policy and organizational culture can also be stressed. For example, the military sees itself as a strong organization wiLh a "can-do" atEitude. MiLiEary culture stresses the dominance of mission over individual preferences and characteristics. Such successful submersion of more visi.ble differences such as race can be poinEed to as an example of the military's ability to keep its collecEive eye on the prize. And the military's norms of inclusion and equality can be broughE to bear as well. Build in Sanctlons and Enforcemen! Mechanieme, Any new policy about homosexuals wi1 come in the form of a mandate. Consequently, compliance is Ehe goaI. To increase the likelihood of compliance, sanctions and enforcement mechanisms must be esEablished. Key to promoEing compliance is the adopLion or revision of a code of professional behawior that clarifies tshe critserj.a for bctravioralcompJ.iance. The code must include some general principles and general behavioral criteria and some language that expIj.ciLly makes people
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
?42
responsible for exercising discretion in determining whether behaviors no expliciEJ.y included in Ehe code of conduct are accepbable (Burke, 1990),8 The code should expliciLJ-y recognize the need to respect the feelings and concerns of others in defining acceptable and unaccepEable
behaviors. Although the military's strong hierarchicaf control might suggest to some that policy can be successfully impJ-emented with only limited discretion (Burke, 1990), providing some degree of discretion to the smallest unit in Eerms of how to bring alout behavior change capures an important tenet of Ehe implement.ation perspective. LawIer (1989) suggesEs thaE subunits be given a "concepCual box" t.hat defines t.he boundaries of acceptable behavior within which uniE members can work. In addition, awarding discretion is consisEent with the military's informaJ. operations, where much discretion is praciced (Watman, L993), Indeed, the military nission order. a widel"y used way of directing subordinates, builds in considerable lower-level discretion. Such discrebj-on increases individual- and unit commj-tment, to Ehe change. The code of professional conduct must. also describe Ehe sanctions for behavioraf noncompliance. These sancEions essentially define accounLabiJ-ity and thus set parameters around leader discretion. Too much discretion concerning sarctions rj.sks Ehe possibilj-Ly that uncommitLed Leaders wiLl send a signal that inappropriate behavior will be tolerated. The enforcemenC system must be made expJ-icit (Elmore, 1978).
their behavior viIl" be observed and noted and that actions inconsistent with the code of behavior will e calfed to the attention of hj.gher-ups and dealt with accordingr b.o Lhe explicit sanct.ion policy. BUL military experience in Ehe area of sexual harassment demonstrates bhaL a code of professj.onal
OrganizaLJ.on members musf. underscand LhaL
SExercise of cliscretion in support of a new policy requires sLrong leadership and unambiguous signals Ehat Ehe policy is Eo be carried out. Otherwise, leadershJ-p clj.scretion may serve t.o undermine policy implementaEion, For exampJ,e, "Ehe atmosphere created by Reagan appoinEees who headed Ehe EPA discouraged civil servants from serious enforcemenE of social environmentaL laws. They were encouraged lo use their discretion to reduce the scope of effective enforcement" (Palumbo and Calisba. 1990, p. 8).
- JA4
by itself is not enough Eo ensure change when the change is inconsistent with organizational- culture. From the point of view of those with expertise in sexual harassment, the miliEary has set in place the appropriate poficies and sEructures to minimize the problem,9 YeE, there is substantial evidence that sexual harassment remains a serious problem in the miJ.itary even afEer the formal adopEion of a code of behavior.l0 The high incidence of sexual harassment reporE.ed in mil-itary surveys suggests that those expecbed to compJ-y with sexual harassmenL policj-es have concluded that noncompliance is unl-ikely to be detected, and if detect.ed, is unJ,ikely to result in severe sanctj-ons. Informaton from the field supports this conclusj.on. Many sexual harassment complaints are apparentfy ignored. Tf they come Eo light, those who choose Eo ignore them are rarely sanctioned, which sends a signal Lhat the policy need not. be taken seriously, fndeed, in many cases, it is the compJ.ainant who suffers (Gilberd, 1992) . What the military's experience wiE.h sexual harassment demonstraLes is that a code of professionaL conducE alone cannot bring change. Rather, it is just one parE of an inLensive implemenEaEion effort if change is to occur. The behavioral compliance expecEed in response to
conducE
gAccording Lo Ehe Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), 'each service requires every offj-cer and enlisted member to be trained in the prevention of sexual harassment at nitial service enLry points, and
periodicalJ.y Ehereafter. tElach service policy clearly states thaL the prevention of sexua.I harassnent is a principal responsibility of the chain-of-command. ll service members must be cognizant of the po-icy and enforce the sLandards requirec by t.he policy, Service members who have sexual harassmenb complaints are encouraged to use the
chai.n-of-command, EquaJ. opporLunity/Human ReIaEj.ons dvisors, Chaplains, Inspector General, and .Tudge Advocate General are reconmended as alternate channels. tElach service's poJ.icy refers commanders to a number of specific arLicles in the UCMJ when considerJ.ng punishment for sexual harassment offenders" (MartindaIe, 1990, pp. iv-v), toe t988 Defense Manpower Data cenfer survey of 20,250 randomly selected personnel (response rate = 60 percent) revealed t.hat 64 percenL of female and 17 percent of the male personnel experienced aL l-east one form of sexual harassmenb while ab work in the year before the survey;
the most serious forms, pressure for sexual favors; and 5 percent. of femal-e and 1 percenL of male respondenEs reporE.ed the mosE severe form, actual or attempted r"rpe or sexual- assaulb.
1-5 percent
of
of male respondents
reportsed
one of
385
be assumed, stronq monitoring and sanctioning must occur for largets to conclude that compJ.iance is worth the effort. Steps that Lhe Nawy has taken since 1989 idenbify ways to reinforce a code of professional conduct. In particular, since 1992, bhe Nawy has reinforced its zero-Eolerance policy toward sexual harassment with a mandatory processing for separation policy following either Lhe first substantiated incident of aggravated sexual harassment or the repeated occurrence of less serious incidenLs of sexual harassment (Culbertson et
mandaEes cannot
af.,
]-992:'
Ensur Leadershfp Support at 11 lJevela Military Leaders can and must become a major driving force for change. They take on this role when Ehey are perceiwed to be supportive of the change and to be concerned EhaE it be successfully implemenEed. to achieve, especially when the new Such a sance is sometimes difficult
policy has been criticized by these same leaders early in the implementation process, when debate was occurrinq about the policy's value and form, fdeally, leaders' early criticisms are acknowledged and responded t.o durng the policy formulation process in a way that enables them to emerge from the debate appearing convinced of the value and importance of the new poJ.icy, Such beliefs present Ieaders as committed to the changre and consequentJ.y eager to see it implemented (Ilaire and Firsirotu, 1985). If ower-leveL commanders and troops do not believe that their superiors support the policy, they wilL have Ittle motivabion to abide by it. t Ehe very top, the President must reaffirm his commitment to the new poJ-icy ln language consistent with cultural norms of inclusion If senior military leaders do not believe in the and eguality for all. change, efforts must be made to present leaders as behavjoraTTy opposed). committed to the policy (even if they remain attitudinally Such behavj-oraI commibment requires Eha! Leaders send a strong, consisten! signal of support for the new policy. Lack of attitudinal support makes behavioral signaling all the more important. Such signaling must include strict adherence t.o an existing or new code of professional conduct, with public sanctioning of personnel at al-L Levels
- 386 -
to comply with iL. IL musE also incLude smal"Ier actions, such as allocaLion of t.ime Lo Lhe new policy and keeping the change before members through video or other messages such as calks aE lunches and meebings (Peters, t978]. . This message of support must include a message of continuing involvement by high-J.eve1 J.eadership. The assignment of a high-ranking individual wich direct access to Cop management L.o oversee Ehe implemenEation process conveys the message thaE. this policy is to be enforced at aIl levels. While top-down change is Lhe norm in miliLary organizaEions, the lessons of j.mplementation research EhaL impl,ementing change is a problem of the smallest unit should be heeded. Indeed, it is particularly important to convey an underseanding of whaE matters a! Ehe bottom of Ehe organization to the top so that members feel heard. fE is imporEant, as we11, to convnce l-eaders aE a levels, including the bottom, that it is in Eheir own and the organization's interest to work eo support the new policy. Ther effective involvement depends on six (1) signalinq the military's commitment to the new poJ-icy; key efforts: (2) convincing Lhem tnat active monitoring and support for the new policy will be notced and rewarded; (3) stressing the imporEance of reducj-ng anxieties and creating a sense of perceived fairness for members,. (4) training them Eo be good impementors; (5) empowering them Eo use their discretion within clear constraintsr and (6) providing
who fail guidance.
Signaling Commitment. Lower-Leve1 leaders are the key Lo enforcement efforts at Ehe bocE.om of the military hierarchy. UnIess Lhe seriousness of the military's commiLment to t.he poJ.icy is effectiveLy in their conveyed to them, they wiII exhibit great variability Treatmenc of Ehe same issue can be expected to enforcement efforts, differ consideral:ly from base to base, and unit to uniE, in Ehe absence of a strong message of conformicy from superior officers, Iilentlfylng Rewards. The enforcemenL syslem mus! be made expliciL (Elmore, 1978). Leaders must be persuaded that their enforcement of the new policy wiLL be monitored by Ehose above them and thaE Eheir behavioral supporE of the new policy wll be rewarded. This will enourage leaders Lo beLieve thaE successful implementaLion of Lhe new
387
policy accords with their ovrn self-interest, a key aspect of leadership (Levin and Ferman, 1986). These rewards should hoLd aE all levels of Ehe mIitary and should For examp.e, unit leaders should know that they will be be explicit. judged n parE on the a}:ility of unit members to work effectively together. For example, units would be considered well-i.ed when members comfortabfy absorb newcomers, This evaluabion wi]l positively affect both group members and their leader, However, writers on procedural jusbice (e.g., Tyler and Lind, L992) present cautions abouE the limits of outcome incenLives to ensure compliance. They stress that anoEher. compaEibl-e rouEe to conrpliance Iies in an impl-ementaLion process that gives group members voice, conveys the impression of fairness and and descri]:es the final policy as based concern for inclivicluals'rights, on fact and egalitaran concerns, Communication upward about compliance faiures should be actively encouraged (Dalziel and Schoonover, 1988). Since 'snitching" violates a Leneg of mitj.tary culture thaE only good news should be communicated, it is important to both redefine "snitching" as important, vafued professional behavior and Lo seL up monitoring procedures so that people are asked about problems, for example, through regular impJ-ementation surveys (e.9.. Gotclieb et aI', L992) ' Leaders must also understand thaL faiLure to actively support the new policy will be noticed and sanctoned. Military members must be hetd to high standards of conduct with regard to abiding by and enforcing the new policy. ny officer who violates Ehe behavioral guj.delines associa[ed with the new policy should be dealt with severely. This message--Ehat the miLiLary takes Ehe new policy seriously--wil1 quickJ-y be conveyed to those l-ower down and contribute to behavioraf
compl iance
.
Moreover, breaches of policy by subordinaes will be viewed as leadership failures, This tvo-pronged approach makes every leader responsible for the behavior of bhose below, More generally, conanders must be responsible for morale and behavior within their units, including aLl incdent-s of discriminaLion' It must be made clear to them that if they per:mrt an environmenL in which homosexuals can be
3BB
discriminat.ed againsL or harassed, it will have an effecE on their likelihood of promotiorr. Failure to pursue instances of unacceptabLe behavior shouJ-d, in itse.Lf, be considered a leadership failure. This latter point is key: PercepEons alouE what happens when these responsibilities are ignored can drive or derail implementaLion (Davidson, 1993). The implementation leader must clarify t.he complaint process and, with the monitoring group, ensure LhaL complainLs are actively addressed. Moreover, efforEs should be made to sj.mplify the compLain process. The Army EquaJ- Opportunity Office (EOO) is currently implementing Ewo promising approaches: (1) a hoE Iine that provides procedural information on filing EO complainLs, and (2) a complaint form that can be reproduced easily on a photocopier (CJ.emen, 1993).
Srengthen the Local Context for Change
Change wiLl be facilitated by leaders who are Erained and motivat.ed to address and solve impl-ementation problems. A new organizat.ionaJ" sEructure should be helpful as weLl in enabl-ing implemenLation and change. Finai-ly, monitoring crteria shoul-d be developed and widely
communicated.
Increase Leadership capaclty. A key task of leaders aE. aLl fevels is to minimize subordinates' anxieties and create a sense of procedural jusEice for them. Reduced rvorry and feelings of justice are enhanced when leaders are prepared to alsorb the anxiet.y of change, including challenges and anger, when Ieaders demonstrate dedication and commitment to the organization as a whole, and when leaders encourage members to express Lheir anxieties and concerns and when t.hey acknowledge Lhese concerns (Schein, L9B7; Tller and Lind, 1992). Leaders shouLd aLso act Eo enhance feelings of efficacy by conveying their beliefs Lhat personnel- are capable of implementing the change and confornring to l:ehavioral, expectat.ions. The criEical disEinction beEween behavior changTe and abEi-t.ude change should be emphasized, wiEh a clear message that the organ zal:ion wj l. 1 l-imt its concern exclusively Eo behavior.
- 389 Leadership capaciLy will be enhanced I:y several means, including training, support for the use of discretion, and guidance. conduc Training, Training of }eaders should be designed to create fixers,,--peopJ.e who both care about successful implemenLation and have the skil1s necessary Eo anEicpaEe and identify implemenLation problems and to make adjustments to improve the implementation process (Bardach, 1980; Levin and Ferman, 1946). It should be noEed that "fixer trainlng" is distinctly differenL from sensitiviLy training. Fixer lraining is practical and meshes weLl with the stricEly behaviora] aPproach to implementation most likely to yield success. In conErast, sensitivity training aLtempEs aEitude change and is lvidely scorned by miJ.iEary personnel, Bringing in sensitivity Erainers vho are perceived to be very costly in a context of drawdown is as likely to increase resistance and angfer as it is to reduce iE.
of Diecretion. Becoming a good "fixer" implies the possibiJ-ity of accion, Leaders at all Levels musE be accorded sufficient discretion so that t.hey can acE to correct implementation probLems. BuE, as noEed above, this discretion must be bounded by behavioral moniEoring ancl strict enforcenent of a code of professional conduct, Such a code is cliscussed n t.he chapEer on .egal issues and in Appendix A, which presenLs a code Ehat r,rould be appropriale for the "not germane" option. provide Guidance. Any code of professionaf conduct, no matber how prescriptive, cannot hope to identify all potential- problem areas' A new code of professional conduct thaE describes behavioraL principles and goals wilL iclentify few. Yet lower-leveI leaders need guidance. Therefore, cocles shoulcl be supplemented wiLh active guidance in the form of ,,quesEion ancl anslver,, documents, vhich should be widely disseminaLed. These questions ancl answers could also include information about sexual behavior and health issues' create a Monitoring structure. rn the implementation literature,
Encourage Use
there ie much deba'Ee alcout he desirabilit)'of creatsing a new
organizaLional. structure to Lead and monitor implementation' Much depends on where such strucLures are locaE.ed in the organizatj.on. 1f
390
central to Ehe organizaLion. and if led by a person with considerable formal authority who has the ear of Eop management, such structures can be effective (Schein, 1987). They create a place where complaints may be }odged outside the chain of command; their presence conveys orgranizational commil-menL Lo Lhe change; and, if properly sLaffed, they can become experE at dealing with problems thaL arise. However, such sEructures are sometimes used Eo divert implementation concerns from key leaders and Lo "gheEeo-ze" the new pol.icy. In these cases, uch sErucLures send a signaJ" of nonsupport from top managers Ehat is likely to undermine successful implementation. Moreover, in Ehe current cfimate of downsizing, the cre.rtion of apparently costly new strucEures is likely to be resented. fnstead, monitoring shouJd be carried oLt by using the chain of command. Monitoring would begin among low-level leaders who are cLose !o and can convey Ehe views and behavioral problems of those who work under them. They should reporE. on a periodic basis to their superiors up the chain and should be provided incentives, as described above, to report n a timely manner abouE incipienE problems so hat they can be remedied before they become serious. Such reporting up the chain will depend upon the developmenL of clear reporting instrumenLs and on creaing among leaders up ancl down the chain a sense thaE accurate information abouL implemenEaton probJ.ems is valued and that failures of leadership reside in refusals to complyr not in compliance dj.fficul-ties' This process should be supported by a small group in each service charged with overseeinq inrpLementation of the new policy. The group may comprse people already responsl:le for other similar polici,es, e'9., sexual harassment ancl racial integration.ll Kilmann (1989) suggesEs EhaE a shadow track--a group of 5-15 people representing al1 leveIs of a large organization, whj.ch meets reguJ-arly to monitor Ehe implementation process and develop ways to improve it--is a good idea in very large organizaElons. In this case, a shadow track might receive reports fron alf leve1s as weLl as conducL its own
moni l-nri ng lrcqs , g perconnelsr.lrveys
.
llTraining for these over-seers may strengEhen their efforts in these other areas as weLl-.
391
Develop Monitoring Criteria. Few homosexuals are likely to reveal their sexual orientation even if a policy that allows them to do so openly is mandated. Consequently, monitoring crj.teria used to assess the proqress of more visble groups, e.9,, bJ-acks and women, cannot be used, Numbers of promotions, distribution across pay grades, and other measures of a group's progress Lhat depend on the ability to deEect group numbers are noE feasible. However, it is possiIe and important to monitor oEher outcomes of the implemenEation process. These ouLcomes should include key areas of concern, including incidents of violence, numbers of open homosexuals who serve, and measures of unit performance, Monitoring eforcs should incl-ude assessments of performance report.s, !he conduct of implementation surveys, and analysis of the nature and disposition of complaints. Monitors should examine wriLLen documents for their signali.ng messages; analyze surveys of military member at.Lit.udes; track the incidence of violence, harassmenE., and excfusion, and the incidence of sanctioning; and track numbers of homosexuals who disclose their orienEation or whose orientation is revealed by others, and numbers of mliEary members who Leave bhe service because of Lhe ne\,, polcy or it.s impJ.icaLions, A seL of objective measures of unit performance must be devised. These measures should, to the extent possible, build on current efforEs (e.g., National Training Center performance) and be suppJ.ement,ed by policy-specific measures (e.9., nlmber of harassment complaints filed, number of instances of violence or abuse dreceed toward open or
suspected homosexuals), To the exLent possible, monitoring measures should depend on existing, ongoing assessments. Unfortunately, however, ongoing assessmenL measures are not cls vclilable or as appropriate as those charged with moniLoring of the nevr poJ.icy might hope. Measures of key military outcomes--reacliness and cohesion--are fawed. Surveys of member atLitudes are conducted too infrequent.ly to be of much va1ue. The military does employ some measures of cohesion, alt.houqh none are used on an ongoing basis. Such measures mghE be adapbed for use in monitorj.ng of the new policy. Such adaptation would, however, require
-392careful- research, thought, and developmenE. (See Ehe chapter on cohesion for detail on Lhese measures.) Surveys of member attitudes toward the new policy and experiences with it could be a vaLuable monitori.ng device. However, the approximately five-year inL.ervals beLween DoD personnel surveys (which survey about 5 percent of active-duLy military memllersr spouses, and members of the reserves) ]imit the surveys' value, Tracking of atiLude change with Ehis survey s difficulL because of the many secular changes during the long inLersurvey period. A monthly survey effort that included a much sma1er percentage of the population would, in contrast, be exEremely val.uable for tracking actiLudes. set of quesions focused on bhe impJ.ementaEion of t,he new policy toward homosexua.Is would al1ow he moniLorng group Eo examine key issues, e.9.. behavioral compliance, reporting behaviors, and for commanders, the extenE to l,hich implementation of the policy coincided wi.th other duties (Gottlieb eb al., 1992't, The opporLunit.y to track implementation over time through a mix of unchanging attitudinal and changing implementation questions would be invaluable.
CONCI,USIONS
Despite widespread ancagonism within the military Eo a poficy that would end discriminaEion on the basis of sexual orienEaEion, lessons from organizaEion theory, implementation research, procedural justice theory. and the miliEary's own experiences with blacks (see the chapter on raciaL integration) suggesL that a new poJ.icy could be successfully implemented. success depends on undersLanding the miliLary as a large orgaization with a unique culture, on a carefully developed and activeJ.y monitored implement.ation plan, and on a sense of the importance of perceived fairness in the deveJ-opmenE of the policy and in its implementaton. To date, t.he impj-ementation contexE has not supported a new policy that would allow homosexuals to serve, Widespread views boEh wiLhin and outside the military t.haE homosexuality is immoral translate into concerns that removing che ban would appear Lo condone a homosexual lifestyle. Dawdowns, base closings, and reducEions in benefits have
393 -
created considerable anxiet.y among military members and have fueled widespread beliefs that the military has violated its psychological contract beEween t,he organization and its memlers. The resuJ.Eing anger and resentment. have made nembers even less inclined Lo t.olerate new threats to military culture, The policy debate surrounding such a policy change is occurring in a context in which norms of deference are sgnificantly eroded, ConsequenLly, highly placed military leaders have actively criticized the proposed poLicy. In addition, a number of ot.her factors restrain change. These include Ehe acE E.hat Che poJ-icy wilL be externally imposed, which willincrease the likeLhooc.l that it wilL be perceived as inconsisten with organizational and participant cultures. The niTitary's uneven experience in fu!7y integraEinq another sexuaJ ouEsjder group, women, will be used to boLster resjsEance. Perceptions Ehat the policy is going forward for reasons oLher lhan the direcL needs of the military contribute Eo a feeling that Ehe policy is unfair to Ehose serving. These factors make change harder and must be considered in designing a pl-an for i.mplementing the new policy. To promoLe change, planners should:
the policy as simply as possible and build in supports for change. The most important supporL for change is a code of professional conduct that clarifies Lhe criterj-a for behavioraL compliance .rnd stresses universaL responsibilit.y for respecting he feelings and sensitivities of others. In additj.on, high1eve1 individuals should be designated as responsible for successful implementaEion. To Ehe extent possible, convey the change in terms compatible wiLh miliEary cul-ture. These terms might include a focus on the submersion of individua] preferences, the obligation t'o foLlow orders, and the military's "can-do" attitude, Stress behavioral compLiance and create sanctions for compliance failures. PoLicy messages should make clear that leaders are responsiIe for thei-r own behavior and for the
Convey
394
behavior of their subordinates. Communica!ion upward about compJ. j.ance failures shoufd be encouraged. Create a change process thaL al-1ows memlers Eo voice bheir views and concerns and to l(noh/ that Ehese have been heard, even if they do not agrree with the ultimale policy. The change should make clear thab leaders have developed the policy and t.he implementaL ion plan in a f air narner . Ensure Lop eadershir support, at l-east behaviorally. Set in place the means Lhrough which Eop leadership can send signals of support. for the new policy, including continuing involvement in implemenLation, and frequenE messags about the implementation process. fnvoLve leaders at all levels. Even in a tsop-down orgnizaLion, implementation remains a problem of the smaLl-est unit. Leaders at alL levels must come to see Lhat successful implementation is in their sel-f-interest, and their ability to lead will be assessed in part by their own compliance wit.h the new policy and the compliance of those under their command. They must also be provided with training designed to make them successful implementors. Such training should include practice in identifying threats to implementabion, guidel,ines for behavior, and sufficient dlscreEion so that they can begin to feel some ownership for the change. Set up monitorrng rnechanisms, including oversight committees, that wi]l assess --he implementation process. Monitoring efforEs should capture as many aspects of the change as possible.
- 395 ;
13.
This chapter describes research on the determinants of enl.istment and reenl-istment to military service and discusses possible effects of removing current restrictions on service by homosexuals' Research findings provide little direct evidence of possible changes in enlistmens and reenlistments among rospective or currenE service members. Survey data point to decLines in reenlistment intentions if the restricEions are removed, but research suggests that actual outcomes wilL be determined by a number of considerations, of which individuals' economic and educational status are parLicularly prominent. Inle conclude t.hat precise effects on enlistment and reenlistment behavior wil-1 depend on he nature of the policy and its rel-aLve importance for an individual's enlistment or reenl-istmenL decision. However. should enlstments or reenlstments decline, options exist for minimizing adverse effects, .9.. by expanding recruitment and,/or removing incentives which encourage current service personnel to leave as the military reduces in size,
I
BCKGROTIND
key principle of military force managemenL is Lo atbract and retain competent personnel to assure readiness and operational effectiveness. Military personnel policy seeks, in general, to obtain high-quality personnel in meeting gopls for new members. Among enlisted personnel-, recruit quali-ty is gauged as the proportion of high school graduates and the fraction scoring in the upper half of the Armed Forces Qualificaon Test (AFQT) . Youth who hold Lhese attribuEes in ombination define the "prime recruitng market" and are especially prized by the nilitary (Verdugo and BerJ-iant, 1989). High standards also govern acceptance to the officer corps. The services reguire that most offcer candidates obtain at minimum a four-year college or
1lchls chapcer was prepared by rfohn . Wlnkler, who wouLd L1)ce Eo acknowledge the considerable assiEance of Glenn Gotz, Susan Hosek, Bruce Orvis, and Peter TiemeYer.
- 396 university degree. rn addition, they consider oLher crLeria such as grades, scores on aptitude tests, participation in extracurricular activiEies, and evidence of leadership abilities (office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, IggZ) . seeks to retain and promote ibs Military personnel polici'fuithei best-performing personne to meet ts occupatonal requirements at advancng skilI ]eveLs. For example, officer personnel management seeks to "provide career opporEunity that would aEtract and rebain the numbers of high-caliber officers needed" and "maintain a high-quality' numerically sufficient officer corps" (Rostker et a1., 1993). Enl-isLed fOrce managfement similarly seeks o ericourage, reward, and promote high performinq personnel (Buddin et aI' ,,L992). Thus the military also seeks to minimize unwanLed attrition,' i.e., avoid separations of desired personnel during an enlistmenL term or at reenlistment, wiLh attendant loss of nvestment in military recruitment and traning' The possibility that military service couLd be opened to acknorrledged homosexuals has raised fears that recruitment and retenEion could be adversely affected (rmy Times, 1993). The military expends considerable resources in the form of advertising, educationaL benefiEs. and enlistment and reenlistmenb bonuses to abtracL and retai.n desired personnel. If personnel whom:the services wish to reLain choose Eo leave mililary service over this issue, readiness could be compromised, force management could be complicated, and the costs of replacing these losses could be considerable. Further, it could be difficult and cosL.J-y to meet recruiting targets if large numbers of olherwise interested young people, particularly in the prime recruiti.ng market, failed to consider military service because of objections to serving and living with homosexuals.2 2In fact, the military is alreaily experiencing a relative decline in the quality of mj-Iitary recruits. s recently reported by OASD (FM&p), 94 percent of active force enlisted accessions in the first half of FY93 were high school graduates, compared to 99 percent in the previous year. ccessions scoring in the top half of Lhe AFQT recruits with both attributes has fallen to 65 percent from ?6 percent a year earlier. The decline was most severe for the Army, which accouns for the largest number of recruits.
disbribuon hawe fallen Eo ?0 percent from 7? pcrccnb, and thc charo of
397 -
Actual effects on enlistments and reenlistmenEs, however, are unknowable as a new policy regarding homosexual.s has not yet been formulated or implemented- Hence, any predictions are inherently speculative, Discusson can be informed and available data interpreted, however, by more greneral consideration of the reasons that. peopJ.e choose to enlist and reenfist in Ehe military. The following discussion summarizes key findings from !his literature and assesses their implicaLions in light of current issues and trends affecLing mllitary manporrer policy.
RESERCH
oN EN,ISTMENT ND
REENLISTMENtr
An extensive body of research, much of it conducted at RAND, has examined the deermnants of enlistments and reenlistmenbs i.n the all-volunteer force, One set of studies has examined the reasons why young
persons join the nilitary (e.9., Barnes et aI', 1991; Benedict, 1990; Hosek and Peterson, 1985, 1986, 1990; orvis and Gahart, 1990; orvis, caharE, and Ludwig, 1'992) . A second body of research has examned policies and facEors governing retention and attrition of military personnel (e.g., Buddin, 1984; l-988; Chow and Polich, 1980; StoJ-zenberg and Wink1er, 1983). These studies novide a common research framework and specific findings relevant to th issue at hand.
Resaarch Franework
of this research examines joining and l-eaving the military as a choice thaL an individual makes among al,ternative courses of acEion. For example, Hosek and Peterson (1990) characterize the decision to enlisb as an evaluabon of military service aganst further education, civilian employment, marriage,and family (parLicularly for women), or a combination of these. Buddi.n (L984) considers attrition as a job separation j.n which employers and.mpl.oyees make rational decisions to parE company to enhance their respective we1J,-being, considering economic and non-economic benefits. Stolzenberg and 14nk1er (1983) describe a two-step process by which people choose voluntarily to leave one job Lo take anoEher. They suggest Lhat people first determine how satisfied they are with Eheir current job on an absolute basis, s they become dissatisfied with their current job, they initiate a search for
Much
- 398 alternaives. The framewoik pt.=rl*es tfrt people leave Eheir currenL job only when they find a mor aLtractive alternabive' These frameworks have been used in a number of sEudies examining enlisEment and reenlisEmen intentions and behavior' Specific factors examined vary from study t.o study, depending on population, data, research objectives, and research meEhods. ltogether, the studies provide information on effects of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, individual differences (e.S', in apEiLude and educaLion), attitudes and vafues/ and measures external to the individual such as unemployment rates, civilian and military pay, and the effort made to recruit Lhe individual.
Reaarcb FJ.ndlugs Deteminane of Enllstments and ReenlLetments. Studies examining military enlistees typically point to the importance of economic and
educational variables in guiding individuaLs' decisions. For example/ Hosek and Peterson (1983, 1986, 1990) find Ehat enlistmenL probabIiLies of men and women are strongly.related t'orwage rates and employment staEus and experience (work-refaEPd variables) ; learning proficiency, ability to finance furher educabion, parental infLuence (educaLionrelated variables), and expectations for further education. These findings have been replicated in studies of applicants to military service (Orvis and Gahart, 1985; orvis, Gahart, and Ludwig' L992). ' These latter sLudies show, however, that attitudinal variables also have a substantial effect on the probability of enlistment. These include social suppor for enlisting and perceived advantages (job securiLy) of
military service.
Research examining determinants of reenlistments also emphasizes the importance of economc and educational considerations. Chow and polich (1980), for example. found that first-term reenlistment rates are strongly influenced by compensation-related variables (e.9., pay,
bonuses, and all-owances) more so than other factors under policy control Hosek, Antel-, and Peterson (1989) found that first-term service members who expected more education (e.9., through tra|ning or the use of educat.ional- benefitsl were more ]ikely to remain in the
- 399 t'
service after 36 months. Drawing, gn ? Iarge number of research studies, Stolzenberg and Winkler (1983) point Lo compensation Levels, perceptions of job security, and saLisfaction with military life as major deEerminans of voluntary terminations from miitary service' ItrsntioDa ad Bebavlor. Th" t."".tch liEerature also provides empirical. estimates of he predicEive value of stated intentj.ons to enlist and reenfisE. These findings will be useful in evaLuating the awailable data addressing effects on enlistment and reenlistment of Iistng the ban on homosexuaLs, Statements of intention are generally highly predicEive of behavior. Chow and Polich (L980) cafculated actual first-term reenlisbment rates according Lo servce members' stated probability that they would reenlist. These results indicate that of members who slate their probabilicy of reenListment to ie between 0.9 and 1.0, the "true" reenlistment rate is 0.89 vithin one year. The atual reenlistment rate is 0.05 for members who state their probabilty of reenlistment to 1ie between 0.0 and 0'L. Although intenLions predict behaviotr, Ehey do noE ful].y account for the variety of facbors Lhat inf]uence,,oII's eventuaL decision. Some people who initially state positive intentions will fail to follow through; some who state negative intentions wiIl change their mind and join or reenlist. In fact., 45 percent of male enlistees intia1ly express negative intentions (Oris, Gahart, and Ludwig ' L992) ' IntenLj.ons are more predicLive when they are strongly held and proximal to the behavior, They predict behavior less well when people are unsure of their inEentions. Moreover, people who are urisure of their intentions seem most sensitive to external events or changes in policy which l-ead them to raise or lower their intentions POSSIBIJE EFBECTS OF REMOVING THE BN
The research results described above help frame Ehe issue of how enlistments and reenListments could be affected by removing Ehe restrj-ctions on homosexuals servinq in the miJ.itary.
gnIlgEmeBE9
First, this literatur remindb us tirat under ordinary circumstances, decisions to tin tf,. mititary are sLrongly influenced
by
- 400 educationa] and employmentirelated'.on"i.r.tions.'M.r,y people choose to join because the mLibary offets erploymenE prospects superior to OEhers join Lo receive what Ehey could obtain in civilian life' training or obtain educationaf enefiLs. In fact, these are the "primary" reasons people offer for joining Ehe military in the first place (Center for Human Resource Research, 1991) ' The research also reminds us, however, Ehat while empJ-oyment and educational considerations are important, they are not the sole determinants of enlistment decisions- For seniors n high school who cgntemplate service in the military, decisions to enlist are also subject to the influence of parents, teachers, and peers. Decisions to serve are also affected by he indj.vidual's moeives and attitudes for enlisting; for example, to develop self-confidence and potential, or have an experience of which ore can be proud (Barnes et a', 1991; Benedict, 1990; Orvis and Gahart, l-985). Enlistmen|s couLd be adversely affeced to bhe extent Ehat social support, moLives, and attitudes supporting miltary service d.ecrease as a consequence of removing the :, restricion on homosexual-s'and, as other factors remain equaL' The extent of attitude change would further depend, however, on the specj-fic policy implemented and the relative importance of thj-s issue to pobential enl-istees or those who influence their decisions.3 unfortunaLely, there are no current daLa which address dj.rectly how enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces could be affected if the restriction
3Avaifable research does not permit the relative effects of economic and non-economic factors to be easily compared, as these factors are often stUdied separately and relate Lo each other in complex service may ways (e.g,, aEtitudes and social suport for military themselves be influenced by economic and educatj-ona1 considerations). Few studies simultaneously examine a full complement of economic, vari-ab1es. Those which do (e.g', orvis and educational, and attitudinal orvis and Gahart (1990) Gahart, l-990) find strong effecLs for all. predict, for example, that enlistment rates among high school seniors who have taken Lhe written test to qualify for milibary service would increase by 8 percentage points as parents' support for mifitary service becomes more favorable at each point on a five-poj.nt Scale. At the same time, enlisEment rates are predicted to increase by 4 percentage points for each I00 of annual asslscance needed for coll"ege. There ls no way the bcan would affect supportr for milibary service, to infer how lifting
howeve
- 401 on homosexgals were removed,4 Some analOgoUs evidence comes from the experience of foreign nations with volunEeer militares who have lifted their bans on homosexuals serving in the milj.Lary (Canada and AusLralia). Prior to lifting heir ban, Lhe Canadian Forces conducted survey of their members, The resuLts indicated that the presence of homosexuals would have precluded many currently serving personnel from
enlisting and would "decrease the appeal of a service careero (Canadian Forces, 1986), Howeverf according to our research (described in other sections of this report), and as scated by a we1I-known Canadian military sociologist (Pinch, quoted in Sega1, Igg3), there is no evidence of adverse effects on enlistments and reenlistments si-nce homosexuals were permitted to serve in the Canadian Forces. Llfting the ban also had ,very little or no impact" on Ehe Auscralian Armed Forces (Wilson, 1993) ' Enlistments to the u.s. military will depend on the response of the youth populabion to lifting the ban.on homosexuals, but the extent of any /adverse" impact will also depend on the military's need for more effort and recruits, If recruting becomes more difficult, resources will be requj-red to meet recruiting reguirements. Requiremenes, however, have fallen considerably during the drawdown (Table 13-1) . In the latter half of the 1980s, the military services recruited on lhe order of 300,000 enlisted personnel per year, which represented approximately 20 percent of prime market maIes.5 Accessions began to decline in l-990 and now stand at approxlmately 200,000 enlisted personnel per year. or apptoximately.l6 percenE of prime market ma1es. Moreover. bhe supply of prime markeE males hits its /'troughr in 1994
4There are some survey data vhich indi.cate how youth in the recruitingT markeb feel aboub the issue of homosexualily, but these data cannot be used to assess the potential impacb of policy changes on See the chapters on miliLary and enlistment intentions and decisions. public opinion for further discussion of this point. SPrime market males are used as a reference category for examining requirements ' ccessions draw on a largfer changes in recruiting populaElon, lnc-Luding temaies, persons ot age I-J5, and persons who lack a high school degree or whose AFQT scores fa]l in the lower hal-f of with certain restrictj.ons. the FQT distribuLion,
402 -
after falling for a number of years and is expected Lo increase thereafter, Furthermore, although the quality of recruiLs has fallen from its peak leveJ.s of recenL years. current quality compares wefl to
Table 13-1
ctlv Forco Enllstsed cceeelone and the Prime Recrulting lfarkE TotaI DoD En1 isted Fiscaf Year
1_985
rime Marketb
1,556,000 1,493,000 1,456,000
1, 495, 000
1,986 19 87
21,
10
.8
I
?
1988
1989 1990
19 91
t,
t992
1,993
]-99 4 r_995
(est.)
,n
16 .1
1_5.6
15 .7
t6 .'7 15.5
accession figures are for :prior-srvice and non-pror-servlce enfisbed personnel as provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), May 1993' bEstimates of prime market males of age 17-21 who are not in college from Verdugo and Berliant, 1989. pp' 3-4.
7,226,000
15.9--
levels achieved during the late 1980s and stiIl surpasses quaJ-ty requirements esLablished before congress in 1985'6 in enlislments that might occur due to removing Hence any falI-off the restriction occurs in the contexE of a smaller need for recruits in absolute numbers and in relation to the youth population than has been the case in recent years, Moreover, based on historicaf behavior, enlistment intentions would have to fall considerably to produce even a modest decLine in estj.mated enlistments (orvis, Gahart, and Ludwig,
1982)
.
modest decline in enlistments, shouLd one occur, would sti11 leave a recruiting pool that ties within Lhe services' historical
recruiting capability.
ac ttro ccanomy improvoc
in the future
.locfine.
6Data supplied by the office of the Assistnt secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), May 1993.
- 403 However, the services should be able to meet recruting targets at acceptable 1eve1s of quality, given sufficient recruiting resources and effort and barring a catastrophic decline in the number of applicants to
'
'.
Research on retention and Voluntary terminatons renforces the importance of employment and education-related consideraEions as key for
guiding service members decisions to stay or leave. Findings also poin! Eo the influential role that perceptions of job security and military life can pJ-ay. LifEing tshe resEriction on homosexuals could cause some service members to become dissaisfied with mlitary 1ife. The research, however, does noe indicaLe when one seL of considerations will override the others. Further, the research findings suggest that job dissatisfaction (e.g., as may concern service with homosxuaIs) is not sufficient for deeermining whether service members will leave. Employees quib if they perceive a more satisfying alternabive. Thus service members would leave if they believe they can avid contact with homosexuals or obtain superior educaEiona], training, or employment prospecEs outside the rnilitary, depending on the weight they may give to these consideraLions. In facE, there is some evidence Ehat some members of the military servce might leave the service if the ban on homosexuals in lhe armed As di-scussed elsewhere in this report, the os forces were lfted. ,Are.|es ?imes survey of 2,346 enlisted men and women found that 10 percent of respondents say Ehat .they would "definitely noE reenlist" if the restriction on homosexuals is lifEed, above and beyond bhe 28 percent who say they do not plan to reenlist anyway. This 10 percent seemingly represents a shift from people who say that "if current policy and your own plans remain the same," Ehey would "deflnitely" reen]-ist, t 'l 'probab).y" reenlst, or "don tlot.
TThe results differ somewhaL across miliLary service, sex, race, The lest negativc resPenss (i'c', 1ge, pdy gdr1c arrtl ycers sf ueviue-
negative j.ntentions to reenlist if Lhe ban is ]ifEed) are found amongf he most junior personnel (youngest, in lower pay grades, wiLh fewest years of service) .
- 404 using these sEatements of reenlistment intention from the Los Angeles ?jmes survey and empirical estimates of the relationships between first-Lerm reenlistment inLentions and reenlisEment rates (Chow and Polich, 19BO). we can estimate changes in reenlistment raLes that could occur if the ban is lifted (Table 13-2),.
Table 13-2 by Reerrliscmene IntentloDa
If ban remains
Estimated ReenllBtsments
VerbaI
Reenl i s tment
ReenI
Percent
agreeing
personnei-
Reenf is tees
aqreeinq personnel
1-9
Definitely
know
no
.05
r.4
2l .5
25.A
48
'50 .89
43
18.5
29
)))
42
NOTE: Reenl-istment probabilitj.es are empirical estj-mates of firstterm reenlistments from Chow and Polich (1980' p. 11).
100
'1
100
'6
Table 13-2 suggests that if the. ban remans, where 28 percent of respondent.s state they wilt ,,definitIy not" reenlist, Lhe reenlistmenL rate woud be expected to be l-ow but noE zero among this group (1.4 per hundred), The estimat,ed reenLisLment rate across the entire Los AngeTes ?jmes sample is 48.? per hundred j-f the ban were kepb in place.S If the ban were lifted, an additj-onal ten percent of respondents "change their For the purpose minds" and scate they wiIl udefinitel-y not" reenlist. //shift" occurs proportionaLely from the of this analysisr v/e assume thi.s
SThis estimate provides a benchrraik for estimating changes in reenlistment rates based on Los AngieTes ?jmes survey results. As t is hrased on probabilities of reenlistments at the firsb term and does not make these probabilities condibionaf on completing term of service, it is likely to underestimate actuaL reenlistment rates, especiaJ.ly for more senior personnel According to figures provided by the office of the Assj.sLanE SecreLary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel). the reenlisLmenL rale for first-Lerm personnel was 51 percent in FY92. The reenlistment rate for career personnel was 86 percent, With an overal-I reenJ.istment rate of 70 percent in FY92'
- 40s 'definitely yes" and "possibly/don't know" categories' If so, the overafl reenlistment rate for the sample would no\,, be estimated atr 42-6 per hundred. Thus, based on responses to the Los Angeles Times survey, we might expect reenlistsmeirts could .decline by approximately six persons per 100.9 Tn relative terms, ."f,ir ,wquId decrease the reenlisEment rate by 12.5 percent.
POIJICY IMPITICTIONS
The foregoing discussion indicates no empirical basis for fearing loss in enlistmenLs if homosexuals are permtted to serve in the miltary. At. the same time, except for the experience of foreign
volunteer militaries,
no firm evidence exists demonstrating that Research be unaffected by removing the restriction. enl-isbments would points to the importance of education and employmenL-refated consideratons on enlistment decisions. But these decisions are also subject to influence by policy changes as these may impinge on enlistee's attiLudes, motives, and socj.al support for military servi-ce' For these reasons, specific effect.s on enlislmentss of Iifting the ban are unknowable in advance and are like1y to depend on ho\^I the specific poLicy to be adopted is understood.and accepted by the public and how bhe potential supply of en-lisLees changes in ,relation Eo recruiting
requirements and resources j we draw a similar conclusion in assessng the possibJ-e effects of removing the restricLion on retention, Under ordinary cj.rcumstances, reenlistment decisions are guided by members' perceptions of compensation, job security, and quaJ.ity of life, as evaluated against How service members perceive alternatives outside the military. military life is Lhe area where the military's policy toward homosexuals wouLd be most relevant. Hence, effects on retention should depend on
.j
whether members who are contemplating reenlistment perceive positive, negative, or neuLral impications of the policy change for miliEary
9To be less conservative, we could assume that members who "change their minds" are dral^n exclusively f rom the "possibly,/don't know" category. In this case the expected raEe of reenlistmenL falls Eo 44.7 per hundred, a decrease of 4 reenl-isments per hundred from baseline leveIs (a decline of. 8.2 percent in reenlistments in relabive terms),
-4061ife, other Lhings being egual. This will depend on the specific polLcy and how it is explained and managed by the military leadership. These arguments imply that circumstances could exist under which t,he ban on homosexuals could be lifted wi.th little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention. This could occur if policy were changed and implemented in ways tha maintain support for military service in the recruiting market and convince currently-serving personnel who are oEherwise undecided about further service that military life will not be adversely affected. ln such circumsLances, customary employment and education-related considerations should continue t.o strongly infLuence j-ndividuals' decisions to enlist and reenlist, These are not customary times, however. Military members now state sLrong opposition to serving with homosexuals. Moreover, the current drawdown of military personnel complicates individuals' decisionmaking and m1tary personnel management. Prudent p.anning must consider the possibility of adverse impacLs, e.g., that reenlisLment rates could fa11 by I to 13 percent if the restricEion is removed. A key point is Ehat any decrease in reenlstments, should it materialize, is J-i-kely to be timited in duraEion. Service members who objec to the policy change may resign when policy is changed, or they may fail to reenlisL upon completion of their current Eerm of service. From that point on, holrever, individuals who reenlis do so in recognition of the mlitary's policy toward homosexual-s. At that point, traditional considerations governing these decisions should again prevail.lo Moreover, even if a declire of this magnitude occurs for reenlistments (or recruitmenL, for that matter), the resulting force size generally falls within Lower end strengths anticipated under the drawdown, Active duty end strength is expected to decline by 6'4 percent. from 1".?3 million to 1.62 million from 1993 through 1994 (U.S. 10It can be argued, however, that reenlistment raLes could remain at a lower level if removing Lhe ban l-owers the attacLiveness of a service career, and larger percentages of post-ban cohortS enLer with the intention of leaving once they are Lrained or have earned educational benefits,
- 40'l j.l
Budget, Jgg|). Further reductions in end strength are likely in subsequent years, and deeper cuts in personnel may occur than currently planned. the mj.litary services are now employing a wariety of mechanisms to shrink the force, including reduced accessions, early releases and retirements, and separation incentives and bonuses. Cqrrent Defense Depar'tment plans calf for accomplishing Lhe drawdown in part with 22,OOO early releases, 14,000 early retirements, 2,000 RIFs, and 47,000 separations using incentj-ves and bonuses in fiscal years tgg3-L994 (office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 1993) ' The current drawdown of miliEary personnel is already serving to lower reenlisEment rates from recent leves. In fact a change in policy regarding homosexuals culd provide an opportunty to accommodaLe some individuals who wish to Leave. Hence if reenlisLmenLs raLes were to drop further because homosexuals \ere al-1owed t,o serve in Ehe military, effects of lower reenlistmenL rates could be at least parEially offset by expanding accessions, suspending the -use of early releases and retirements, and withdrawing incentives for service members Lo leave. These actions would not complteJ-y solve the probLems of losses of desired personnel, as those who fail Lo reenlist. are disproportiorrately more junior than those the services wish to induce to Leave. Differential and undesired losses .couId be concentrated in selected year-groups or occupational specialties. Moreover, expanding accessions could require addj-tional resources, e.g., enhanced educational- benefits, These measures, however, bonuses, advertising. and recruiting effort. could help mitigate adverse effecEs'otr enlisLmenbs and reenl-istmenbs should these materialize,
-409-
Appendlx ILI,USTRATM
STANDRD OF PROFESSTONAIJ CoNDUCT
L, Members of the miliLary services shalL comporE themselves in ways tha enhance good discipline and operaEionat effecLiveness. Toward that end, each individual has a responsibiliLy to (a) praceice tolerance toward oLhers, and (b) show respect for lhe sensibilicies of others' 2. Inappropriate personal conducE is behavior directed at or offensive to another individual or a group that goes beyond Lhe bounds Of good judgment and common sense and that a reasonable person ought to have known would be unwelcome, Such behavior is contrary to good order It creabes a negative atrnosphere that undermines Ehe and disciplne. integrity of Lhe workplace, reduces productiviLy and morale, and desroys professionalism. 3. Cat.egories of inappropraEe personal conduct include, but are not limited to, sexual harassment, fraternization, personal harassment, abuse of authorty, inappropriate displays of affection, and inappropriaLe discussion of sexuality. The firsc tvo of these are addressed in existing regulaLions; Ehis policy staCemen! pertains Eo the last four ' personal harassmenL is inappropfiate physical or verbal conduct toward oEhers based on pe!-sonaf characteristics, such as race, qender, sexual orienLation, or physical features' Abuse of authority is inappropriate use of authority Eo injure another individual based on personal characterisLics, such as race' gender, sexuaf orientation, or physical feaEures' Inappropriate displays of affection are those expressions of a personal reLationshp that wouLd generally be viewed as unseemly or provocaEive under the circumstaCes ' ' Explicit discussions of sxua1 , practices, experience or desires are generally inappropriate when direcled at persons known to be offended by such cliscussions or when conEinued over Ehe objection of persons who are offended by such discussions.
- 410 4. Leaders at every level of the chain of command are responsible for ensuring that Eheir subordinaLes are aware of and comply with these
standards
.
- 411 -
ppendlx
LMNG
ND PRMCY CONDITToNS
IN
As an integral parE of the study effort, a RAND research team conducted on-siEe visits of i.nsLall-tions and the academies of the four military servj-ces and Ehe united states coasE Guard. The purpose of these visits was Lo obtain a first hand representative sample of existing living and privacy conditions- The term "privacy" as used here, means: "the quality or state of being aparE from company or observation,,, or more directly,,,freedom from unauLhorized intrusion." The research effort was focusecl solely on the physical accommodations that curren!ly exist in the military ervices and did noE examine the impact of policies on livj-ng and privacy or their enforcement.
Naw
(6)
US Air Force (5
Pope AFB, NC NB Norfolk, VA Charleston AFB, SC NAS Norfolk, VA NB Charleston, SC Andrews AFB, MD Keesler AFB, MS NB Kings Bay, GA NAS Pensacola, FL USAFA Colorado Springs, CO USNA Annapolis, MD
US Coast Guard (2)
CGSB Portsmouth, VA
USCcA New,Lsndon, CN
RAND
In coorclinaEion \^)ith the office of the AssisEant SecreEary of Defense for Force Management and Personnel and the five servj-ces,
-4r2instaltations were selected for on-sit.e visiLs bhat would provide a fair As shown representaEion of Ehe existing_ Iivig and privacy facilities. including the in Figure B-1, nineteen cliiferenL. major installaEions, four service academj-es, were selecLed and visited over a four-week period from mid-Apri1 to mid-May. To accommodate time constraints, bhe majorit.y of these installations were located in eleven states primarily in the East and Gulf CoasL areas. At each install,ation, Lhe team colfecced comprehensve and such as blueprints of detailed information on the specific facilities, each structure and ship,/vessel visited and general population and accommodation capacity clata for each installation and buldinq that was visited, Moreover, to clocument the acL,ual s|ate of exisbing living and privacy condLons, a videocape and sEill photographs of each facility and sile visited rvere aso Eaken. A condensed video and sEill picture record has been provided separately, and Ehe complete videotape and aI1 photography have been archived and are available aL RAND' The specific siEes visited included the full spectrum of living conditions currently used by active an.d reserve component service members of both gencers in' Lhe ull range of environments. The environmenLs covered Eransient and permanent party status; all- types of units, combat through support; iniEial entry and basic training for enListed and oflicer personnel; and garrison, field training and deployment aboard ships. These conditions, and hence one's privacy, vary considerably, but are primarily a function of the following five
determnants
;
Public laws and DoD regul-abions A service member's rank, grade, or position The unit's or organrzation's mission Service doctri.ne, tactics, and traditions PhysicaI, sLructural, and operational constraints Figure B-2 surnarizes the current DoD authorizaLions for living Lhat deEermine the 1eve1 of space and personal hygiene facilities privay provided a servi-ce member; ois! Guard authorizations are
-4t3equivafent Eo DoD. For example, the auEhorizations and acLuaL pracEices provide the f oll-owing: ' IniEial entry faciliEies for recruiEs or basic trai'nees in grade E-l are auLhorized aL'12 square feet of living space per service member in an open bay area with a centraf baLhroom. All services foIlow Lhese guidelines and generally bi11et between 10 to 50 people per'topen bay room. open bays and centra bathrooms within each service are segregated by gender wih no significanr differences in the separated facilties. These j.nitj.al living condiLions provide a service member 1ittIe, if any, privacy and are primarly intended Lo accommoclate closely supervised group activities associated with initial acclimaton Eo Ehe rigors and unique demands associated with military service life'
Pl,Ll^{{,ri#
3rade
I
I
Transient Personnel
I
Permanent Party Personnel Same as Transients of the same qrade and status Same as lranslens oI Ine same qrade same as lranslenls of tne same grde
E-1 recruits
and trainees
-1 thru E-4
E-5 and E-6
e:f 0;T, wT
E7tru
thru W-4 u-it rnru u-tu
and civilians
72 sq ft, open bay with central bath 90 sq ft, four max. per room unless open bay, central bath 135 sq ft with room ancl bath shared with n more than one other Same as elow Same as elow
25U sq
orivate bath
June
19881
_ 1^
,.'
FolLow-on enlistecl advancecl individual and skiIl training and officer candiclate school facilities in all the services, except the Air Force, continue. this practice. The Air Force uses smalfer tswo- or Ehree-person rooms witsh central bathrooms for
its follow-on training. in permanent parEy sEatus bachelor wiLh increasing senioriEy and promotions result in chanqes to the Iiving space authorizations and privacy condiLj,ons, Micldle grade enlisted bachelors permanentfy assigtnec Lo a unit ashore, for example, are authorzed larger living space, and hence improved privacy. PermanenE party senior non-commissioned officers assigned to a shore unit are authorized for and general-Iy recej.ve private rooms and baths' Offj-cers, dependlng on grade, and DoD civilj-ans receive authorizations for the largest and most privaEe living space. It shoulcl be noted, however, Lhac bachelors of any specific grade in a transient.staLus are not usually auEhorized for the same conditions as permanent party people. Further, it was noted cluring Ehe on-site visiLs that transient quarters are in limted quaneities, esSi.ecially for non-cornissioned officers, Those that do exist are ofien offcers, ancl DoD civilians. sub-sLandard, meaning Ehe faclities are below the authorzed Ievels of living space, privacy conditions or both. In operational or fieLd Eraining environmenLs, the living space afforcled a service member is very austere and seldom supports individual privacy, particularly on naval vessels' The research team visited a fuII range of naval and Coast Guard vessels as shown in Figure B-3. While shipboard, naval crews are LypicaIIy billeted in curlain-enclosed NorthampEon bunks sEacked three high, vith 1B-21 inches of verEical separabion bet!,reen each bunk, and with solid partitions separating the bunks in adjoining sLacks. ,The condtions afforded embarked Marlnes are Less accommodating'wiEh only partially curtained bunks stacked up to four high and wiLh few partial partitions between adjoining brnks in each slack. The crews of attack
SubsequenL assignment.s
facilities
415 -
On-boqrd ShiPs
US Navv Ships
(12)
USGG Vessels (4) Cutter USCGC Bear Bouy Tender USCGS Cowslip Patrol Boat USCGS Aquidneck Sail Bark USCGS Eagle
CVN USS J F Kennedy DD USS Briscoe FFG USS Taylor SSN USS Phoenix SSBN USS Pennsylvania MCM USS Patriot DD Tender USS Puget Sound
LSD USS Tortuga LST USS Fairfax CountY ASR USS Orlotan
AE
rlhis facilities ancl rentage for Livj.ng and hygiene facilities. also results in crowded condcins and a loss of personaprivacy. At service academies, sLudents are provided J-iving space similar to college dormiEories r.vith two to four people per roomi fewer depencling upon senioriLy, and various forms of central baLhrooms.
i
In summary, changes in DoD living space and pri-vacy authorizations have significantly improvecl J-iving and privacy conditons since the end of world war rI. The numerous remaining worLd war II Lemporary wooden structures Lhat are stll in use, often for reserve componenL and ROTC annual training, provicle ample evidence to support Lhe extenL of Ehese
-416improvemenls. However, it was also readly apparent from the on-site visits that privacy conditions in many existing facilities are the resul! of older building designs and standards that do not meet today's needs, Many of these older facilities could have much improved prj-vacy wichin the existing space with what'appears Lo be only modest investments; for example, the addition of parbitions and curtains Eo provide individual stal-Is in common showers, Other privacy i.mprovements thaL could be macle seemecl Lo be well known Lo responsible officials at each installation buL are noc required by DoD regulations and are not
curren!Iy resourced. The simplified military life cycle modeL shown in Figure B-4 illustrates some of the dynamics involved, and the impact of DoD living space guidelines on service members. The research established a general patLern for living space and privacy conditions, and hence one's freedom from observation and unauLhorized intrusion, Ehat begins with iniLial entry Eraining, where service members are required to live in very close
Flgure B-4-Miflary
':t
-4r7proximity to each other and have Little or no privacy in personal CondiLions improve with assignment to permanent hygiene faciliEies, j.ncreasing seniority, responsibil-ity, and promoLion, party status and However, operational missions and duty environments may change durng an assgnment or ncident to a subsequent assignment to limit living accommodations and privacy with liEtte regard for rank or seniority. Finaly, oD generally authorizes a lower standard of living space and privacy for service members in cransient status and deployed personnel aboard ship or in oEher operational environments. ReLenLion and use of such as Ehose found in cemporary World I'^Iar II subseandard facilities, buildings, which are eLow current authorized living spaces, continue as an apparenL economy measure, but result in acldecl ceprivation to service members, parEicularly reservists. . , l The research fully substantiaEes the premise that military service members ae requi.red Lo Iive in close proximity in environments that provide 1ittle privacy. Living in open bays during initial training. in close and densefy packed berthing aboard ships, or in field operational environments is noE conducive to nor supportive of an ndividual's privacy or modesty. The constraints of physical dimensions and priorities for weapons and seaworthiness Limit the potenLial for improved J.iving condieions aboard many ships. However, in some of the oEher environments exisLing living and privacy condiEions can be
improved.
-418-
Appendlx
SODOMY
CURRENT VERSION
Statute Unlform Code of Milicary .Juetce: rtlcle 125: " (a) Any person subject Eo this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation wj-th another person of the same or opposiLe sex or with an animal is guilty of socomy. Penetration, however sli-ght. is sufficienL !o complet.e the ofense ' (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shalL be punished as a court-martia1
From
maY
direct
'"
the llarrual for courbs MariaL: b, ElemenEs . (1) That. the accused engaged in unnatural- carna copulation with certain other person or wiEh an animal. [Note: Adc] either or boLh of the foll-owJ-ng elemenLs, if
appl i cable l
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of L6' (3) ThaL Ehe acL was done by force and withou the consenL of the olher person. c, Explanati,on. It is unnalural carnaL copulation for a person to take inLo that person's mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or Lo place Ehat person's sexual organ n the mouLh or anus of another person or of an animali or to have carna copulation in any opening of the body, except Lhe sexual parLs, vih another person; or to have carnal copuation with an animalTIJLUSTRTIVE REVISED VERSION
Changed
4r9
Provision of the Manual for courts Marlalr b. Elements (1) That the accusecl engaged in.IunnaturaJ.] carnal copulation wiLh a certain other person or wiEh anianimal,' and (2) ThaL the act was clone by force and without the consent of the other person, INote: Add the follorving elemenL, if applicable] (3) That the act was done wiEh a child under the age of 1-6' c. Explanabion. It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to Lake into chaL person's mouth or anus Ehe sexual organ of anoLher nonconsenting adult or of an animal,.or Lo place that person's sexual organ in Ehe mouEh or anus of anoLher non-consenting aduJ.t or of an animal"; or to have carnal copulaEion in any opening of Lhe body, except Lhe sexual parts, with another non-consenLing adult; or Lo have carnal copulation with an animal. This revsion limits "unnatural" to non-consenEng acts between adulLs and to either consensual or non-consensuaL acts wiLh children under 16, Neither Artic1e.125 nor prior editions of the Manua1 for CourLs Martial cefinecl "unnaLura]." Instead the definiEional role was left to the miliLary judiciary. fn this revision Ehe President fills che definifional gap and provides clear gui-dance Eo commanders and milibary judges as to the precise scope of ArLicle 125.
420
ppendix
TTTTUDES BOUT HOMOSEXUIJTTY .ND MIIJITARY SERVICE IN CND' THE TTNTTED KINGDOM, AND THE UNITED STTES
An examination of che Views of ciEizens in other countries about homosexualiLy and the rol"e of gays in bhe milibary may help in assessing American public opinion on these issues, although few countries conduct opinion polls to the same extent as the Unitecl SLates. TWo countries for whj.ch some poJ. ling ca|a are avaj. Iabfe are Canada and Bri|ain, and they provide an interesLing contrasL- BriEain currently bars homosexuals from serving in the mLlitary, canada, on Lhe oLher hand, has recently changecl ibs policy to permit homosexuals to serve in the
military. rn both countries, attj.tucles regarding homosexuality appear similar to those in the united sLaLes, but somewhat more accepting. canadian and British citrzens have historically been slightly less willing than Americans t.o ctassify homosexuaL reLations as wrong and have been slightly more supportive of equal rights for homosexuals than Americans are (Raysde and Bowl-er, 1988); see Table D-1. More recently, a 199L GaJ.lup poll found that only 2? percent of Canadians believe homosexuals should be allowed to aclopt children, a nearly idenEical proportion as that in the Unitecl States (Table D-2) ' (See Chapter 5 on U'S. public opinon for a ful1 discussion of u.s. attitudes toward homosexuality, homosexuals. and Eher service in the miLitary.) BuE Iike Americans, Canadian'ancl British ciLizens appear to separaEe Lheir personal. cohvicLions on homosexualify from their beliefs regarding the righcs of homosexuals, By Ehe early 1980',s, 70 percent of Canadan and 73 percent of BriEish ciLizens expressed suppolt for equal rights in terms of job opporLunities; the corresponding proportsion of Americans expressing suppor! in the earl-y 1980's was 65 percen| (Rayside and BovJler, 1988; see TabJ-e D-1). As wiLh Americans. Canadians express less acceptance of equa opportunities for homosexuaJs in occupaLions where eiLher they or Eheir children mighE have close, personal contacL. A 1988 Gallup Canacla pol l shor,vs f ewe'r Canadians to be acceptng of
-42L'l
homosexual
clergy, teachers, and doctors- than of homosexuaf salespersons (Table D-3). The accepEance 1evels among Canadians of homosexuals in each of Lhese occupatons are nearly idenLcal to accepbance levels
among Americans.
Tabfe D-1
canadlan, u.s., and Brltish suPport of Gay Rights in ghe Early 1980',8
Canada
SuppporE
rights
.70t
(1980/85) 69*
(
65&a (r-e83 )
7
'7
3*p
)
1979
69
Homosexual
19Bo
6Zc 1980
td
c
SoURcE: Rayside and Bowler (1'988:651). aNewseek-Ga77up poll in Newsteek, Aug 8, 1983: "In general, do you think homosexuals should have egual rights in terms of job opport.unit ies? " bcallup pll-. i-n ?he International GaJJup PolLs, L919:266: "As you know, Ehere has ]een considerable discussion in the news late1y regarding Ehe rights of homosexual men and women. In general, do you job think homosexuals shouLd or should not have equal- rights in terms of
opportunibies?" cNational Opi-non Research CenEer polI, in fndex o Internationaf pubTic Opinion, L979-BO:228: "VhaL about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex--co you think it is al.ways wrong, ai-mos! always wrong, wrong only someEimes, or not wrong aE al-l-?" d,lowell et a]- (1996:152): "What about sexual relaLions between two adults of the same sex? what would your opinlon be? Always wrong, mostly wrong, someEimes wrong, iaely wrong not wrong at all, don't
:
know/no answer.
/'
Table D-2 "In your opinion, ehould homoeexuals allowed to adopt children or not?" {Ga1lup Canada. ,f,uly, 1.991 . SampIe of Canadian aduls, N = 103)
Yes
No
2'7 Z
65
Don't
know
-422l
Canadians appear to le somewhaL more accepting of permitting The 1988 GalLup canada pol1, homosexuals Lo serve in Lhe military. permitling homosexuals to serve, found 60 prior to Ehe change ir: polcy percent supportve of allowing homosexuals to be members of Lhe rmed Forces (Table D.3). A recenL po1l, taken shortly after the change in poJ.icy, found two thircls of Canacians supportive of allorving homosexuals o serve (Ta}:le D.4).
Table D-3 you lhlnk homosexuale ehould or ghould not be Canada: "Do employed ln the folowJ-ng occupaIons.. -'t (Ga1lup canada' pr11, 1988. Sample of Canadian adults, N = 1041)
U.S.:
"Do you think homoeexuals ehould or should not be hired for each of the following occupationa.."' (Gallup- March, 198?. Sample of Amerlcan adultss, N = 1015)
Canada '722
60
q,
United States
722
55 49
33
Doctor Clergy
.funor school
Eeachera
44 45
aTn the United sLates, Lhe caEegory was eLementary school Leacher.
Table D-4 "Do you think that ... thould be allovred to serv in lhe Canadian mI1ltary or not?" (Gallu Canada. November, tgg2. sample of Canadian aduLt8, N = 1006)
I"
Yes
No
Lesbians
66*
8
Don't
-423-
Appendlx
1H6
SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
oAFC 19-36
PUFPOSE
OBJET
1 La prsenle ordonnance nonce la ligne de conduite en matire de carrire el les procdures des Forces
1. This order prescribes the Canadian Forces {CF) career policy and procedures applicable to
RELATED OBOERS-
OBDONNANCES CONNEXES
2.
2.
tenant
compte des ordonnances suivantes: ORFC 19.61 (Certificats de condamnation); OAFC 4-13 (lncidents inusits);
a, OR&O 19.61 (Certificate of Convictlon); b, CFAO l-13 (Unusual lncidents); c. CFAO 19-38 (Porsonal Relationships); d. CFAO 19-39 (Personal Harassmenl); e. CFAO 34-25 (Psychoneurotic and Personallty Disorders - Medical Exarninatlon and Disposal); and
CFAO 114-3 (Conduct
b, c.
OAFC 1 9-38 (Relations personnelles); OAFC 19-39 (Le harclemenl); OAFC 34-25 Oroubles psychonvrolqus el troubles de personnalit: examen mdicl et mesures prwes concemant ces cas);
1 14-3 (Condutte des offlciers et des adiudants - avis au OGDN).
d.
e.
l.
f.
OAFC
- Notification to NDHQ).
DEFINITIONS
DHNT|ONS
Dans la prsentg orctonnance, -inconduite ca'ac' tre sexuel' s'entend d'un actB dont l'obiet est sexuel ou qui est caractre sexuel ou indcent et qui' sous rserve du paragraphe 4, constitue une infraction sous le rgime du Code crminel ou du code de discipline militaire.
3,
3.
indecent nature and which. subiect to paragraph 4, constnutes an offence under lhe Criminal Code or the Code of Service Dlsclpllne. Examples of sexual misconduct dealt with under the provislons of thls order would include, but are not limited to, sexual acth/ity between consenting adults under prohbil8d circumstances, sexual abuse of a child, lncest, sexual assault, aggravaled sexual assault, indecent exposure and
Nota
Nota - Des exemples d'inconduito caractre sexuel donl lan tal cett ordonnance pounaient inclure' no' tanment des activlts caractre sexuel entre adultes
consentants dans des circonstances prohibes, l'abus sexul sur des enfants, I'lncesle, l'agression sexuelle, I'agresslon sexuelle grave, I'ehiitionnisme el la bes'
rialit.
bestiality.
ch26t92
Mod,26/92
424
CFAO 19-36
OAFC
1N6
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
HARCLEMEMT SXUEL
V\he corduct is ateged hat ccruld corsii-te sexual harassment b rot a offence mder tfle Crimiral Code (e.g lerd conrnents), it shall e
bo-r a Crimhal Code offence ld sexual pat le behird), he harassrrent (e.9. applicable order wll depend on the way in which lhe military authority responsible for laklng action
4.
4.
dean
decdes to treat the matter' lf, based on the complaint or othe' information, the authority determines that the matlers sufficiently serious that a charge for a Criminal Code ofience is a reasonable possibilrty upon the completion ol an investigation, this order shall be applied until fie investigation is completed. lf the investigation does not provide suflicient evidence to support a charge for a Criminal Code offence but does supporl a finding of sexual harassrnn, the posi-lnvestigation proceCures for harassment in CFAO 19-39 shall be applled. Otherwise, tiis
order shall conlinue to aPPIY'
Si, en se fondanl sur la plainte ou sur d'autres informations, I'autorit dcicle que le cas esl suflisammenl srieux pour qu'il soit raisonnablemenl
I'OAFC 19'39 (Le harclement). Lorsque l'on soutient que la conduite pourrat tre une inlraition au Code criminel et du harclement sexuel petile lape sur le .. derr.re), (c'est--dire i'ordonnance applicable dpendra de quelle manire l'autoril militalre charge du cas dcidera de la trarler'
conformment
pouf rait constituer du harclement sexuelmais non un Code criminel (c'est--dire des infraction commentaies impudiques), celle ci devral tre traite
Lorsque
au
une
possible de porter une accusation en vertu du Code riminel I'issue de I'enqute, cette ordonnance dot tre applique iusqu' ce que I'enqute soit complte tail pas suflissamment ressorlir Si I'enqute d'lments de prewe pour supporter une accusallon sous le Code criminel rnais drnontre du harclemenl sexuel, ls procdures aprs enqute portant sur-le
ne
harclemeni
qul sonl
prwes
'OAFC 19-39
5.
Prior to making a determination that lhe ev'' dence is not sutficient to support a charge under cerned should consult with the unit legal adviser. lf doubt exsts as lo whelher civilian aulhorities will be laying a charge under the Criminal Code' the legal adviser shall obtain the information hom the civl authorilies and inform the responsible military authority of the decision. ln order to ensure that there is a minimal delay in dealing with e matte(
a
5.
que le dlai entourant ces consullations soit le plus court possile, celles-ci seront faitos de laon priorlta'
re.
: POUCY POLfTIOUE
6.
ll is CF policy that sexual misconduct, and sexua harassmentthat is dealtwith underCFAO 1 9-39, is unacceptable and wll not be tolerated. A CF member who has engaged in sexual mis' conducl is liable to disciplinary and adminislrative action, including release if appropriate. An applicant for enrolment who has engaged in sexuaf misconduct may be refused enrolment.
6.
La politique cles FC prescrit gue les inconduites caractre sexuel ainsi que le harclemenl sxuel dont il est questlon dans I'OAFC 19-39, sont inacceptables et ne seront aucunement tolres, Tout mllitaire qu commet une incondute caractre sexuelest passlble de mesures discplinaires etadministralives, y compris cle libration, si cela s'avre ncessaire. Un candidat qui fait une demande d'enrlement peut tre refus pour le motif qu'il a commis une incondulte caractre sexuel.
ch26t92
Mod.26/92
^4tr
CFAO 19-.36
:
oAFC 19-36
ENOUTE
CF
7.
commanding oflicer (CO) shall ensure that an investigaton is conducted into the allegation as soon as practicable. The type of lnvestigation will depend on lhe nature of the alleged sexual misconduct. Where the allegation concems a possible offence under tho Criminal Code, the matlr should be referred to the Military Poli f or a determlnation of which pollctlorce, military Wh6re the allegalion concerns a possible of' fence conlrary to the Code of Service Discpline, the investigation may consist of an informal
investigation, a sumrnary investigaton, a board of
investigation;
Sil'on impute un militaire des FC la perptration d'une inconduite caractre sexuel, le commandant doit s'assurer gu'une enqu1e est mene sur cetle al' lgation dans 'es meilleurs dlais. Le genre d'enqu' le pourravarier selon le type d'inconduites caract' re sexuel reproch. Sil'imputation de cette inconduite a trait une infraction possiblement commise en contravention avec le Code criminel, I'atf aire devrait tre rapporte la Pollce militaire pour que celle-ci dtermine legueldescorps policiers - militaireoucivil - devrait mener I'enqute. Sil'imputation a lrait une infraction posslblement commise en conlravenlion avec le code de discipline militaire. I'enqute peut. selon que cela s'avre indiqu suivant les circonstan'
ces, prendre la forme d'une enqute mene de aon informelle, d'une enqute sommaire, d'une commission d'enquto ou une d'enqute de la Police militare. Siune enqute pollcire est mene, il n'y a rien qui empche de faire tenir sirrrunanment une enqute mene de faon informelle, un enqute sommaire ou un commission d'enqute si celle'ci a pour mandat de rsoudre des questions qui ne sont pas couverles par l'enqule policre, S'il y a un doe sur le type d'enqute le plus appropri, on devrait demander l'avis du conseiller iuri' dique de l'unit.
f
7,
investigalion, as appropriate under the clrcumstances. lf a police invostigation is conducted, nohing precludes the conducl of an informal nvstigation, a summary investigation, or a board of inquiry to resolve issues nol covered by the police nvgstigation. lf there is doubt as 1o the most suitale type of investigalion, lhe advice of the unit legal advisor
inquiry
or a military policB
should be sought. Where lhe investigation supporls the allega' lion ol sexual misconduct, the CO shall consull with a medical oflicer on the need for a medical examinaton in accordance with CFAO 34-25. He shall rBcord lhe results of that consultation and refer the memer against whom the allegation is made lor an examination if recommended.
B,
Lorsqt l'enqute $Jpporle I'inconduite caractre ex.el reprocte, le corrrnandmt devrail consuller le riOecn nllitarre pour dcider de la ncessrt d'un
8,
l,s
rsultds d cette cFultatlm el laire subir au me'1bre un examen sl cela s'a!re indiqu,
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
MESUBES DISCIPUNAIBES
9.
paragraph 7, the CO shall take such disciplinary ation, if any, as is considered appropriate.
,l
9.
h tn de I'enqute prescrlte par le paragraphe 7. le commandant est lenu de prendre, si ncessaire. les mesurs disciplinaires qu'il iuge indiques.
ADMINISTRAT|VE
ACTON
',,'
,
ir
place in circurn-
stances where they are contrary to the Code of Service Discipline, they constifute sexual msconduct even if they are otherwise lawful (e.9. sexual
l0.iLorsgue des actlvits sexuellss surviennent dans des circonstances qui sont en contravention avec le code de discipllne militare, elles constituenl de I'inconduite caractre sexuel mme si elles sont par ailleurs lgales (c'es1--clire l'actvit sexuelle entre adultes consentants survenant dans un endroit ou de tels acts sont interdits aux terrnes des ordres des FC), Les cas de ce genre doivent tre tralts au niveau de l'unit moins que le commandant ne les considre sutfisamment srieux pour juslifier la libration.
activity between consenting adults that takes place in a location where such actions are prc hiblled by CF ordrs). Cases of this nature shall
be handled at lhe unt level unless the CO considers them to be suflicientty serious that release
may be warranted.
ch26t92
Mod.26192
426 -
CFAO
l36
co
11. Dans les cas qui ne sont pas tralls au niveau de l'unit conformment au paragraphe f 0, le commandant doit considrer les rsultats de l'enque el tout au' tre facteur pertinent. Si le connnandant esl d'avls gue le militairo a comms une inconduite caractre sexuel'
il
doit
a, b.
a. , b, '.
dccler s'il recommande au OGDN le mantien du militaire dans les FC ou la librallon de celu
ci;
12. ln those cases nol handled at lhe unit level under paragraph 10, the CO shall not place the member on CounSelling and Probation or Report of Shortcomngs, give the member a reproof, or
take any other administrative action that mght interfere with the proper determination ol the question of release until the decision with respect to r+' -lhis lease or retention has been made by NDHQ.
does not prevent the menber lrom being suspended from duty uncler OR&O 19.75 where appropriate.
s'il dcide de recommander la liratlon, pr& parer et remenre un avis d'intenton de recom' mander la llbraion, t ce dans tous les cas, quel que solt le grade et le nombre d'annes de servlce. 12, Dars les cas qul ne sonl pas lralts au niveau de I'unit conlormment au paragraphe 10, le comman' dant ne doit pas placer le mmbre en mise en garde et survelllance ou faire un rapport d'insutlisance son su' jet, nl lul adresser un reproche, ni prendre des mesuros administralives qui pounaient entraver la dlrmination adquate de la question de la llbration avant qus le QGDN n'alt pris la dcision de llbrer le militaire des FC ou de le maintenir dans celles-cl. Cela n'empche loutefoiS pas, dans les cas iugs appropris, de suspen' dre le militalre de ses lonctions en vrtu de l'article 19'75 des ORFC.
FEPOFING
13. An allegation of sexual misconducl by a member may quality as an unusual lncident lor he purposes ol CFAO 4-13 ard may require specal reporting under that order, ln addltion, wttere prG ceedings under the Code of Service Dlscipline have been commenced against an officer, CWO, MWO or WO, there is a speclal reponlng require ment contained in CFAO 1 14-3.
RAPPORT
13. Une allgatlon d'inconduite caractre sexuel l'gard d'un mililaire peul, pour I'application de I'OAFC 4-13, lre qualifie d'lncident inusit et ncesslter un rapport spcial aux lennas de cene ordonnance. De plus, si des procdures sous le cod ds disclpline milltare ont t prises conlre un officir, un adiudant-chel, un adjudanl-mafrre ou un adiuclant, ll faut le rapporter en suivant la procdure de I'OAFC 1 14-3.
14, Dans les cas qui ne sonl pas traits au niveau de l'unit conformmenl au paragrphe 10, ls comrna dant doit rapporter I'incondulte caraclre sexuel reproche au OGDN/Directeur gnral - Carrlres mllltaires (Oficiers) (DGCMO) ou au Dlrecteur gnral - CaIriQres militaires (Personnel non otf icier) (DGCMP), selon le cas. Ce rapport et toul autr rapport ultrieurexigs par la prsente ordonnance (sauf les rapporls d'enqute policire, lesquels sont traits sparment et dspon bles chacun des niveaux de la chane de commandernent) dolvent tre achemins par la chane de cor mandoment,
14. ln those cases not handled at the unit level under paragraph 10, the CO shall report the alleged sexual misconduct to NDHCyDirector General Personnel Careers Otficers (DGPCO) or Director General Personnel Caree Other Banks (DGPCOR), as appropriatB. This report, and all
subsequent reports required by lis order, (excpt for police investgaton reports wtlch are handled ndependently and made available at each level within the chain ol command), shall be fonrarded through the chain of command.
cn26t92
Mod.28192
42'-7
CFO
1H
oAFC 1L36
15. ln order to treat falrly the victim of sexual misconduct and tte member against whom an allegalion is made, it is essentlal fat lhe reports under oaraoraoh 14 handled expeditiously and with iespct ior ndividual privacy. Therefore, all levels in the chain ol command are to treat these reports as prority matters for onward ansmission in the shortest possible time and wilh access controlld on a slrict need-teknow basis.
14
a.
b,
other
en respeclant la vie prive des personnes en cause Par consquent, tous les niveaux d'autoril de la chaine de commandement doivent traiter ces rapporls comme des Fuiets proritaires pour gu'ils puissent tre acheml' ns dans les plus brefs ctlais lout en s'assurant que leur accs en soil striclement rserv ceux qui doivent en prendre connaissance' 16. Le rpport lait aux termes du paragraphe 14 doil comprendre les doflrrents et renseignements suvants : tous les rapports d'enqute disponibles relalifs l'allgation d'inconduite caractre sexuel, sauf ceux d'enqutes Policires;
15. Af n gue toute victim d'une nconduite caractre sexuel et que le militaire f aisant l'obiet du rapporl soient trails corlectement, ilesl essentiel que les rapports vi' ss par le paragraphe 14 soit traits promptemenl tout
a. b,
c,
any relevant Police reports; a summary prepared by a medicalauthor ity of the flndlngs ol a reporl prepared under paragrBph I, if any, or cordirmation
c. ,
cl.
lermes du paragraphe 8, le cas chant, ou la confirmation qu'un exaen mdcal n'talt pas requis; maintien du militalre dans les FC ainsi que tout renseignement ou documenl appuyant cetle
la recommandation appuyant la libration ou le
d. a recommendalion
as to
whlher the
member should be retained ln or released lrom the CF wih any nlormation support' ing that recorrnendation and any addilional recommendations:
additionnelle:
e. f.
e. L
dans le cas o un avis d'intention de recon mander la libration du militaire a t donn. une cope des renseignements et de I'argu'
mentation foumis par le militaire l'gard de sa orsume inconduite caractre sexuel ou de
recommandaton Bn we d'oblenir sa lira-
'
'
,-
' . .'i"
tion;
g.
a statemenl as to whether a charge has been, or is likely to be, laid under the
Criminal Code or Cocto of Srvice Disc pline with respecl lo the sexual misconduct.
17. On completion of any dlsciplinary aclion the CO shall forward a report lo NDHCVDGPCO or
DGPCOH, as approprate, conaining:
a. b,
17. Lorsque les mesures disclplinaires sont termines, le commandant doit acheminer un rappon au OGDN/ DGCMO ou DGCMP, selon le cas, qui inclut les document ou renseignemenls suivants : le procs-verbal d'accusation ou l'acle d'ac-
a. .
cusalion;
un rsum de la preuve qul a
1 prsente;
ch 2Btg2
Mod.28192
-428-
CFAO
TH6
;
oAFC 1S-36
c.
d-
c. d. e.
verdict rendu l'gard de l'accusaton ou des accusations; le cas chant' la sentence qui a t inflige;
le
e,
la liche
de conduite du militalre'
18. On the complellon of any proceedings undor the Criminal Code the CO shall lorward a reporl to NDHQ/DGPCO or DGPCOR, as appropriate, containing the lesults ol the civil court proceedings. including any certificate of conviction,
18. la lin de toute procdure prise sous le rglme du Code criminel, le commandant doit acheminer un rapport au OGDN/DGCMO ou DGCMP, selon le cas, qui bomprend les rsultats des procdures devant la cour civile ainsi qu'un certiflcat de condamnation
NDHQ REVIEW
'f
lished at NDHO to review cases of sexual miscon' duct. Bepresentatives of DGPCO and DGPCOB shall be included in the rnemership of this board'
(CFC)
information upon which to base a recornrnendalion. The CRB shall obtain any further inlormation
20, Sur rception d'un rapport vis par le paragraphe 14; le CRC cloit dclder s'il dtient sutf isamment do rgr
seignements sur lesquels il peut fonder sa recorrma qui Oat-ion. Le CRC dolt oblenir tout autre information peut lre ncessaire avant de considrer la recommandation qu'il fera.
21
21. Where lhe CRB is satisfied that it has sufficient information upon which to make a recornrnendation, it may determine ls recommendation and take further action in accordance with this order'
whether or not action under the Crimlnal ode or Code of Service Discipline has been concluded' The propriety of the CRB proceeding in circum-
slances where such aclbn has not been completed will be a matter for lhe board to delermine ased on the circumstances of the padicular
case.
ment de renseignements lui perfnenant de faire une re commandallon, il peut dcider de la faire et prendre tou' te autre rnesure en conformil avec la prsente ordonnace, peu imporle sl les rnesures prises en vertu du Code criminel ou du code de dlscipline militaire sont termines. Lopportunit pour le CRC de procfuer dans des circonstances o de telles msurBs ne sont pas tet' mines est un question que doit dterminer le comil selon les circonstances de l'atfaire.
22. ll lhe CRB ls salisf ied that the evidence esta' blishes that the membel has engaged in sexual mlsconduct, the CRB willnormally recomrnend fe release of the rnember to the approving authorlty. ln deciding vvhether the recommendation should be lor relention or release, the CRB shall conslder lhe lollowing factors:
22. Si Ie CHC est d'avis que la preuve tabllt la commis' sion d'une inconduite caraclre sexuel l'gard du
mililaire, le CRC recommandera normalement la libra' tion du milnalre I'autorit approbalrice. Pour dclcr s'il devrait laire une recommandaton appuyant la lib' ration du militaire des FC ou le maintien du militairo dans celles-ci, le CRC doit considrer les facteurs suivants :
a. th nature of the sexual miscondut; b. where there is a viclim, the impact ol the
sexual misconduct on the victim
I such in.
formalion is available:
a. b. ,- ..
,
a une victime, les consquences de l'in' conduile caractre sexuel sur la victirne si de tels renseignemenls sont dlsponibles:
s'il y
le rsum de la prewe et des verdicrs de toul tribunal miltalre;
c, d.
tribunal;
, d.
Ct26192
Mod.26/02
429 -
CFAO
19-{6
oAFC 1F36
e. l.
g. h,
e.
.
the results ol the medlcal asse,ssment' il any" lhe recommendation of the CO and th olficer commanding the command;
f.
, g. h. i.
a lieu;
i.
23. Where the CRB delermines lhat the recorn mendation is to retain the memer wlthout the need for turther represenlaliorF y the nmer'
directed, the approving authority for otficers is DGPCO and for non-commissioned members is DGPCOR. ffrero the CHB decides to recon' mend retention despite flnding that the member has engaged in sexual misconduct, it shall pro vlde reasons why release would not appropriale as well as recomrnendations as to what other administrative action should be taken. lf the approving authority concurs with the recornrnendation, tfre otiicer commanding the command and the Co shall be informed of the decsion and of the adminlstrative condilions applicable to lhe reten' lion, if any.
that recommendation shall be forYvarded to the approvng authority lor a decision. Unless othenvise
dation doit tre achemine l'autorit approbalrice pour qu'elle rende sa dcision. A rnoins d instruclion conkaire, DGCMO est l'autort approbatrice pour les officiers et DGCMP est clle des militaires du rang' Dans lg cas ou ]e CFC dcide de recommander le maintien clu militaire dans les FC en dpit du lait qu'elle re' conna que le membre a commis une inconduite ca' ractre sexuel, l comit dort rnotversa dcision en pr
cisant les motfs pour lesquels la libration ne serail pas indique de mme que ses recommandations quant aux msures administratives qui devraient tre prises. Si I'aulorit approbatrice esl d'accord avec la recom' mandation qui lui a t faite, I'officier commandanl le commandement et le commandant doivent tre infor' ms de la dcision el, le cas chant, de toule condton administratrve applicable au mainlien du militaire dans
les FC.
tien du militaire dans les FC sans que d autres argumentations du militaire soient ncessaires, cene recomman-
toul autre facteur que le CFC dlermine peni' nent cene fin. 23. Lorsque le CRC dcider de recommander le main'
24. Where the approving authority does,not corh cur with a recommendation for retention under
paragraph 23, that authortty shall:
a. il lhe cO has
and
recommended member's release and the member has not obiected to hat recomrnendation, in' tiate action to have the member released;
in any other case, refer the maner 10 th CRB for aclion in accordance wlth para' graphs 25 to 28.
rtre
24. Lorsque I'autorit approbatrice n'est pas d'accord avec la recornmandation de maintien du militaire dans les FC en vertu du paragraphe 23, elle doit
:
a. . b.
si le commandnt a recommand la libralion du militaire et que ce dBrnier ne s'est pas oppos celle-ci, prendre s mesures pour que mllitare soit liber:
b,
25. Where the CRB delerminBs that it may recommend release of the membr, it shall provide the member with all the avallable informalion upon which lt will be basing its decision, subject to lawlul examptions, and inlorm lhe member that he may make any desired reprssentations in wrillng through the CO withln 14 clays ol the receipt ol the
CRB's information.
dans tout autre cas, rnvoyer I'affaire au CRC pour dcision en conformit avec les para' graphes 25 28. 25. Lorsque le CBC dcide qu'll est en mesure de re' commander la libration du militaire, il est fournl au militaire, sor.rs rserve de toute exemption lgale, tous les
renseignments dsponles sur lsquels le CRC fonde' ra sa dcision, et on l'avise qu'll pe, s'il le dsire' pr' senter toute argumentation en la rernenant par crt en passant par son commandant dans les 14 iours suivants la rception des renseignements du CRC
CJt 26192
Mod. 26/92
430
CFAO f S-36
oAFC f h38
26. The CRB may e)end the 14 day tlme llmit for response where it is informed by the CO that he
member is unable to meet lhe time limlt for a valid reason such as duty requirernents or lllness.
celui-ci ne peut satislaire au dlai prescrit pour un motil valable tel que les conditions de service ou la maladie.
26. Le CRC peut prolonger le dlai de rponse de 14 urs s'il est avis par le conmandant du mililalre que
27. Qn receipt
of the
representations
of
the
member provided pursuant to paragraph 25, or on being inlormd bylhe CO thatthe rnrnerhas not provided any further written representations, he CRB shall determine ils recornmendation based upon all lhe information befor it.
27. Sur rceptlon de l'argumntation du mllltaire lournie aux lerrnes du paragraphe 25, ou en ayant t inform par le commandant du militaire que le militaire n'a pas remis d'argumentation crite, le CRC doit laire sa recommandation en se fondant sur tous les rensoigne fnnts qu'on lui a remis. 28. Le corrrnandant et le militaire doivent lre aviss,
per le bas de la chane de corffnandement, de la dcisicn de I'autorit approbatrice, des molifs appuyart cel-
28. The CO and the member shall be inlormed, through the chain of command, of the decision by the approving aulhority, thereasgns lor that decision, and any further aclion to e takn,
29. Where lnlormation is receved durhg tre re cruiting procedure thal an applicant for enrolment or re-enrolment has engaged in sexual miscor.
duct, the enrolling authority shall not normallyenrol lhe applicant. ln cases wherg th enrolling aufiority considers that lhis general policy should not e
applied, tho enrollng authority shall refer the matter to NDHO/lDirector General Recrulting,
Education and Training lor direction.
(c)
lssued 1992-12-18
1605-19-36 (DGPP)
(c)
Pulie 1992-12-18
l6os19-36
(OGPP)
INDEX Discplne
ch 26t92
Mod.26192
-43L-
cFAo l9-39
oAFC 19-39
PEBSONAL HARASSMENT
PURPOSE OBJET
LE HABCLEMENT
This order prescribes the Canadian Forces {CF) policy on personal harassment.
DEF'NITlONS
1.
1.
DHNl.TONS
2.
ln this order:
rneans improper behavhr by an lndMdual tlut is directed at or isoffensive to another irdividual; thal is based on persmal characteristics lncfucl' ing, for example, race, religion' sex, sexual orirtatlon, plrysical characleristics, or manner-
2.
'
pgrson8l hsrasEfmnt
abus clg pouvolr dsijne le fall d'abuser de son aulort pour miner, saboter ou entravr la canire d'une aulre personne, par le recours notalnment l'intimdation, aux menaces, au chantage et la contraintei il peut se marlfest8r, entre autres, au moment de rpartir les
tches, d'offrir un programme de lormalion. de recorffnander I'avancement, d'valuer le rendemenl ou de foumir des rfrences'
to
goxurl harag8ment
is a type of personal harassment tlal has a sexual purpose or ls of a sexual nature including, btrt not limited to, touching, leering' las'
harclerncnl
limiled to, intimidation, threats, lackrnall, o.' ercion. or unf airness in the dlstribution of work
dsigne les comporlernents suivants : tout compol lornent dplac, choquant ou injurieux, d'une oer-l sonne l'endroit d'une autre; tout comportement dlscriminatolre fond sur des caractrisliques per' sonnelles telles la race, la rellglon, le sexe, l'orienta-l lion sexuelle. les traits physiques ou parliculiers;l torJt cornportemnt dont l'importunit n'aura pas dr) ciapper son auteur;
ol references.
OENERAL Personal harassment in any lorm is an insidious praclice that erodes muhJal trust and conlidence, condtllons that ar important to military operational effectiveness. Personal harassment, including sexual harassment, destroy indfuidual dignity, lowers morale and breaks down unit cohesiveness.
sHnLns
Toute lorme de harclement constitue une pratlque insldieuse qui mine la conliance rciproquo, condilion importante pour assurer l'stficaclto dgs opratlons militaires, Le harclernnt, y comprls les avances sexuelles mportunes, prive la personne de sa digntt, drnoralise les membres du groupe et sape la cohsion de.lunil
3.
3.
Leaders at every level must be knowledgeable about and sensitve to the many lorms thal personal harassment ca take. lt may involve unwarranted comments. gestures, physical cnlact, or the display of ottensive materlal. lt may
4.
au fait que le harclement peut prendre ditlrentes formes. ll peut s'agr de remarques, de gestes ou de
contacts physiques dplacs, ou encore de l'talage
de matriel choguanl. Le harlomenl peut survenir
4,
ch 6i93
Mod. 6i93
-432-
cFAo
19--39
oAFC 1T-39
auhority or posillon or il may nvolve relations anong peers. Sexual harassment, as a speci'fc type of personal harassment, can vctimize both
men and women.
occur as a single evnl or fl may involv a conlinu' ing series of inLidents. lt may involve the abuse of
and work performance does not constltute personal harassment provided lhat the standards are nol arbitrary and are uniformly applied'
POLICY
5.
son pouvoir ou de son poste, comme il peut s'agir de rapports entre pairs, Les avarces sexuelles importu' nes, sn lant que harclement d'un typ paniculler, peu' v8nt rirnr aussi bien les hommes que les lemmes La mise en application de normes d'instruclion et detravail rigoureuses n'quivaut pas du harclemont, pouMj qu'elles ne soient pas arbllraires et qu'elles soient appliques unif ormment,
une seule fois. comme il pett se manilester par une srie d'incidents relis. ll pert tre question d abuser de
5,
POLTlOUE ll n'est pas question qu'un mililaire des FC harcle un autre milltaire ou toute autre personne qui travaille en sa compagn, de quelgue faon gue ce soil, par des
6.
6.-
avances sexuelles importunes ou aulrement. PI.AINTES Les commandants d'unlt dolvsnl veiller ce gue toul mllitaire des FC ou toul employ civilqui porte plain-' te en toule bonne foi ne se verra pas pnaliser dans ces chances d'avancement milttalre ou professionnel.
members of the CF and DND civlian employees who lodge a complaint in good faith are aware that lhls action will not in any way jeopardlze or penalize their future service or employment opportunities.
Any member who believes that he or she is the victim ol personal harassment should immediately reporl the maner to the memer's direcl superior. lf the direct superior is the alleged offender, the complaint shallbe made to the next superior in the chain of command. lf a rnember rings a complainl to a direct st-h periorand if , after'14 days, the member has nol received an interim reply and believes that the com'
7.
7.
B.
8.
Torf milftaire qui se croit victime de harclemenl a intrt en informer son suprieur immdiat dans les meilleurs dlais. Sl c'est le suprieur immdiat qui est le prsum contrvenant, l'intress porlera plaint au palier suivanl dans la cane de comnrandement.
I.
9.
Toul mllltare qui n'a pas reu de rponse provisoire 14 iours aprs avoir port plainle auprs de son suprieur immdiat et qul luge qu'on ne lui a pas rndu Justi' ce, dewait s'adresser au palier suprieur dans la chane
de commandoment.
MESURES PREONE SUF RCEPTION D'UNE PI-AINTE 10, Lorsqu'un superviseur mllttalre reoit une plainle porlanl sur une question de harclement I'endrolt d'un 'employ civil travaillant pour la Fonctlon publlgue' ll y donnera suite en se reportanl I'OAPC 7,18, Lorsqu'un superviseur miltaire reoil le mme genre de plainte touchanl cette f ois un employ civil qui, bien que n'tant pas I'emploide la Fonclion publigue [e.9. un employ des londs non pulics (FNP)|, esl protg par une convention collectlve ou par tout aulre convsntlon sp' ciliant la marche sufvte en cas de harclement, il faudra que le superviseur se conlorme la convenlion en
ch 6i93
Mod.6/93
433 -
CFAO
1H9
oAFc f-39
other cases, whether the complainant is civilian or miltary, the investigation shall be conducted in ac-
questlon pour rgler litige. Dans tous les autres cas' peu imporle que le plaignant soit militaire ou civil, il fau' dra mener l'enquto en suivant la prsente ordonnance. 'I 1. Lorsqu'un superviseur milltaire reoit une plainle portant sur une question de harclemenl, il lul faudra m"ner une enqute rapide el approlondie. Comme la nature et la complexit de chaque plainle pewent va' rier, le temps consacrer chacune variera galement llfaut cepentJanl que dans les quatoze jours suivant la rception de la plainle, le superviseur en question r ponde, ne seralt-ce qu' titre provisoire, ou fasse parl de sa dcision la partie plalgnanle.
nne grde oJ un grade pltls lev que la personne sai' s de l plairne, ilfatdra respecter la chane de comrran' denflt et tansrEttre la plainte un otlicier ayant un grade supriatr cei de l'acctls; ce sera et officieFl qui prendra des mesr.res conlormes au( prescriptions de la prsente ordomarrce. Si dans ce demier cas, l officier re' prsentant le palr suivant ctans la ctnhe de convnande' nrent est t'intinr, les autorits militaires viteront d luisou'
12. Dans
dtenant le
omplaint shall be referred through fre chain ol command to an oflicer supBrior to the alged of'
fender and that otficer shall be responsib16 for tak-
military authoritles refer thB matter to the superior off lcer in such cases, the alleged offender shall be bypassed if the allegecl offender would otherwise be in the chain ol conrnand.
1 3. The type of investigatlon that is conducted will depend on the seriousness of lhe alleged harass' ment and may involve an inlomal invesllgatlon, a summary investlgaton or a board of inquiry, Durlng the nvestigation or a board of inquiry During lhe investigation o{ a complaint the investigator or board of nquiry shall:
metbe la questbn en litlge potrr passer dreclerEnl l'ctelon qui fui est wprieur. 13. Le Vpe d'enqute que l'on lnstitue dpend de la gravit du harclement prsum : ll peut s'agir d'une enqute ordinaire, d'une enqute sommaire' ou d'un cornmission d'enqute. Pendant I'instruction du cas, l'enquleur ou la conu'nission d'enqute devra :
a.
le
plaignant et I'lnti-
b. c, d. e.
f
intenoger les tmoins; tablir un dossier exact et complet de la situatlon: mettre son oplnion guant au bien'fond de la
d.
e.
f
instances
g.
g,
tant le caractre dlicat du dossier; et avertir les personnes intenoges de ne pas parler du cas des miltaires ou des em' ploys.
ch 6/93
Mod. 6/93
434 -
CFAO
1H9
oAFC f9-S9
ate disciplinary actlon or administrativo action, or prson who both, wili be taken as required, It the juordered the investlgation is not a person having risdiction over the alleged offender for administra' lve or disciplinary action, the lnvestigation report shall be referred to the appropriate aulhority hav-
14. l'issue de l'enqule, on prendra les rnesures disci' plinaires et adminslratives qul s'imposent. Si la person' ne ayant ordonn I'enqute n'est pas hablllte soumettie l'intim des mesures adminlstratives ou dlsciplinaires, le rapport d'enqute sera soumis l'autorit bomptente dans ,a mesure ou il apperl que d'autres
ing jurisdiction il it ls considered that further administrative or discipllnary actlon would b war'
ranted.
should consider the following factors ln assessing lhe relative seriousness of the harassment: a. the nature of the harassment, ie, verbal or physical; the degree of aggressiveness and physical contact in the harassment;
15. Dans le cas o la plainte pour cause de harclement s'avre fonde, le suprieur militaire valuera la gravit relative d la chose en se basanl sur les lacteurs
stvants
a, b. c. d. e, .
c,
d. the frequencY of the harassment; e. the wlnerabllity of fle vlctim; f. the psychological impact of the harass'
ment upon e vlctlm; and
wlnrabllit de la Uctkne:
time:
g.
16. lt is
g.
complainant who lays a complaint in good faith is neither penalzed norsuffers any preiudlce as a resull of making the complaint. Correspondence pertaining to a complaint shall not be placed on the complainant's personal liles nor shall il be dentialmanner and shall bar an approprlate desgnalion in accordance with tho Prvacy Act. SEXUAL AS9AULT
16. ll rovient tous les lntervenants dans le dossler de veiller ce que le fait de dposer un plainte en loule bonne loi ne porte pas priudice son auteur. Tout le
courrier relatil la plalnte ne sera pas vers au dossier du plaignant, ni mis la disposition de comits d'avancement professionnel, quels qu'ils soient. Le counier regtera cgnf identiel el portera l cote de scurit confor' mo la Loi sur la protectlon des renseignemnts per'
sonnels.
made avallale to career boards at any level. Such correspondence shall be treatsd in a conf i'
VIOLENCES SEXUELLES
11; Ouand le planant se prtend clime d'avances sexuelles importunes qui pouraient fake l'objet d'une poursuite au crlminel pour violences sexuelles, il laudrait demander la police militaire de mener sa propre enqute, paralllement l'enqute cli prwe par la prsente ordonnance. S'il n'est pas vident d'aprs les renseignements obtenus qu il peut s'agir de violences sexuelles, il convient d'en rfrer au conseiller iuridigue de l'unit.
17. Where the complaint alleges sexual.harass--. ment and such harassmenl may also constitute a sexual assault under the Criminal Code, the Mili' lary Police should be requested to conduct ari in' vestigaton in addition to lhe nvestigation con' ducted pursuant to this order. lf doubt exisls as to whether the available infonnation indicates a sex' ual assaull may have been committed, the advice ol lhe unit legal adviser should e sought.
ch 6/93
Mod, 6/93
43
oFAO
tF39
;1
oAFC 19-39
OTHER FEDRESS
PROCEDURES
' ',,'
'
AUTBES RECOURS
18. Nothing ln this order precludes a member from seeking redress of grievanc in accordance with the procedures contained in oR&os 19.26 and 19.27. Where an applicatlon for redress of grievance has already been submitled with re spect to the alleged harassment, the provisions of lhis order should be used as guidance for the investigation of the grievance bul the matter shall be dealt with in accordance with the grievance pro cedures rather than being considered a complaint pursuant 10 this CFAO,
18. ll n'y a rien dans la prsente ordonnancs qu ernpcfp un militaire de se prvdoir ds articles 1926 et 19.27 des OFFC par rclamer la rparatiofl dufle in.rstbe. Si le harclemrt prsun lail di l'obel d un gr1, bs dispilirns de la prsente devraterd servir orinler l'irs1ructifi du c; il faudra cependant traiter le cas corrm ur redressernnt de grif plutt que cofime Lre plainte dpose er vertu de ia prsente OAFC et zuivre la prccde en consqnce.
f6os-19-39
(DGPP)
(c)
Publie 1988-12-09 INDEX Harclement
1605-19-3s (DGPP)l
ch 6/93
Mod, 6/93
43
6-
ppendlx
REIJEVANT
DAf
FROM SURVEYS
Degcription
ln Thie Study
of chicago' Each Lhe National opinj"on Research center aL. Ehe unversity year the csS concain= . ,,.r'nat.ionally representaEive.sample of abouE.
GSS surveYs '
l.Genera]'Socja]Survey(G'9S)-TheGssisconducEedannuallyby
1,50ononnstitutiona]izedadu]ts.UntessotherwiseindicaEed,the resultspresentecher"ar"takenfromamergingofthelgBBchroughl99l
2. NationaL survey of Adolescent MaTes (NSAM) - The NSM was a 1988nationellIy'.p'...,,t..Eivesurveyofl,BB0noninstitutionalized, never_married 15 t 1g year olcl males conducted by sociometrics orporation for researchers ab the Urban lnstituLe' 3'Moni1oringtheFuLure(MTF)-TheMTFisanannualstudyofthe lifestyles utd .r.ii". of youth' A1I results presenLed here are taken sample from the 1991 survey, wrricrr contained a natona11y representative sen j'ors ' i of 15, 6? 6 high school apinion Polfs -. Gallup polls are 4, GalJup organization Public nationally represe;tative celephone plls of the noninstsitutionalized adu]-t'populaEion,TheEablebefowpresentsthesurveydaLesandtheir sample sizes,
,July 9-11, 1993 January 29-31, 1-993 January 28-29, 1993 June, 1992. ' Apri-1 , L992 " .';'..':.": July, 1991. ' .....:.".'1 Ju1y, 1986'. July, 1983 "
.Tune, I9B2 . .
1002
10 01
774 1002
1
)))
610
611
lt
1531
opj-nion 5. CBS News/Nev Yo:k jmes Pubfic polIs of PoJ]'s - cBs/NYT polls are nationally represenEative telephone The table the below presen!s the noninstiEutionalized acluLL popuration' survey dates and their sample szes '
1154
tt'19
656
-437: ;
Yankelovich 6. Yankelovich/CJancy/S]rullan PubJic Opinion PoJ-1s are nationally representative Eeephone pols of the :ol1s The tabLe below presents the na.,rt population' noninstituLion"rli"" dates and their sample sizes' survey
JanuarY, 1993
AugusE, 1992 May, 1992 .....
'
1800
't-250
1250
T.RoperorganizatiollopinionPoffs-Roperpollsarenationally representati,r. ir_prson po.1s of the. noninsEituEionalized adult populaLion' The tUte l:e1ow presents the survey dates and their sizes, JuIY, 1987,. January, l-987..
1997
sample
t99'7
8, (JSA Today 7987 Fanily Po77 - The USA Today Family PolI was conductedbyLheGorc]onS'BlackCorporationforUsATodayinMarchof' ].gsT.Thesamplewasnationallyrep.resentatj.veofnoninstitutionalized adults ' The total sample size was 803 ' '- The polls 9. Los Angeles ?jles Op-injon Pof ls polls of Los Angeles Times are nationally represerrLaEive relephone The table lhe below presents the noninsLitutionafiz aclult populaElon' and their sample sizes ' survey dates January, 1993 " FebruarY, Lgg3
1733 L213
polls 7s -- The 10. ABC News/l'tashittgton Post opinion Pof of the ABc News telephone po}ls are natsionally representative the noninstitutionalized-aclult populatlon. The table below presents survey dates and thej'r sample sizes ' January, 1993'. FebruarY, l-991 March, 1986, '
SLudy PoLl was conuctecl
549 1008 1l-48
11.IJSAToc1ayl-986Co]]egeS:udyPolf-TheUSATodayCollege by the Gordon S' Black Corporation for USA coll-ege Today in February, 1986. ihe sample was representative of The LoEaL sampe size was 990' scudnEs. L2. Wall- Street JournaJlNBC News Poll - This is a nationwide of lelephone poll weightecl to be represenLative of the population registeredvoL'ers,Thepol}wasconc]uct'ec].JuneS-JuneB.1993,andLhe saple size rvas l'502 '
i
438
Table F-2 you beuween two adulte of the same sex--do "What abouE sexual relations eometlmeg' or always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong onJ'y tbink It fs
Dots wron
(GSs.
a! all?"
1973-1991)
-rg13 1974 tg76 tg'77 1980 1gB2 LgB4 l-985 rg|'1 l-988 l-989 1990
A1most SmeTimes AlwaYs AIwaYs .w.^-n .' .- ,.,-^-^ 7'38 6'3% 70.32 1'5 4'B 6'1 .O 1.5 5'9 67.t 7 '2 5. 5 68. 6 5'8 5.7 6s.s 6'3 5.170.3 't'2 4.8 73.0 6'8 3'9 74'8 '74.8 6'6 4.t 5'4 4-5 74.0 5"? 3.9 70.'/ 5'B 4'6 72.6
Not Wrono 10'6S L2'3 15'3 t4 '2 13'9 r4'r 13'B 11'9 11'9 L2'3 15'0 r2'2
Don't
KrloW 3'38 4-9 4'2 4 '5 4'6 4'1 3'7 3'1 2'6 3'7 4'8 4'8
1491
l.484
1488
]-522
1465 L497
t466
1531
1450 973
t029
9L6
Table F-3 ,,Doyoupersonallythinktta!homosexualrelationsbipsbeEween lssu6?" consening adulEe is morally vrong' or ig not a moral (Yankelovldn/CLancy/shulman' Hay' L992' = 1250)
Mora I
s4z
1q
'7
Table F-4 be conelderd an accepable "Do you feel- thaE homosexuality should or not?" lifestyle, alternative
L992, Augusta
't
NoL Acce
50u
57
a
able
656
qq?
LJ
_h une-
1002
167 1531
19 B9b
35
3 34
1983b
7982L'
58
E1
aCBS/New
bc.l trp
York
Times
439
Table F-5 ,,IIha! about sexuaL relations between two adultss of the BaIIle sex--do you or think 1L 1s alwaYs wrongr, almost' always wrollg' wrong only aometlmee' not wrong at all?" (Gss. 1988-1991. N = 5907)
MaIe
Female
Age
'7
9Z 14
White
152
OE
Black Other
PoI
80
24 to 26 27 to 29 30 to 33 34 t.o 36 37 Lo 39 40 to 45 46 to 55 56 or older
11.
it ical
Af f i1 iaE
ion/ TdeologY
68
69
Democrat
772
Independent
Repub-
7t
B2
14
65 72
?
ican
L1:era
60
t B6
86
.,Conservat ive
Moderate
B9
?o
81
t6
6t
,
\.
5'7
Religious Affilia[ion ic
Jewish
None
B2
73 29
75 t 78
4'l
t o/
9l-
in Pacific
t5
64
0f
73 61 84
Urban /Rura
89
7
A
I Central city of 12 J-argest SMSAs 7I 69 Central citY of other SMSA 6"1 Suburlf, of L2 Largest SMSAS 70 Suburb of Other SMSA 81 Ot.her Urban 99 Rural
'63
93
13
440
Table F-6 ,,Do you feeL thaE homoeexuality should be coneidered an acceptable L992' N = 1002) altsernave lifesEyle or not?" (Gallup"fune,
NoL
Sex
MaJe
34
63
3
FemaIe
Age
52
18 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older
EasE
46
A)
31
51 55
62
3 J
25
65
10
Region
Midwes
56
5 5 5
4I
34 40
South
West
Race
Whi
61 56
te
t1
41
(o
4B
tr
Non-Whi-Le
Educat ion
q? ?o
A1
trt
63
4 5
Iege
Af f i ]
32
Political-
51
4 5 4 4 4
Independent
51 40
53 1'
Liberal
Moderate Conservat ve
Income
$50,000 r over 53 0, 000 to $49, 999 520,000 to $29,999 Under 520, 000
Re1 ig
52
tra
39 4L
31
4
3
56
59
ion Protestant
31
63
AA1
Table F-7 a litsEle' dleagrea a little' "would you say you agree a loL, agree dieagree a fot'.' I could be friends with a gray person"' (Ns"f. 1988. Sample of male 15-19 year olde' N=1880)
or
voi"wli:.-cornp.rte
Agree
arot
?
Agree
108
6
"iittrt 188
T2 ?o
aritcre
13t
30
a1
Disagree
Disagree
arot
55
troq 58t
34
3"7
13
l.'7
28
32
2L
a2
Table F-8 chooge to be' or do '.Do you thtnk being homosexual Is eomething PeoPl'ecangfe?" 1t is eomeEhing tey cannoL you think (CBs/NYT' February' 1993' N = 1154)
Choose to be gay
44
43 13
Total considered an accepLaIe alEernative J.ife sLYle Say homosexua] relati.ons between
Is a
Cannot be
55 46
to
'74
1) 69
30
6/,
adults are morallY wrong Say homosexual relations between consenbing aclul"ts should be legal
90
58
42
30
rights
43 34
54
in the militarY permit Lheir child to PlaY at the home of a friend who lives with a homosexual Parenb Have a cl-ose friend or family member
who is gav or lesbj.an
2I
50
442
Tabl-e F*9
ghould or should not have equal "In gteneral, do you think homosexuale 1993 ' til = right,s Ln terms t job opportunltsles?" (cBs/NyT' 'Tanuary'
L179
)
Should
't
9z
l_6
e-lgg-I-----
Table F-10 or ahould not be blred for eactr of "Do you think tomosexuals should(Gallup'June' L992, N = 1002) folLowing occupations?"
OccupaE
Should
822
Depends
3*
2
a
>t CaI:ineE
54 53 47
President's
ClergY
ocEors
39 42 49
50 54
43
4T
Tabte F-LI. to go plaY at the home of a "Would you Permit or not permit Voi.r! chilt with a homosexual Parnc?" (cBS/NYr. February, 1993. friend who 1lves = 11_54 )
PermiL
348
58
Not permiE
443
Table F-12 ,,some time ago, the citizens of Miami voted to repeal a couny ordinance that banned diecrimination In employurent and houelng baeed on a person'E gexual proferences, The ordinance essentially meant hats someone who le homogexual could not be kep from holiling a particuLar job or livlng in any tlT)e of houslng eimply becauee he or she is homogexual. Whfch of lbese scaEemenEs best degcrbes how you feel about th 1aw ard dLecrlmfnation againsb homosexualg?" (Roper. .fuly, 1987. N - 1997)
Homosexuals should be guaranteed equal treaEmenL under the ]aw in jobs and
65t : hous ing IE should be legal to keep people ou! of jobs and housing if Ehey are homosexual 23
know
12
Don't
Table F-L3 ,,we car choose our friends, buE we can'E ahrays chooge Ehe People w work cloeely wth. Here ie a lists of some different t]es of people' For each on, would. you tell me wheEher you would surongly obJect to workfng around them, or prefer nots to work around them, or wouldDtt mind working around them?" (Roper. 'tanuary, L987 ' N = l-997)
SE
People who...
obect
25
2
ronglY
-,
Wou1dn't Mind
E
Don't
1
Kno\/r
'78 51 27
6
B
4
1 1
19
11
34
bU
444
Table F-14
,,Do
you think marriages betwen homosexual men or becwen bomosexual womenshoufdberecognizedaelegalyEhelaw?',(Yankelovich. ,January, 1993. = 1800)
Yes
No
NoE.
65t
sure
Table F-L5 to ,,Do you tshink that homosexual couplee ehould be 1egally Perroltted (yankelovich' ugust ' L992' lf = 1250) adopt chlldren?"
Yes
No
?49 63
B
Not sure
'Table F-1b
"Wha
about
(Us TodaY'
March 1993.
N = 803)
Homosexua Couple
isinq Children
Yes
No
JJ
61
Don'
- 445
llab1e F-17 leave laws ehould or ehould nou also aPPIY to "Do you fee] ttat family omogexuaL peopl who need to care for a seriougly fII companlor?" Asked of the 83v" who favor a naeional family leave Iaw. (Gallup ' April, L992' N = L222')
a National
ve
Of Totaf
ton
608
't2z
24
4
Law
)^
1?
fave law
---
Tab1e ..F-l-B
,,In grerreral. do you think that states ehould have Ehe light Eo prohibit partiUlar sexual practfces conducted ln prvate betveen consentiDgl" "' (eaIlup. iIuly, 1986. N = 611) Adult Men and In]men
Yes
No
Adult
Homosexuals
342
5"7 9
r88
74
Don'
Lknow
Table F-19
,,Do you hink homogexual
relations between consentsng adults should should no be legal?" (Ga11up' ,tune, 1992' N = 1002)
Lega
I Not legal
492
44
8
Don't know/Refuqed
-446-
Table F-20 ,,Do you tblnk hat Ehe laws whch protect the civil rigbts of raclal or religloue ninorltsies should be ueed to protsect the rlghte of, homosexuals?" (Yankelovich' 'fanuary' 1993' W = 1800)
Yes
48t
43
9
No Not sure
Tab]e F-21 procecing homoeexuals from "Should a federal 1aw be passed (CBs/NvT' iluIy' 1988' = 1177) dlscrlmination?"
yes No Don't
37*
know/No-
answer
48 15
Tab1e F-22
,,Do you
thfnk homosexuals should or should not be able to selve in the arned forcs?" (Gatlup. .anuary 28'29, 1993' N = 774)
ShouId
q?9
5
Table F-23 or oppose permitting homosexuals to serve in the "o you favor (CBS/NYT' 'fanuary, 1993 ' = 1179) military?"
Favor Oppose
422
48
10
447
Table F-24
be asked if hey are "Do you thlnk PeoPle who Join Ehe military ehould homosexual, o not?" (ABC/I,/ashjnqton Post. ,fanuary, 1993 ' = 549)
Yes, shoulcl be asked No, shoulcl noE Je asked Don't know/No oPinion
44+
53
3
Table 8-25 men and "Do you approve or disapprove of allowing openly homogexual (f'os Angeles ?rmer to serve in th armed forces of the United states?" Tlmes. .fanuary and February, 1993 ' ) January,1993
r I\ 1?22 J / JJ
pprove stronglY Approve somewhat Disapprove sonewhaL isapprove sl-ronglY Don'E know/NoE sure
23
B
39
B
45
tr
Table F-26 homoeexuals from "Do you approve or dieapprove of ending the ban on (Ga1Iup. 'Tanuary 29'3t' 1993. N = 1001) servng ln the milieary?"
Very strotlgIY aPProve NoE so sEronglY approve Very stronglY disaPProve NoE so st.rongIY disaPProve
No opinron
292
'to
I4
11
- 448 -
,,Which
Iable F-27 to your position on allowing gays and legblans in the ie closer miliuary?" (wS,f/NBc. sampl of registered voters' N = 1502)
Should not be aflowed to serve under any condiLions Should le aLlowed Lo serve as fong as they keep their homosexuaLty privaLe, and the milLarY should not ask them about sexual orient.rtion Should be aI]owed co serve openly, as Iong as Lhey follow the same rules of conduct as other military personnel whj. le they are on rase
2]-*
38*
40t
Table F-28 'If ehe United Statee returned Eo a military draft, it vrould not be necessary to draft everyone of milftary age. ThaE 8, certaln ts!Pe of peopl could be exemped, even though they were obherise qualif,led for eervice. should homosexuals be exempted?" (Gss' 1982. N = 1860)
"If a mllitary draft were to become necessary, should young rtomen b required o paricipate as well;as young men' or not?" (Gall'up' iluly, 1991-. N = 610)
Homosexuafs Draft Don'L Draft t6
Women
508
Don't
know,/No
oinion
Table F-29 please tell me if you agree or dieagrree'..," "For each thats I menEion, (\JSA roday, February 1986' Sample of college studenEs, N=990) oree Disagree
49 '
Don't Know
5
Refused
0 . 6C
44
.22
6%
'
68
78.1 1
'1 :.
I9.4
L,4
0'5
are entitled to the same protection against discriminaLion as any oEher minority oroup
4.3
23.1
2'I
0.4
- 449
Table F-30 o tshe staement "I Proporion who "agree a lot" or "agrs a little" with a gay person" by varous characterlgclcE' (NS'f' could be friends 1988. SampIe of, male 15-19lyear olds, N=1880)
Race Black
L',lhite
::
l
3l-8
39 45
1a
Hispanic Other ImporLance of Reigion Very inporLanb FairIy imPortant' FairIY unimPortant Not imporant at aI Freguency of Service Attendance once a week or more 1 to 3 times :er month Less than once Per month
Never
4T
36 36 61
39 36
42
41
Religious Af f ili.rE ion Bapt is t Lutheran Methodi s t Presbyt er ian Episcopalian Roman CaEholic Later Day Saints
,Jervish
None
32 34
46
68 39 40 ao
45
Rura L / Ur)an
Urbrn, 1,000,000+ Urban, 250, 000-999, 000 Urban, 50,000-249,999 Urban, 0-49,999 Other
Reg
44 41
31
47
1)
ion
A6
NorEh Eas!
South Miclwest
West
35 38 44
450 -
Table E-31 of those stating chats Characteristcg ,probably wil]" gerve in the armed forces that they "Probably won't" or "defIniely of high school eeniore
Won'
WiIl
TVE
Won'L
Characterist
Denominat ion
acteris
Sex
Ser
ve
\^1i11 Se
MaIe
Femafe
Race
53
762
24
White
92
8
68
BIack
Region
183 68
.1 1 tr2
29
77 28
22
Catholic
Jewish
22
9
t7
t.
11 /o
L4
North Central
3l
19
45
L4
77 l-5 14 39 16 31 49 25 25 2
Religious
UP
6 0
Service Attendance
Where Grew
Never
Rare LY
74
43 15
On
Medium-sized ciEY Suburb of medium citY Large ciEY Suburb of large citY Very J.arge ciLY Suburb of verY large
I4
)
10 2)
Once or twlce
AJ:out once a
a month rveek
28
l0
9 9
a 6 t
t2
6
11
'l
o 4
31
26
31
t2
city
Political
Party
1l l8
11
B
74 15
09
I2
),
Plan Eo Attend a 4-Year College 15 efiniteJ.Y wonL 13 Probably won't 21 ProbablY wilL 51 DefinitetY wil Plan t aEEend graduate school 23 DefinitelY won't 30 Probab)-y won't 31 ProbablY wiII 16 DefiniEelY will
19
22 28 30
25
3
22
32 33
3 1,4
25
11
t4
z
13
4
A
29
bera
I6
4 2
Don'
29
tr1 -
Appendix
POI'I
I'fethodologY
acLive The Times Pofl interviewed 2,346 enlisted personnel, on and Air Force outside of duty, in the U'S. Army, Naq, Marine corps'
38
militarybasesinLhecontinentalUnicedstaLesandHawaii,from February 11 through 3-6 ' ResponclenLs h'ere approached by Times interviewersaEoff-basecommercia}sitesanc]residencehousingand asked to fill out a writLen questionnaire confidentially and a anonymously. Each respondenE then placed t'he compfete survey in to sealed envelope for return to The Times' Quota methods were utilized branch by ensure Proper representation of service peopLe within service sex'racelanclage'Thesampler^asadditional}yweighEedslightlyEo conformwithDepartmentofDefenseclemographicinformationforen}istee 728 age, eclucation, ancl martal staEus' By branch' Lhe sample includes personnel from the Army' 591 from the Narj/' 488 from the Marine corps and53gfromtheirForce.Resu].tsforthetoEa]-sampleofenJistees proper are adjusLed so EhaE each branch of service is represenbed in its
proporEion.
Lfst of Questlons
1
Overa1, how woulc you rate your f eeJ-ings alout l"fe in the miliEarY Eoday? Are Ycu:
MaLe
Female
?q 49 15
6 1
Very satisfied SomewhaE satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissat isfied Don't knov
)l
50
I7
'7
WhaE
today?
Femafe
53
on
50
to
Low morale
35
Few opportunities for advancemenE Race relations Poor civilian leadershiP/ no PolicY direction
19
9 6 6
4 3
26
13
4
3
19
i
for downsizing
2
2
Don't
10
Fema
Are necessarY given the end of the CoLd War Go Eoo far in a stj-Il dangerous
13
18 59
)'1
Don't
worl.d
66
2L
know
11. How worried are you peIsonalJ.y about the possilcle effects of the proposed clownsizing of the armed forces on you and your career? Are you:
Mal-e
Ferna 1e
Very worried Somewhat worriecl NoE Eoo worried Not vrorried at aL l Don't know
20
40 24 14
3
17
45 24
10
4
L2, Has Lhe military generally fufilled the when you enlsEed or has iL disappoined
it
made
to
you
PemaIe
bl
FuIfilled Don't
commitmenE
me
60
Disappointed
know
z9
1l10
453 -
13.
How would You raLe the Programs and services available to helP victims of downsizing get going in cvilian life? Would You rate
Male
Exce
1
FemaIe
4
lent
know
7
3'7
Adeguate
36
ao
26
11 20
11
Don't
2L
t"4. If you had to leave the service in the next few months, how confident are you that you could geE a well-paying secure civilian job in a rel-aLj.velY short Eime?.
Male
Female
15
33 )F,
I1
24
4
Somewhat doult f u1
26 23
?
How
do you feel about allorving women to Lake combaL roles in the armed forces? Do You
:
Ma 1e
Female
39 40
7
Approve stronglY Approve somewhaE Disapprove some\.JhaE Disapprove sLronglY Don'L know
1,6
.
30
19
22
4
I2
If currenL policy and your own plans remain the same, when your term is up will You:
Male
FemaIe
32 o 40
2B
34 28
L0
J4
6
454 -
l7
How
do you feel abouc lifting Ehe ban forces of the Unj"ted states? Do You:
Male
Female
APProve stronglY
4
1a
l3
63
27 27
ao 10
Don't
know
(]F
APPROVE OF
LIFTING THE
BAN)
]-s.WhaEarethetwomainreasonsyouapproveofJ.j.ftingEheban homosexuals? (Check up to Lwo answers, or write in your answers on the lines below')
MaIe
own
Fema e
It's di-scriminaEion Lo ban them It's noE imPortanc to me Homosexual-s are no different
Homosexuals alreadY
56
61
)A
L9
2
3
t7
24
1
from heterosexuals
know
BAN)
in milibarY
Other
Don't
What are the two main reclsons you disapprove homosexuaf s? (Check up Lo two ansv"'ers' )
Ma
of lifting
the ban
on
Ie
Female
55 29
AC
Oppose
sharing facilrcies/quarters wich them It is immoral ConLribuEe to Lhe sPread of AIDS Its is against mY religious views They are not as reliable i-n a combat situation
:
64 4L 26
19 l-b
3
34
7 2
1 3
2
1
1
ThreaE of viol-elrce
Cost of faciit-i.es
2
1 1
/ctr
20
worred are You PersonallY abouL the Possible imPacE of re You; permiLting homosexuals into Lhe militarY?
How
Male
Fema
Ie
Very worrj.ed Somewhat worried Not too worried Not worried at aII
Don'
JO
I7
35
32
l'7
9
25
t4
9
knovr
would you 2t , If the l:an is ]if tecl on homosexuals in Lhe military, not reenlisL on account of that issue alone' or would definitely anYwaY? you consicler reenlisting
Male
Female
28
5
Not reenlistirrg under current pol icy Not reenlisting lf gaY ban is
2B
11
43
18
49 t-8
aa
how J.ikelY If Lhe ban is liftecl on homosexuals !n bhe military' from others is in Ehey will be subjected to physical violence it Ehat the service? fs that:
Male
Female
Very 1ike1Y
Somewhat Iikel-Y
57 aa
2
4t
29 10
3
l7
Do you
Fema
GetEing the attention j-t deserves Draining crttention from oEher more important issues facing the
le
t?
23
Don't
mi I i EarY
6'l
10
64
1J
know
24,
Male
re
l8
55 )'7
,a
No
ir:
serious a
Proirlem
fs
Ma
Fema I e
Very serious Somewhat serlous Not too serious Not serious at al-I Don'L know
T6 33 16
26
29 27 11
1
26.
Wou1d
Very secure
I4
53
)L
7
t2
59
2L
6
Don't
knov,7
Very religj.ous SomevrhaL religious Not too re.igious Not religious at all Don't know
2q
10
R'
.)q.
2I
59
I4
4
10
3
co
le
t'emaIe
)4
o
53
24
2
26
2
-457-
ppendix
RMY
MeEhodologry
charles Moskos ancl Laura Mil-1er, socioJ.ogisLs from Northwesbern universiLy, surveyecl a total of 2,804 enlisEed personnel and officers, on active duty, at six Army bases in Ehe conLinental United States and one overseas base (SomaIia) between February l-992 and December 1992' This survey (entitlecl the 1992 socioJ.ogical Survey of the Army) was designed to collecL survey clata on the attitudes of active duLy Army personnel about women n combat and race reLations, However, the survey did include a single attiLuclinal question to solicit milit.ary members' At each Army base' a views about homosexuals servinq in the military. selected to ensure a good mix sLratified sample of nifitay members was of combaL and noncombat personnel from diverse military occupational specialties ancl dj.fferent Cypes of units. Quota methods were utilized to select appropriaEe numbers of males and females, enlisted and officers, and blacks, whiLes, and other races, women \^rere oversampled So that equal numbers of females and maLes v,ould be surveyed. EfforLs were aLso macle to sample miliEary members who had Persian GuIf experience as wel-1 as Lhose who did no! parEicipate in Operation Desert shield/storm, The actual- sample included 1,420 males and 1,384 females' using quoEa sampling guidelines provided by Moskos and Mi1]er, Army personnel at each site selectecl potential survey respondents and inviEed them to atLend a group survey session which was typically held in a large auditorium or testing room. -Each parbicipant was asked to complete an anonymous self-aclininsLered, survey and to return it direcEly to Laura Miller, rvho conducted each survey session. The most recent surveyr rr'hich was conclucted in December 1992 with 471 males and 470 femafes at two Army posts, used the single aLtit,udinal item plus an expanded series of questions about homosexuals in the miliEary' The acLual worcing of the guesEions from the 1992 Sociological Survey of the Army anc the percenlage distributions are reported below.
458
bauts Homos.exuals
1n the Mi11tary
own
comes
closest to your
with regard to
SEronglY agree
r
11 L2 64
27 L4
I2
Expanded Serlee
are
gaY?
Fema I e
I
Woc
No
Not sure
66 76
33
Do
company who
are }esbian?
Fema 1e
CA
Male
Yes
No
T4
60
T6
Not sure
34
19
you?
Has a soldier
of the
same
MaIe
Yes
No
6
Female
I1
81
2
93
2
Not sure
lThis attituclinal measure about homosexuafs in the military was included in a scres of agree/cisagree iEems on attitudes Eoward women in comat.
- 459 -
to 35. FOR MALES ONLY: If you were in a foxhole in combat andahad male gay choose whether to fihc along sicle a female soldier or soldier, which worl'd You choose? (Males OnlY) IL doesn't matter GaY male soldier 1 would rather f ight alone
Pemale soldier
51 27
5
I'7
had to 358. FOR FEMALES ONLY: If.you were in a foxhole in combataand female gay whether co fighl along sicle a mal-e soLdi-er or choose soldier, which would Yourchoose?
(FemaLqs onlY)
Mafe soldier It doesn't matLer Gay female soldj.er I would raEher fighL alone
42 56
2 1
2I
2
9
368. PoR FEMLES oNLY: In your present job, if you had to choose wheLher to work along sic]e a male so]-dier or a gay fema}e so].der, which would You choose?
(Femal-es Onf MaLe soLdier
39
57
1
alone
460 .
closest to Your own vith regard to lesbians and Ehe rmY: I would feel- uncomfortable if there were some homosexuals in my unit.
comes
gays and
Ma 1e
Female
18
1'7
StronflY agree
Agree
56 20
I7
3
37 22
'7
5 mY
room
with
Female
StronglY agree
Agree
'77
13 5
3
4I 2t
19
13
o
.
Female
4
48
2'7 1-4
3
55 25
10
d.
sex lives le
is no business of
Female
53
mine.
Ma
Strongly agree
Agree
35
JI
1E
34
1 5 2
Disagree
10
3
Allowing openly gay anc Iesbian soldiers in the Army would cause some problems. but we could manage'
Male
ema1e
11
4
SLrongly agree
Agree
24
Di s ag ree
20 20
7
_46rAllowing openlY gay and lesbian soldiers very disruptive of discipline '
Male
52 L4
c
22
31
t2
B
s.
HomosexualiEY
Ie
Fema I e
StronglY agree
Agree
48 25
13
4
a
2L
))
28
ao
Di sagree
11
IL is all riqhL for gaYs and l"esbians to be in the as I don't know who theY are.
Male
ArmY
as long
Female
7
StronglY agree
Agree
Di sagree
Strongl-Y disagree Not sure openly gaY and lesbian solders will sofdiers.
19 33 33
25
39 20
q
SLrongIy agree'
^r v!vv
L4 24
o
9
19
Dl-
sagree
31
2t
') (\
25
AIlowing gaYs and lesbian in the Army w 1 I increase soLdiers' acceptance of gaYs and Iesbians.
Male
Fema
9
Ie
Strongly agree
Agree
19 ao
30
24
1,6
31
74
a1
-462-
1.
We neecl sensiLiviEy
he Arrny
le
SLronglY agree
16 Y+v
l4
16
+
^a
Disagree
34 23 20
9
10
In the evenL of a draft, gays should be drafted Lhe same as sEraighE men.
Male
Female
39 26 11 10 15
Strongl-y agree
r
20
20 18
2?
10
-463Appendlx I
STAE RESTRICTIONS ON
SODO}iTC
sex' As of 1961, aII st'ates hacl bans on non-procreatve repealed by the Subsequently, sodomy Laws in many sLates have been
legislaturesorru].edunconsLituLionalincourtcha}lenges.TableI-1 sodomy restrictions' shows whlch sLates currently have or do noL have on the Eight staEes have enacted laws prohibi'ting discrmination basis of sexual orientalion: California ConnecE icut Hava i i
MassachuseLts
\lisconsin
464
Tab1e
I-1 by State
N Sodomy Resr1c1on6 Alaska CaIi fornia
currert sEacus of
Sodqmy Alabama Ari zona
sodomy Reerl,ctlon,
RestrlcEions
Arkansas *
Florida
ldaho
*
colorado
De
Connecticut.
Hawa
Georgia
Kansas
Louisianaa
Maryland
M i. n
iiIl-1i.nois fndiana
Iowa
lawa re
MassachuseLts'* Michiganb
KenEucky
Maine Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Netv Jersey New Mexico
Montana *
NorLh ca:oIina
Oklahoma *
Rhode IsIand
South Carolina
Tennessee* Texasc
Ut,ah
North Dakota
Ohio Oregon
Pnnsy l-van j-a
New York
Virginia
Souch akoEa
Vermont'
wash ingEon
washj.ngton, D.C.
West Vj-rginia
Wi
sconsi-n
l^Jyom:ng SOURCES; Anericn Cjvrl Libertjes Union Handbook: The Righ:s of esians and Gay len (Third Edifionz 79921, Personal communications:
Mr
F. Colemn, ExecuEive DirecEor, Spect.rum InsLitute, Los ngelerr, C; Mr. Jon Davidson, ACLU, Los Ange-es Office; Professor ArEhur Leorr,rr't. New York Law School, New York, NY; Mr. WiLliam B. RubensEein, CLU New York office. al.ouisiana's soclomy law was recent..y sEruck down in Erial court. (5r,rr o v. Baxleyl on the gror.rnds that it violaced Lhe sEat.e consEiEution's guarantee Eo Ehe riqhE,)f privacy. The scate s appealing the decisi|rr hi"higun's soclomy law (felony) was ruled unconst.icutional as appli,'.1 Eo privat.e consensuai. adul-E behavior (Mjcrgran organizaEion for Hunan Righcs v. Ke)Jey, No. 88-815820). The decision by che scate's aELorn(,rgeneraJ-, a nameci defendant in che case, noc. to appeal Ieft in guesEion the broader precedenCral applicaci.on of the ruling. Since no appeal w,r,r Laken, the ruling rnay only appJ-y to wayne CounEy where it. was ssued. cTexas' sodomy sgatue (misdemeanor) is current).y under review by r 1". sEaEe supreme courL in a declaratory relief acEion (Morales v. SEate ot Texas, D-2393 ) where lower courts ruled Ehe st.at.uEe unconsgit,ut.ional-, It. a laLer case invol.ving boEh declaratory and injuncEive relef act.ions {England v, CiEy of Dallas), Ehe sEaEe supreme courE has fail-ed Eo grarl review Eo an appeals courc ruJ-ing gha Ehe sodomy statuEe was unconsEitucionaL on privacy grounds. The Texas Iegislature reaffirmed !.he st.a!.e's constitutio)lal ban on same-sex sodomy in its most. recenE sesson. * ResEricton appl.ies t.o same-gender sex only. ** Sodomy Laws remain in force, buE sLaEes ban discrimination oD !hL' basis of sexual rientatin.
Thomas
-465-
BIBI,TOGRPHY
1989)
Brub, A1an, Coming Out tJnder Fire: The HisEory of Gay Men and in WorJd Iar Tr'ro, Nerv Yrk: The'Free Press, 1990, pp. 10-1'8.
women
Davis, Jeffrey s, "Military Policy Toward Homosexuals: scientific, HisLorical, and Legal PerspecLives." Military I'aw Review 131 (1991):
55-108. Departmenb
of Defense Directve
.1332.14,
EnlisEed AdminisErative
Manual for CourLs-Marcial, United States, 1921. The Manuals for CourE-Marbial, 19L'7.
MaETovich
1978'
Memorandum
for lhe Secretary of Defense, Ending Discrimination on lhe Basis of Sexual orientation in the Armed Forces, .Tanuary 29, 1993.
U,S. General Accounting Office, "Defense Force Manag'ement: DoD's Policy on Homosexuality" and Ehe report's supplement, "statistics Related Lo DoD's Po1 icy on Homosexual iLY. "
hla77 StreeE JournaT/NBC News
wj.l]ams, colin J., and Martin s. weinberg, A Study of Less Than Honorable Discharre, 1971, p. I02.
BIBIJIOGRPHY FOR CHPEER 2
Barringer, Felicity, "PolIing on Sexua Issues Has Its Drawbacks," New York Times, April 25, 1993, Section 1, p. 23'
The
-466Lo Becker, Marshalf H., anc JiIl Joseph, "AIDS and Behavioral change 7B' " Atnerican Jaurnal of Public HeaLEh, vol. Reduce Risk: Review, No. 4, 1988, PP. 394-410. Bfumsten, P' W., and P. Schl^/artz. "BisexualiLy in Menr " Urban Life' Vol. 5, 1-976a, PP' 339-358. Blumstein, P. W., and P' Schwartz, "Bisexuality: Some Social Psychologicallssues,"Journalofsociallssues'Vo1'33'I9'76b' pp.30-45'
Blumstein, P. W., and P' SchwarEz, American Couples: Money' Work' and ,Sex, New York: Wm' Morrow and Co', 1983' Billy, John O. G., Koray Tanfer, Vtrilliam R' Grady, and Daniel H' Klepinger, ,,The sexual Behavor of Men in the u,s,," Fanify Planning Perspectives. Vo1.25, No' 2, March,/Apri1 1993' pp' 52-60' Catania, Joseph A', David R. Gibson, DaIe D' Chitwood' and Thomas J' Coates,"MethodologicalProbl-emsinIDSBehavioralResearch: of Influences on Measurement Error and ParLicipation Bias in studiespp. Behavior,,' PsychoTogicaT BulfeEin, 1990, Vol. 108, No. 3, Sexual
339 -3 62
.
Clark. J' P., and L' L. Tifft, ,,Poygraph ancl Interview Validaton of self-Reported Deviant Behavior," American socioTogjcal, Rerjew, vol' 31, pp. 5L6-523. Davis, James A1IAn, ancl Tom w. smith, "General social Surveys, I9'12Lgg:,, <machine reaclale data file>/Principal InvesLigator, James A. Davis; Drector and co-Principal Investigator, Tom w' smith; sponsored by National science FoundaLion. NoRc ed. chicago: National opinion Research center (Producer); storrs, cT: The Roper center for Public opinion Research, Universiby of Connecticut (distrbutor), 1991' Dot1, Lynda S., LyIe R. PeLersen, CaroI R' Whice, Eric S' Johnson' John W,Ward,andTheBlooclDonorS,tudyGroup,"HomosexuaIyand Nonhomosexually Identifj.ed Mn \4ho Have sex with Men: A Behavioral Comparison," The Journaf of Sex Reseatch, l-992, Vol' 29' No' 1' pp. 1-14. Fay, R. 8., C. F. Turner, . D' Kl-assen, and 'J' H' Gagnon, "Prevalence and Patterns of same-Gender sexua conbacL Among Men," ,scjence, Vo1. 234, JanuarY 1989' General Accounting Office, "Defense Force Management; DOD's Policy on Homosexuality, " Washington, D.C., June L992' p' 2Q '
,Janus, s. s. and c. L. Janus, The Janus Report on sexual- Beharzjor, York: John WeY and Sons ' 1"993 '
New
46'7 -
Jones, C. C., H. Waskin, B. Gerety, B. J. Skipper, H' F' Hull, and G' J. Mertz, "Persistence of High-Risk Sexual AcEivity among Homosexual Men in an rea of Low Incidence of the cguired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, " sexuafJy ?ransmjEEed Diseases, Vo1' 14, pril-.Iune 1987, pp. 79-82.
Kanouse, David E,, Sandra H. Berry, E' Michael Gorman, ELizabeth M. Yano, and Sa]-ly Carson, Response to che AIDS Epidenic: A Survey of HomosexuaL and Bisexual Men jn .l,os ngre-es County, Santa Monica,
Calif. :
Kanouse. David 8., Sandra H. Berry, E. MichaeJ. Gorman, Efizabeth M' Yano, Sally Carson, and AIJ-an Abrahamse, AIDS*ReJaEed KnowJedge, AtEitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors jn Los AngeTes County, Sant.a Monica, Ca1if.: RAND, R-4054-LACH, 1991b.
Kinsey, lfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin, ,9exua-l Behavior in the Human Male, Philadelphia: !n/. B. Saunders, t948. Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Hman Female, PhiladeJ.phia: W' B'
Saunders, 1953,
Lever, Janet, David E. Kanouse, Wiltiam H, Rogers, Sally Carson, and Rosanna Hertz, "Behavj.or Patterns and Sexual fdenLity of Bisexual Males," The Journal of Sex Researc, Vol-. 29, No. 2, 1992, pp. 141-1,67
.
Loulan, JoAnn, "R 1566 Leslians and the Clinical pplications," and Therapy, VoI. 7, No. 2-3, 1988, pp. 22L-234.
'Jomen
Miller, Heather G., Charles F. Turner, Lncol-n E, Moses (eds,), AIDS: the Second Decade, The Natonal Research Council, Washngton D.C.: NaLionaI Academy ress, 1990. Reinisch, J, M., S. A. Sanders, and M. ziemba-Davis, "The Study of Sexual Behavior in Relation !o the Transmission of Human fmmunodeficiency Virus: Caveats anQ Recommendations," American PsychoTogist. Vol. 93, 1988, pp. 921-927.
Rogers, Susan M., and Charles F. Turner, "MaLe-Male Sexual. ConLact in Lhe U.S,A,: Findi-ngs from Five Sample surveys, t910-I990," The Journaf of Sex Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, L99I, pp, 491-519.
SiLvestre, AnLhony .T., Lavrrence A. Kingsley, PaL.ricia Wehman, Ryan Dappen, Monto Ho, and Charfes R. Rinaldo, "Changes in HIV Rates and Sexual Behavior among Homosexual Men, 1984 to I9g8/92," Anterican Journal of Pubiic Heal-h, Vol, 83, No. 4, pp, 578-580.
Sonenstein, F,, J. P1eck, L. Ku, and C. Calhoun, "1988 Natj.onal Survey of Adolescent Males" (Daa Set G.6, Crutchfie1d, J. and Card, J, J., Archivists) <machine-readabe data fj.le and documentabion>.
- 468 '1
Washington, D.C.: The Urban fnstitute (Producer); Los Altos, CA: Sociometrics Corporation, Data Archive on Adolescent Pregnancy and PrevenLion (Producer and Distributor), 1991'
Sta11, Ron, D. Barrett, L. Bye, J. CaEania. C. Frutchey, J' Henne, G' Lemp, and J. Pau1, " comparison of Younger and O1der Gay Men's HIV Risk-Taking Behaviors: The Communication Technologies 1989 CrossSecionaI survey,' Journaf of Acquired Inmune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol-. 5, L992, pp. 682-687.
SEall, R. D., T. J. Coates,'and C, Hoff, "Behavioral- Risk Reduction for HIV Infection mong Gcr! and Bisexual Men," American PsychoTogis, Vo1' 43, No.11, pp.878-885 Stempel, R., M, corman, S. Shibowski, and , Moss. "Changes j.n sexual Practices and Drug Use Among Gay Men in San Francisco. " Published abstsract PoC4095, VIIIth InternaLional Conference on AIDS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. Tavris, Carol and Susan Sadd, The Redbook ReporE on Fema-le SexuaLiEy, New York: Delacorce, I9'17. Taylor, Humphrey, "The Harris Poll 1993 #20," ApriI 26,
1993.
furner, Charles F., HeaLher G. MilLer, and Lincoln E. Moses (Eds.), AIDS, SexuaJ Behavior, and InEravenous Drug Use, IJashington, D'C': National Academy Press, 1989. Vatdiserri, R. O., et al., "IDS Preven!ion in HomosexuaL and Bisexual Men: ResufEs of a Randomized TraI Evaluating T\o Risk Reduction Interventions," IDS, Vol 3, 1989. pp.2I-26.
Wooden, Wayne
in Prison,
New
S., and Jay Parker, Men Behind Bars.' SexuaT Exploitation York: P1enum Press, 1982.
Daqnostic and .StajsticaT ManuaJ of Disorders: DSM-fII-R, 3rd ed., rev. Washj.ngLon. D,C.: Arnerican Psychiatric AssociaLion, 1987.
Army Times Reporters. "No Easy Answers." Army Times, 11, .January 1993, pp. 11-28, [A]so appeared on Lhe same day j-n jr Force ?jmes and Naql ?imes. l
ter Beek, A, L. "standpunL naar aanleiding van het onderzoek naar de posi.tie van homoseksualen in de kri-jgsmacht" IPosition in view of the research on Lhe position of homosexuals in the miJ.itaryl, LetEer from the Minister of Defense to ParLiament, 4 mei 1993.
-469Begeteidingscommissie lij het onderzoek naar de positie van homoseksuelen in de krijgsmacht [dvisory committee for L.he research on Ehe posiLion of homosexuals in the milicaryl (tshe Netherlands) ' Beleidsadvjes naar aanleiding van het onderzoek HomoseksuafiteiE en Krijgsmacht IPolicy recommendaEions resul!ing from the Homosexuality and the MiliEary Research Projectl. Mimeographed document transmiLLed from Lhe Ministry of Defense Eo Parliamenc, November 1992.
Boyer, ,J, P. EquaLiEy f or Al1: ReporE of the Par-liametary Committee on Equality Rights, House of Commons (Canada), OcLober 1985'
Bozinoff, L., and P. Maclntosh. "society Regarded as More ccepting of Homosexuals," The Ga1lup ReporL (Canada), September 25, 1991' Bozinoff, L., and A. TurcotLe, "MajoriLy Believe Homosexuals Should Be Allowed in MiIitary, " The Gallup Report (Canada), December 10, L992.
Canadian Forces. Che.rter Task Fotce: FinaT ReporE, OttavJa, September
t_986.
CBS
News. "Macho, Tough, and Gay," Segment of Sixty Minutes, broadcast 25 ApriI 1993. 4., and J. H. H. WeiIer. "Lesbians and Gay Men in Lhe European order," In Waaldijk & Clapham, 1992, pp' 7-70'
Le
Cl-apham,
Community Legal
Coudurier, H, "L'merique de B11 Clinbon (4): La grogne des mIitaires" IB]1 ClinEon's America: Mi.l-itary grumblingsl. T7granme, 23 avriJ- 1993, p. 8.
Department of Defence (Canada) Defence, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1991.
Donio], G. (pseud.). "CIinton, ses armes, ses gays, eL nous" IClinton, his miliLary, his gays, and usl. Liberation, 2B avril 1993, (new series No. 37 13 ) , p. 6 .
The Europa Worl-a Year Book
100?
Forsvarsdepartementet (Norway) Fakta Otn ForsvareL 1993 [Facbs Defense Forces 19931. Oslo: Emil Moestue A/S, 1993'
GovernmenL
Conununications and
Canada,
Harris, S. E. "l'Ii).itary PoL j.ces Regarding Homosexual Behavior: An fnternat j-onaI survey. " Journaf oi HonosexualiEy, YoI . 24, 1991, pp.
67
-7 4.
Her Majesty's Armed Forces (United Kingdom) , The Armed Forces: Your London: H. M. Stationers, no date' Rights and Respdlsjjljtjes.
- 470 H. J. "Homofili, cliskriminering og diagnoser" IHomophilia, discrimination and diagnosisl ' Fokus Pd Famjljen, Vo1' 5, No' )-977, pp. 1-3.
Ho1m,
1,
IsraeJi Defense Forces, Iservice of Homosexuals in the IDF--Current policy and Proposed Amenclmentsl. (translaEed by colonel siegeJ., IDF), TeI-Aviv. no date' Joustra, W., "Nederlancl vindt homoseksuelen in krigjsmacht vanzeJ.fsprekend" IThe Nether]ancls Lakes homosexuals in Ehe mi]itary for granteclJ . De Vol-kskrant, 2! juli 1993. Jowell, Roger, et al., B-itish Sociaf tEjudes: The L986 Report, Aldershot, EngJ.and: Gower, 1986 . KeEting, E., and K. Soesbeek (ecs.) HonoseksualjejL & Krijgsmacht De1ft., the Netherlands: Eburon, IHomosexua]ity ancl Lhe Militaryl.
100,
The Knesset I Israeli Parliament] , IPenal Code: Acts of Sodomy , 1977 amended 1988 and 19901, .ferusalem, 1990. (Lranslated by fsraeli Defense Forces)
.
The Knesset IIsraeli Parliament], IEgua1 opportunity Employment Act, 1988, amencled 1 March L9921, Jerusalem, 1992, (translated by Israeli Defense Forces). KringJ_en, E. "Homofil-i--psykopaEologi eller normal-variant" IHomophilia-psychopathology or normal variatj.onl. Fokus P Familien, VoL' 5, No. t, 1977, pp. 4-13
i
de LacIos, C. Les Ljajsons dnirei-euses IDangerous Connections], Paris: ditions Galmard, I'180 /1958
New
Likosky, S. Coning Out: At' AnthoLoqy of International Gay and Writings. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992' Lipset, S. M. Continentai Divide,
New
York: Routledqe,
1990'
Los Angieles Times, "Canada Far Ahead of U.S. in Recognizing Gay Righls," December 29, 1992, P. 41.
Los Angeles Tirnes, "Disruption Rare as Gays Have Been fntegrated," January 30, 1993, p. 41.
Ministre de 1a Dfense (France) . "Considerations gnrales sur J.'aptitude psychiatrique" IGeneraI considerations for psychiatric fitnessl . lUanuaf of Medical- F'jness for NaLjonaT Servicel, ArEicles 4Ig-443, 1989, pp. L23-I28. Paris: MinisEre de la Dfense.
41
I -
Ministre de la Dfense (F::ance) Service Natjona-l: Chiffres Anne 1991 [National service: Num]:ers for 19911. Paris: Les Ateliers Runis , t992.
Moskos, c, c. Testimony Before the united states senate committee on Armed Services, Washington, D.C.,29 April 1993'
NaEionaI efence Forces (Canacla) ' "Change to CF SexuaI Orientation Po1icy," News Release, October 27, t992 (a) '
NaL.ional Defence Forces (canada). "HomosexuaL conduct," Message cDS 1B2, october 21, 1992 (b).
National Defence Forces (Canada). "RevocaEion of CF Sexual Orientation policy: Post-Announcemenc Action, " circular L745-42-1 (DM(Per) ), OcLolrer 27 , tg92 (c\
.
National Defence Forces (Canacla) . "CF Changes PoIicy on Homosexuality, Personnel NevsIeEter Issue 6/92' L992 (d). parks, M. ,,Israeli Armecl Forces Ban Discrimination AgainsL Gay Rights." Los Angeles ?ites, 12 June 1993.
Rayside, D., and S. Bow]er' "Public opinion and Gay Rights," Canadian Review of sociology and AtlthropoLogy, YoI. 25(4), 1988, pp. 649-660,
Robertson, J. R, Sexua-l OriencaEion and LegaT Rights, current rssue Review g2-18, Library of Parliament, Research Branch, 12 March 1993'
Schmid. N. ,'Lesbiske bIe kjrester p krakka" ILesbian S\^/eeEhearEs in Lhe Barracksl. VG, 1 juni 1992, P'. 8'
"
Schwartzkopf, H, N. Testimony Before Ehe UniEed States Senate on Armed Services, lniashington, D. C. , 11 May 1993 '
segaJ_,
CorniLEee
Armed
D. R. TesEimony Before Ehe united states senate comrnitEee Services, WashingEon, D'C. , 29 April 1993.
on
Select Comittee on the Armecl Forces Bil, I (United Kingdom) Minutes of Evidence Taken Before the SeLect Cott'lriLLee on the.Armed Forces BiTLLondon: H. M. Stationers, 1991, pp. 47-48, 8?-88, 95-100, 167-1"11'
77 6-]-77
.
SLichEing HomosexualiteiL en Krijgsmacht (Ehe Netherlands) ATgemeen BeTeidsplan IOveralI Policy PIan]. Unpub]ished document, February
'J_981
.
sLiehm, J. H. TesLimony Before the uniEed slates senaLe committee Armed Services, Washington, D.C, , 29 April 1993 '
on
Stoppelenburg, P., T. l"landemaker, S' Serail, and H. Ubachs, GeweLd in de KrijgsnacE Iviolence in Lhe Mi.litary], Tlburg, the Netherlands;
- 472'
Research of Ehe catholic universty of
"Gewelcl en sexual-iEeit in de krijgsmacht, een problem?" [Vio}enceanc]sexua}iLyinLhemilitary:Aprob}em?]'Krijgsnacht& Mattschapprj, Vot. 8, Spring L9B6, pp' 5-9'
T\eede Kamer
der Staten-GeneraaL Isecond Chamber of Parliament] (the Netherl.ands), ,,VastsLeIling van de begroting van the uitgaven en de jaar onLvangstsen van hoofclsLuk X (Ministerie van Defensie) voor het :J'ggz" IDetermination of the budget of expenditures and income for chapter x (Ministry of Defense) f.ot 19921, Teede Kamer, vergaderjaar 7gg7-1992, 22300x, No. 53, 4 februar L992'
United SLaLes General Accounting Office. HomosexuaJs in Ehe MiliEaty: poTicies and Practices of Foreign counLjes. washington, D'c.: GAO, GAO/NSIAD-93-215, June 1993.
van der Veen, E., and A. Dercksen. lThe Social Situation in the Member states.,, In Waaldijk C" clapham (eds.), HomosexualiEy: A European community fssue, Dorclrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1992,
pp. L31-162.
van weerd, A.
,,41s je er maar niet mee te koop loopb" [You must keep it yourseffl. KrijgsnachE & MaEEschapplj, Vol-' 15, No' 1' februari !o 1993, pp . L9-22.
van Zessen, G. Sciaal" weenschappelijk Aidsonderzoek. Identi|eiE en vormgeving. De honoseksue.le iden,tiEeitsontwikkeling van 282 mannen' ISocial scientific AIDS research. Identity and design' The development of homosexua.l identiEy in 282 menl Utrecht, Lhe Netherlands: InterfaculLaire Werkgi'oep HomosEudies, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, 1988. jk & Waaldi jk, K. ,,The LegaJ. SiLuaEion in the Member States. " In Waal"di clapham (eds.), HomosexualiEy: A European conmunity -Issue, DordrechL' the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1992, pp' 7L-130'
Waaldij k,
K
,
CommuniEy
HolosexualiEy: A European , ancl A. Cl-apham (eds ' ) rssue. Dorclrecht, Ehe NeEherlancls: Martinus Nijhoff ' 1992
on
'
warner, J. W, Testimony Before the united states senate committee Armed Services, Washington, D'C., 29 ApriI 1993 ' lhe World.Al.rnanac artd Book of Facts
BIBLIOGRPHY FOR CHAPTER
5
7993
New
Allen, Ann E. The l/AC Mjssiott: ?he fesjng Tinte from Korea to Vieinam' Ph,D. Thesis, University of South Carolina, 1986'
- 473 Andrews, Adolphus, chief of the Nawy Bureau of Navigation, letter to A' c. MacNeaI, President of the chicago Branch of the NACP, 19 Sept. 1935, quotecl in Frecerick s. Harrocl, Manning the New Nav1z, westporL' CT, Greenwood Press, L918, P.62'
AEtitude Research Branch, Armed Division, Moyafe Ejtudes of _n MacGregor and Na1ty, ecs., Forces, .Basjc ocunet:Es, Vof'
Forces Information and Education EnListed Men, May-June 7949, reprinted B]acks jn bhe uniLed sLates Arnted XII, pp. I45'149-
Aynes, Edith A. Fron NqhtingaTe to EagLe: An Army Nurse's History, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : PrenLice-HaIl Inc ', 19?3 '
Baskir, Lawrence M., and WilIiam A. SLrauss. Chance and CjrcumsEance" The Draf t, El-e war, ard c.he vietna GeneraEion. New York: Vintage Books , 1918. Bayer, Ronafd. /omosexuality "1nd Ar..;rerican PsychiaEry: The PoJitics of Diagnosis, New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Benecke, I'lichelle M', and Kirstin S' Dodge. "MiIitary Women in Nontraditional- Job Fields: casalties of Lhe Armed Forces' war on Homosexuals." Harvad Wornen's Law JournaL L3 (1990): 215-250'
Brub, Alan, .rncl John D'Emilio. "The I'filiLary and Lesbians During the McCarthy Years.,, sigrns: JournaJ. of lonen jn culture and society 9 (1984)': 159-775. Brub, Alan,
conting ouE tJnder Fire.: The HisEory of Gay Men and New Yok: The Free Press, 1990 '
women
Binkin, Martin, and Shirley .I. Bach. WoneD and the MiTitary' Washington, D.C. : The Brookings InsLitution, 1-911 . Binkin, Martin, Mark Eitelberg, et aI', B-lacks and the Militaty, lVashingEon, D.C., The Brookings InsEitution, 1972' pp. 36-31 Boettcher, Thomas D. vjetnalil: The vafor and the sorrow. Boston: LittLe, Brown, and Co., 1985' B1air, Clay. The ForgoElett r,'lar- New York: Times Books , Ig87 ' Bogart, Leo, ec. Project cfear: sociaL Research and che Desegregation of the tJniEed SLcrtes rrny. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books , 19 9l- .
Bureau of Nava Pesonnel, "The,Negro n the NaW, " in MacGregror and NalEy, eds., Blacks jn the United States Arnted Forces, Basjc DocumenEs, Vol, VI, PP. 385-387
- 4't4 "Christian Brotherhood or Sexual Perversion? Identities and t.he Const.ruction of Sexual Boundarles in World War I Era. " Journlaf of SociaL HisEory 19 (1985) : L89-21'2Homosexual-
Lhe
Chauncey, George, Jr. "From Sexual Inversion to Homosexuality: Medicine and the changing ConceptualizaLion of FemaIe Deviance"' SaJmagundi 5B-59 (1982-1983) t IL4-146.
Cory, Donald VJebsEer IEct,in Sagar-in, pseud.l ' America. New York: Greenburg, 1951 '
The Homosexual
jn
Columbj-a,
aIfiume, Richard M. Desegregation of the U.S, Armed Forces, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 1969'
Danfield, L,E. (Assistant Chief of NavaI Personnel). Memorandum Lo Commander in Chief, United States Fl-eet and Chief of Naval OperaLions, -Iuly 4, 1944. Reprinted in MacGregor, Morris .l', and Bernard C' NalLy, eds. Bl-acks in the tJnited ^states Armed Forces, Basic DocumenEs, VoL VI, p. 246. Davis, Jeffrey S, "MiJ-iEary PoIicy Tolvard Homosexuals: Scientific, Historical, and LegaI PersPectives." MiTitary Law Review 131 (1991);
55-108.
Davis, Patricia Lee, Uncie Sam's Lesbjans: Power, EmpowetmenE, and Ehe MiTitary Evperience. Master's Thesis, Old Dominion University, 1991. D'Emilio, John, and EsteIlg Freedman"' InEi^ate Matters.' SexuaTity in America. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.
t
.4
History of
a
'Emilio, John. '9exua-Z politics, Sexual. Conununjtjes: The Making of Homosexuaf MinoriEy in the tJnited states, J-940-L970. chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.
Duberman.
MarLin. SEonewaff,
New
York: DuLton,
1993.
Vicinus, and George ChaunceY, Jr., eds. Hidden front History: Rec-laiming Ehe Gay and Lesbian PasE' New York: New American Library, 1989.
Edwards, Idwal, "Remarks on Major Personnel Problems Presented to USAF Comnanders' Conference Heaclquarterb, USAF,' 12 ApriI 1949, reprinted in MacGregor ancl Nalty. eds., B)acks in Lhe Unjted '9tates Armed Forces, Easjc Documents, Vol, VIII, p. 26.
Odd Gjrls and Twiligh| Loverst A History of Lesbian Faderman, Lillian, Life in TwenEieEh-Century A)nerica. New York: Penguin Books LLd., 1991.
Pinman, Byron G., ,fonaLhan F. Borus, and M. Duncan Stanton' "BlackWhite and American-Vietnamese Relations Among Soldiers in Vietnam. " JournaT of Social rssues 31 (t.9'75): 41.
- 4t\
Foner, Jack D. Bl-acks and che Military in American History. Praegf er, I97 4 ,
l
New York:
Forrestal, James (Secretary of Che Nalj) , Memorandum Eo PresidenE RoosevelL, May 20, tg44' Reprinted in NaIEy, Bernard C', and Morris J. MacGregor, eds. Blacks jn t.he MiTitary: EssentjaL Documents. Witmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1981, p. 1-54.
Gallup Organization/ Survey of 3000 AduIts Based on Personal Interview, June 1948. Gerrasi, John, The Boys of Bojse: FuTot, Vice and FoJJy jn an American CiCy. New York: CoIlier, 1968. Gibson, E. Lawrence. Get Off My Ship, Ensign Berg vs, The U"5' New York: Avon Books, L9'76 '
l
Nar4z'
Gibson, Truman K., ,Jr., memorandum to Lhe AssisLanE secreLary of war, Aug. 1943, reprintecl in MacGregor and Nalty, eds., Bfacks in Ehe UniEed,gLaEes .Armed Forces, Basjc Docunent.5, VoL, V, pp. 213-279
Goldman, Nancy. "The Changing Role of Women in the Armed Forces." American Journal of SocioLosy'78 (January 1-973): 892-911.
Gropman. lan
23
M. The Air Fotce Integrates 1945-L964. Washington, D-C': Office of j-r Force HisEorY, L978.
Hall, E.T. "Race Prejudice and Negro-White Relations j-n t.he Army'" American JournaL of SocioLosy 52 (1941); 408-409.
Harrod. Frederck S. Mannittg Lhe Greenwod Press, ]-9'18.
New
Hartmann, susan M. The Home Front and Beyond: American women in the 7940s, Boston: T\rayne Publishers , 1982 .
Herdt, Glbert, ed, Gay CuJture jn lerica: Essays from the Field. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992
.
Historical SecLion, Bureau-of NavaI PeIsonnel. The Negro in the Navy, Washington, D.C. : Depcrrtment of Ehe Naq ' L94'7. Reprinted in MacGregor, Morris J., and Bernard C' Na]ty, eds' Bl-acks in the United States Armed Forces, Basjc DocumenEs, Vol, Vf' Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc ' , 977, pp . 321 -328.
HoLm, Jeanne (Ret.irecl USAF Major General)
' l{omen in the Military: An Unfinished Revol.ujon, rev. ed. Novat.o, California: Presidio. 1992' pp.
36-37
,
Hyman, Herbert H., and Paul B. Sheatsley, "Attitudes Toward Desegregatj-on, " ,gcjentif ic Anerjcan, Vol-. 195, No' 6' 1956,
- 476 ,Jacobs, RandaJ.t, Chief of Naval Personnel, memorandum Lo service conmands, 13 April 1945, reprinted in Maccregor and Nalty, eds., BJacks in the united SbaLes rnred Forces, Basjc Documents, Vol"' VI, p. 268.
UCLA Law
'The Pursuit of Manhood and the Desegregation of the Review 38 (1991): 499-58L,
Gay l4en
Katz, JonaEhan, Gay Anerican History: Lesbians and New York: Thomas Y. CrowelL Co. , I97 6
.
in the
USA.
Kenworthy, E. W., memoranclum Lo Charles Fahy, 30 May 1949, reprinted n MacGregor and NaIEy, eds., Bfacks jn the United States rmed Forces, Basjc DocumenEs, Vol. XI, p. 1264.
Lee, John C. H,, draft direcLive, 26 Dec. L944, reprinEed in MacGregor and NalLy, eds., Blacks it' the UniEed States Armed Forces, Basic Documents, Vo7, V, Wilmington, DE, Scholarly Resources Inc.. 1977, p' 98; memorandum to commanders in the CommunicaLion Zone, European Theater of Operations, reprnted in MacGregor and NaIty, eds., BTacks in Ehe United States Arnted Forces, Easjc Documens, Vol, V, p. 99; Lee, Employtnent of Negro ?roops, pp. 688-705. Lee, Ulysses. UniEed .gates Arnty in World l,lar II: Special Studies, Employment of Neqro Troops. Washington, D.C.: Office of Che Chief of Military History, United States Army 1966.
Leb/y, GuenEer. America in Vietnan. New York: oxford Unj-versity Press, 1,97 I . MacGregor, Morris J. InEegraEiotz of che Armed Forces J-940-7965, Washington, D.C.: Office of MiJ"itary History, 1985, MacGreqor, Morris J., and Bernard C. Nalty, eds. BLacks in Ehe Uniced ^gtates Arned Forces, Basic DocunenEs, Vols. V, VI, VfII, IX-XI, XI, XII- Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources rnc., 197'7.
Houghton
Marshall-, Kathryn. In the ConbaE Zone: An Oral History of American Women in Vietnan, 1966-1975, Boston: LitLle, Brown, and Co., 1987.
Meyer, Leisa D. Creating G,L Janez The Wonten's Army Corps During Worl-d tar II. Ph.D. Thesis, University oE Wisconsin, Madison, 1993.
Morden, Bettie J. The Nonen's Arnty Corps, 1945-1978. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United StaLes rmy, 1990. Moskos, Charles C. The Aurican Enljsced Man, New York: RusselJ- Sage FoundaEion, tgTO
)
-471MoLley. Mary Penick, ecl. The Invisible soldier. UniversiEy Press, l-9"75.
Murphy, Lawrence R, Peryerts by officiaf order: The campaign Against Homosexua-ls by the tJniEed s1aEes Navy. tr-ew York: The Haworth Press, 1988'
Nalty, Bernarcl c.
strength tor
Ehe
Fight.
New
1986'
Nelson, Dennis D' The InEegraEjon of the Negro into Ehe U'S' Navy' 1951. Reprint. New York: octagon' Books ' 1982 ' Nichols, Lee. BreakEhrough on the coJ.or Front. New York: Random House, L954.
operations Research office, Johns Hopkins university. utiTization of Negrro Manrower. chevy chase, Maryland: Johns Hopkins university'
1954.
osur, Alan M. Bfacks in Ehe Arny Air Forces During worfd war . Washj-ngton, D'C'; Of f ice of Air Force History, 191'7 '
Ray, Marcus H., IeEter to Truman K. Gibson, 14 May 1945, reprinted in Lee, Enpfoyrnent of Negro Troops, pp' 588-589 '
,,Report.
by the Special Suirconunittee on Disciplinary Problems in the U.S' Navy of the committee on Armed services, " House of Represenbatives, 92nd Congress, January 2, 1973, reprinted 1n MacGregor and Nalty (eds.), Blacks in the unjied states Armed Forces, Basic Documents, VoL. XIrI, pP.605-631.
Rivera. Rhonda. ,,our sLra-ghL-laced Juclges: The Legal Position of Homosexual Persons in the uniEed states. " Hastings Lavt Journal 30 (March 1.979) : 841-B4B'
Rolrerts, Mary M. nerican Nursing: History and Interpretacion' York: MacMillan CornPanY, 1954,
Rustad, Michael . wonen in Kh.tki: The Jlerjcan Enf isted woman. York: Praeger Publishers , L982.
New
Nevt
shilts, Rancly, conducf; unbecottting: Gays cnd Lesbians in the u, s. Mj- jtary, vietnan Eo the Persjar Gu]f. New York: st. MarEin's Press, 1993' shilts, Randy, fl:e Mayor of castro sEreet: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk. New York: St' Martin's Press ' 1982' SLiehm, JudiLh Hj-cks. "Marragi|9 the Mil.itary's Homosexual Exclusion policy: Text and subtex--.", [Jniversity of Miamj Law Review 46 (t992):
685-710.
stiehm, Judith Hicks. .Arns ar:d the Enlisted wontan, Philadelphia: TempIe Universi!Y Press, 1989.
41
8-
SurveysDivision,Bureauofspecalservices'OfficeofTlarlnformaLj-on' B July 1948' reprinted The Negroe's' Role in the ivhr' Viashj'ngton' D'c' ' inMacGregorandNa}hy,B]-acksiltchelJnite<TSLaEesArmedFor3es' Basjc ocurlenEs, Vo7, V, P ' 231 ' Special World War II: TreadweLl, MaEEie . The uttited SLates Army in D.C': of f ice of Chief Arnly Co.rps. Lnlashington, Sudies: The lomen,s of Milj-tary HisEory, DeparEment of the Army' 1953 ' JuIy 26' 1948 Truman. Harry S. Text of ExecuEive Orcler 9981,
Armed "The United SCaLes Commission on CiviI Rights' 1963) Negro in the in ReprinEed (30 September ' Forces"' Civil RiqhLs '63 BJacks in the tlnited MacGregor, Morris J', ana Bernard C' Nalty' eds' SEaEesArmedForces,BcrsicDocunents'VoI'XII'WilmingEon'Delaware: Schol-arIY Resources, lnc' ' I977 '
Westbrook,RoberEB.,,rVc.ntaGir]-,JusELiketheGir}thaLMarred HarryJames,:AmericanlIomenandtheProblemofPo]-iticalob].igation 587-6L4' in Wor1d War II.,, Arerican QuarterJy 42 (December 1990): in Ehe F/omosexua'l Wi]liams, Colin J., ancl Martin S' taleinberg'Discharge' sNew York: than lonorable MiJiEary: A sEudy of Less
Harper & Row, t97L
,BapEistsCaIlforKeepingMilitaryBanonGayS.,,TheLosAngeTes ?jmes' June 5. 1993 P' 84' ction and RaciaI Bobo, Lawrence- "ntipoverty Policy' Affirmative AtEitudes.,InsEituEeforResearchonPoverty,ConferencePaperfrom Pover|yandPu.b-ticPolicy:llhatDoWeKnow?WhatshouidfeDo?held 1992 ' Vay Ze-:O aE Lhe Universi'ty of Wisconsin' l"ladison' Burstein,Paul'Discrini:ation'Jobs'andPoTiEics'Chicago: UniversiLy of Chicago Press' t9B5'
Byne, William, and Bruce Parsons' "Human Sexual Orentation:
The
BioJ.ogicTheoriesReappraisec),,,ArchivesofGenera]-Psychiatry.Vol' 50, 1993, PP . 228-239 ' LeLter to Presiclent Cl-inLon' February 2' 1993 Chilstrom, Herbert for the Dovidio, John F., and Rusself H. Fazio. "Neu Technologj'es ssessment' of ALEitucles'" In guesLjons 'About DirecL and IndirecL Russell Sage' 1992' Questions, JudiEh M' Tanur, ecl. New Yor:k:
47g -
Hamer, Dean H., S. Hu, V' L. Magnuson, N' Hu, and A' M' L' PaELatucci, ,,A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X chrOmOsome and Male sexual
Hatfield, Larry. "New Poll: How U.S' Views Gays'" The San Francisco E'xamjner. June 5, 1989 . pp. 419-42 1'
Hosek, James R., christine E. Peterson, and Rick A. Eden. EducationaT Expeccatiols and EnJjstnl Decisions. RAND, R-3350-FMP, 1986.
,Jaynes, Geralcl Davicl, ancl Robin will-iams, Jr. (eds.), A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society, Cornittee on the Status of Black mericans, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D. C . : NaEional Academy Press . 1989 . MelEon, J. Gorclon. The churches speak on HonosexuaTity: official sta:ements fron ReTigious Bodjes and EcuntenicaJ- organizations. Detroit: GaIe Research Inc, 1991'
1993,
p.
233.
osD, office of the Assista'E secrecary of Defense, Department of Defense. "Populatiorr RepresenLation in the MiJ-itary Service'"
October, 1992.
Orvis, Bruce. ForecasEing Et'tTisEnent Accions from Intention Information: Validity and ImptoventenE, SanLa Monica, CA:
N-1954-MRAL, 7982.
RAND,
Orvs, Bruce, and Martin T. GaharL' RelaLjonship of Enlistmen IntenEion and MarkeE Survey lnfo'natjo to En.l jstntent in Active MiTiEary Service. Sanl.a l"lonica., C{: RND, N-2292-MIL, 1985 .
:
DUE:/
Rodin, Miriam, Jucly price, Fraircisp Sanchez and Sharel McELJ.igot. ,,Derogation, ExcJ.usion, and uufair Treatment of Persons with social Fl-aws." Personafjty atzd SociaL PsychoTogy Bulletin. VoI. 15, No' 3, 1989, pp . 439-45L. Weiner, Bernard, Raymond Perry, and Jamie Magnusson. "An Attributional Analysis of Reactions Lo s!|gmas. " JournaT of PersonaliEy and sociaT Psychology. Vot. 55, No. 5. 19BB' pp ' 138-748.
whitLey, Bernarc E. ,,The Relationship of HeLerosexuals' AttribuEions for the Causes of Homosexuality Lo AtEitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men, " Personaf i ty dtld Social PsychoTogy Bul-letir:, Vo1' 16, No' 2, 1990, pp.369-37'.
48C
of the Army, Mi}1er, Laura, ,,Moskos/Mi]'1er 1992 SocioIogj.cal SurveyToward Gays and Report to the RAND CorporaEion on soldier ALtitudes Lesbians in the Milicary," Northlestern university, May 1993' Gays Moskos, charles, ,,Discussion Poinbs on DoD Polcy options Regarding Bernarcl Rostker dated May 7' L993' and Lesbians," memoranclum to Dr' officeofMeriEsysEemsReviewancStuclies,Sexua-]'Harassmentinthe FederaTWorkplace:IsItaProbLem?U'S'MeritsystemsProtection Board, Washngton, D.C', March l'981'
BTBT,IOGRPHY FOR CHPTER 8
and ir Force, DeParEmenE of, "Po)'icy on IclenEificaLion' SurveilLance' virus dninistraLion of Personnel Infectecl with Human Immunodeficiency (HIV), " DeparLment Memo 89-62, June 1' 1989 (mimeo) ' Allarcl. R', "HIV Seroconversion in the U'S' Army"' Nerv EngTand Journal ofMedicine,32I\2t\:I4.]7-I478,1989,IIetEerre:McNeileta}'] March L989' .Amsus Nesl.eEter, "HIV 'Top Cause' of DoD MortaliLy"'
rday,D,R.,,f.F.Brundate,L'I'Gardner,M'Goldenbaum'F'Wann'and ntibody s. wright, ,,The Ef f ecL o,f Humqn Inmuno.def iciency virus TYpe 1JournaT status on Military ApplicanE AptiEucle Test Scores," Atnerican of EpidentioLogy, 133 (12) :I2I0-12L9, 1991' ,, Inf ormation a}oout the rmed rmec] Services Blooc] Program of f ice, 12/12/92 (mimeo) ' Services Bloocl Program, "
- 481 surveillance, and Administration Army, Department of ,,,Iclentification, of Personnel Infectecl with Human Inmunodeficiency Virus (HIV),', DeparLment Memo AR-6OO-110, May 22, L989 (mimeo) '
BarnetEe, R., "HlV: People--Discovering Lrfe,
Al-L Hands, SePt. L.,
Among
1990.
8e11, A., and M. Weinlrerg, Homosexua]ities: A Study of Diversity Men and. Wonen, New York: Simon and Schuster, t978'
60,
1993.
B1ake, S., M., L. Temoshok, J' RundeIl, E' Sharp, R' Ledsky' C' Coyle' ancl C. Johnson, "Transmissiol Potential in HIV+ Individual-s: Demographic, AtEitudinal, and Behavioral Factors, " InEernationaf
ConferenceonAIDS,PoC433?,8(2):C301,L992(abstract)'
Brundage, J. F., D. S. Burke, L' I. Gardner, J' G' McNeif' M' Go]-denbaum, R' Visintine, R. R' Rec]fieId, M' Peterson, and R. N' MiIler, "Tracking tre spreac of the HIV Infection Epidemic among Young Adults in the unitecl sLaEes: ResuIEs of the FirsE Four Years of
screening among civilian Applicants for u.s, Military service, " Journaf of Acquired Inuune Deficiency syndrones, 3:1168-1180' 1990.
Burke, D. S., E. c' Tramont, "AIDS/HIV in Lhe U.S' MiIitary,,, Eechnica]report distributecl by Defense Technical Informatin center, ApriJ1.992
.
Burke, D. s', .J. F. Bruncage, M. Go]denbaum. L. I. Gardner, M' PeEerson, R. VisinCine, and R, R. Reclfield,,wa.lLer Reed Retrovirus Research Group, "Human Immunocleficiency r/irus InfecEions in Teenagers: seroprevalence among AppJ-icants for us MiJ.iEary service, " JournaT of e Jnerjcan Medical- ssociation, 263 (I5) :2Q7 4-2077, 1990' Burke, D.
S
AnnuaI MeeEing
, "HIV: The U. S ' Mlitary Experience, " Proceedings of of the Medjcal seccion, American council on Life
Ehe
Sciences, I990. Burke, D, S., J. F' Bruncage, R, R' Redf ield, J' 'T' Damato, C' ' schabl-e, P. Pubman, R. VisinEine, ancl H. I. Kim, "MeasuremenE of the False positive Rate in a Screening Program for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Inf ecEions , " New EnqLc-:nd JournaT of Medicine, 319 (15) 96L-964,
100Q
Burrefli,
D. F., "HIV-1/AIDS ancl u.s. MIliEary Manpower PoIicy," Armed Forces & Society, 1B(4):452-475' 1992.
caEania, Joseph 4., .I'homas J. coates, Ron SLall, Heather Turner, John peEerson, Norm"rn Hearst, M. MargareE DoIcini, Estie IIUdes, John Gagnon, James l{itey, and Robert Groves, "Prevalence of IDS-Related
-482Risk Factors and Conclom Use in Lherunited States," Science, 1992, Vol' 258, pp. 1101-1106' centers for Disease control, HIV/AIDS Survejl.]ace ReporE, Vol-' 5., No' 1, May 1993. CenEers for Disease Control, "Se1f-Reported Changes in Sexual Behaviors among Homosexuai ancl Bisexual. Men from the San Francisco City Clinic Cohort ," Morbidity and Mortaf jEy t'leekl-y, 36(12):187-190, L987 ' centers for Disease conErol, "Update: serologic Testing for HIV-1 Antibody--unj-tetl sEates, 19BB and 1989," Morbidity and MortaTity beekJy, 39 l22l:380-383, June 8, 1990 ' CenEers for Dsease Control and Prevention, "Update: Serologic Testing for AnEibody Lo Humar fmmunodeficiency Virus,' Morbidity and MorEaJity WeekJ"y, 36(52) :833-845, January 8, 1988'
Centers for Dj.sease ConEro), Natjonal HIV SerosurveiJlance Resu-Zts through 1,990, YoL 2, AtlanEa, GA, 1991'
Sunnnary:
centers for Disease control, sexualTy Transmitted Djsease surveillance, .luIy 1992. chesney, M, 4., .T. M. Taylor, and D. B. Chambers, EvaTuaEion of the u.s. Army's fDs Education Program: Final ReporE. 7992'
Cowan,
D. N., J. F. Brundage, R. S. Pomerantz, L' I' Gardner, R'N' Miller, and F. Wann, "HIV Infection among Members of the rmy Reserve components Resicling in New York cty, " New York StaEe ,Journal of Medicine, 9Iz4'79-482, 1991. Cowan, D, N., J. F' Brundage, R. S' Pomerantz, R' N' Miller, and D' S' Burke, "HIV Infection among Members of the U'S' Army Reserve components with MedicaL ancl Health occupations," ,rournaT of the American Medcal Assocation, 265(21) t2826-2830, 1991 '
Cowan,
D. N., R. S' Pomeran]z, Z. F..Wann, M' Goldenbaum, J' F' Brundage, R' Mi11er, D' S' Burke, and C. ' carrol1, Walter Reed ReErovirus Research Group "i{uman Immunodeficiency Vrus InfecLion among Members of Lhe Reserve components of the us Army: Prevalence, rncidence, and Demographic characteriseics, " Journaf of InfecEious Diseases, I62:827 -836, I990
.
.:
DanieIl, F. D., R. R' Skelly, S. Friedman, D' SIifer, G' Anderson, S' Mclean, and L. Johnson, 'HIV PrevenEive Medicine Services and Public HeaLth Incerventons: The Bethesda Experience," Mifitary Medicine, I55tI-27, 1990. Dannenberg, A, L., "MortaliEy among 1862 HfV-Antibody-Positive civilian Applicants for Military service: P,reliminary Resufts," New EngTand Journaf of Medicine, 321 (18 l:1261, 1989.
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
- 483 :
DepartmenEofDefense,Directive:HunanllnmunodeficiencyVirus_7(HIV1-), No. 6485.L, 3/19/9I' J' Hu' et Fleming, P. L., J. W. t{ard, M' W' Morgan' J' W' Bushler' D' al.,"MandaEoryHIVReporLing:characteristicsofAdultsReporEed withHIVComparedEoAIDSinLheUnitec]states,''InEernacionalAIDS Conference, BerJ-in, 1993 (absEract) ' Polk' Fox, R,, D' Ostrow, R. Valcliserri, B' Van Raden' and B' F' Multicenter ,changes in sexual ctivities Among Participants in the Conference on AIDS cohor! Study.,, presented at the Third rnEernational AIDS, Washington D.C., 1987 ' Frazzni, L,, "HIV: Naw Pl-cgram*-carng for People," A17 Hands' sept' l, 1990 . Gardner,L.I.,J'F'Bruncage,D'S'Burke'J'G'l'fcNiel'R'Vsintine' and R. N. MiIJ-er, "Evidence for Spreacl of the Human Immunodeficiency VirusEpidernicintoLowPrevalenceAreasoftheUnitedstates,,, JournaJ.ofAcquiredJutu::eDeficiencySyndromes,2l52t.532']-989. L' BaIazs' Garland, F. c., E. D' Gorham S' O' Cunnion' M' R' MilIer' L' andtheNavyHlVWorkingGroup,,,Declj.neinHumanlmmunodeficiency VirusSeroposiLivityandseroconversioninUsNavyEnliscedPersonnel: 1986to:-98g,,mericanJournaTof''PublicHea]-Eh,82:581-584'1992. E' K' Shaw' E' Garland, F. C', D. L. Mayers, T' M' Hickey' M'R' Miller' of Human Gorham, L. R. Bigiree, ancl M' M' McNaIy' "lncidence D. Immunodeficiency Virus Seroconversion in US Navy and Marine Corps Personnel,lgs6throughlgBs,"JournaloftheAnlericanMedicaT Association, 262122 ) ;3161-3165, 1989 ' E' K' Shaw' E' Garland, F. C', D' L' Mayers, T' M' Hickey' M' R' Miller' of Human and M' M' McNaIly' "Incidence D. Gorham, L. R' Bigbee. TmmunodeficiencyVirusseroconversioninUsNavyandMarineCorps Personnel, 1986 through l98B: Result of TotaI Screening"' Report HRD_ Genera]- Accounting office, Eff'ects of AID] in the Mi]itary, 90-39, \4ashington, DC, 1990 '. Detection of Gerge, J' R', and G. SchocheEman, "serologic TesEs for the Infection"' in G' Schochetman and J' R' Human Jmmunodeficiency Virus George(ecls.),AIDSTesting:MethodoTogyndMangementssues' Springer-Verlag, New York' 1992' cross, M, L' , R. W, Rencli.n, C. w. Chilclress, and M' D' Kerstein' MiJitary "Benefits of HIV Testing cluring Military Exercises "' Medicine, !54(L2) :593-595, 1989'
:]
HeaTEh Hanson, R. K., "ProstiLurtion: The AIDS Multiplier' " Pacific 2-3, AugusL 1992' ButJetin, PP.
-484!" Pacif ic Heaith Hanson, R' K., "l'4arj-nes fnvolvecl in WestPac Revolution 3 -4, August 1990 ' Bul,l-etin, PP ' of AIDS' " Hanson, R' K., 'The 'Normal' 'yESTPAC Exper-ience in the Era pp' 1-2, ecemker 1991' Pacific Health BulJetjn,
Hoffman, K. J., "Mancacory HIV Testing and the Duty to Screen"'MiTiEary Medicine, 155 (5) t195-2Q1, 1990 '
G' Horsburgh, R' R', J. Jason, I' Longini' K' H' Mayer' G' Schochetman' Y' Ou' S' D' Holmberg' C' Schable' W, Rutherford, G. R' Seage. III, E' "Duraton of A. R, Lifson, J' lnl . Ward, B' L' EvatL' and H' W' Jaffe' of Antibody,' Virus Infection Before Detection Hunan Immunocleficiency
Lancet,
8664:63"7
-639,
1989 '
Joseph, .f' G., S. B. lulonEgomery, C' A' Emmons' R' C' Kessler' Ostrow, C. B. WorLman, K' O'Brien, M' Eller' and '9' Eshleman' Risk ReducLion: "MagniLude and Determinants of Behavioral n LongiEudinal AnaJ'ysis of a Cohort at Risk for AIDS' PsychoTogical 1987 , Vol . 1, IrP ' '13-96 ' HeaIth, to Kanouse, D,, S. Berry, M' Gorman,' E' Yano' anc S' Carson' 'Response
G'
D'
AngeJes Councy,
Kanouse, D., S' Berry, M' Gorman, E' Yano' S' Carson' and ' ResponseEotheApsEpjdenlic,AIDS-ReTaEedKnowTedge,AEEitudes,
R-4054-LACH, 1991b
Abrahamse'
"
A7J'
Hands' Sept'
and
KelIey, P. ., R' N' Ml1er, R' PomeranCz' F ' VJann' J' F' Brundage' D. s. Burke, 'Human Immunocleficiency Virus Seropositivity among MembersoftheAcEiveDuLyUSArmylg85-1989''AmericanJournaLot PubTic Health, S0 ( 4 ) :405-410, 1990 '
Levin,L.I',T'Peterman,V'LasIey-Bibbs'P'RenzuIIo''l'4cNeil'and Associated the seroconversion Risk Factor stucy Group, "Risk Behaviors with Recent HIV Seroconvq.rsion among Young Men in Lhe United States Army,'Posterpresentecl"c(t-'"VITfInternationafConferenceonAIDS'
msterdam, 1992.
Longnj., I. M', and R. Horsburgh, "The SEages of HIV InfecLion: Wai'Eing Times and Infection Transmisson Probabi].ities,,, in C' Castillo_chavez (ed.),LectureNotesinBiorraLhenatics'springer-Verlag'NewYork'
1ao
GoeLz' C' W Lucey, D. R', G. P' Melcher, C' w' Henclriz' R' A' Zajac' D' ' A.Butzin,M.CIerici,R,D'Warner,S'Abl:adessa'K'HaIl'R'Jaso' G' B. Woolford, S. MiIler, N' I' Stocks' C' M' Salinas' W' H' Wolfe'
4Bs -
Infection M, Shearer, and R. N' Boswel], "Human fmmunode'ficiency Virus intheUSArForce:Seroconversions'Clinicalstaging'and change in Assessment of a T Helper cell Functj-onaf Assay Eo Predict cD4+ .I ceI} CounLs,,, JournaT of Infectious Djseases, ]-64:63l._631,
1001
Magruder, C., L' Gardner, P' Jenkihs, K' Evans' L' Lado' "Demographic Characteristics and Recent Tempora Trencls in Sexualfy TransmitEed Disease in a Mililary PopuIaLion,,, IncernationaT Conference on AIDS' TuC 0541, 1992 (a]:sLracL) '
Martin,J.L.,L.Dean,M.Garcia,andl^J'HaIl"'TheImpacEofAIDSona GayCommunity:CharrgesinSexualBehavior,substanceUse,andMenLal No' Health, " American JournaL of Cotmunity Psyehology' L989' VoI' 17' pp . 269-293. 3,
Patterns Martin, J. L., "The fmPact of AIDS n Gay Male Sexua1 Behavior 7'7 (5) :578CitY, " Anerican JournaL of Pubiic HeaTth, 198'l , in New York
581.
McGrane, W.
1990.
L., and F' J' Toth, "Use of InLeractive Media for HIV'/AIDS Prevention in the MiliEary Community,, MiliEary Medicine, 1,552235-240,
McNeil, J. G., J. F' Bruncage ' Z' F.' vJalln, D' S' Burke' and R' N' "DirecC Measurement Miller, The walter Reed Retrovirus Research Group, a Serially Tested of Human rmmunodeficiency Virus,Seroconversions in population of Young AdLllts in Ehe unitecl sEates Army, october 1985 to october tg81," New EngJand,Iournal- of Medicine, 320:1581-1585, 1989' McNeil. J' G., J. F. Bruncage, z, F. Wann. D' s' Burke, R' N. MiIler. Walter Reed Army Institut'e of Research' "HIV Seroconversion in the U.S' Army, " New Eng:Jand Journaf of Medicine' 32Ll2I\ tL477-I478' 1989. IresPonse Lo Al1ard] McNeil, J. G., .I . F. Brunclage, L' I ' Gardner' P' Wann' P' O' Renzullo' R, R, Redfiel-d, D' S- Burke, and R' N' Miller' US Army Retrovirus i'n Research Group, "Trends of HIV Seroconversion among Young Adults Ehe US Army, 1985 to tg}g,' Journai of the Arnerican MedicaT Association, 265 (13 ) tI709-L'1 14, 199'1 ' McNeil, J. G., F. Wann, L. L Garclner, and J' F' Brundage' US Army Retrovirus Research Group, "Trencls of HIV Seroconversion among Young Americans serving in the united sLates Army: 1985-I99I," InternaEionaf Conference on AIDS, Poc 4007, 8(2) :C246' L992 (abstract) ' Military Law Task Force, MiliLary PoIicy
lune 1989.
ot't
N.wy,DepartmenLof,,,l"lanagementofl,IumanTmmunodef!cencyVirus-1 (Hrv-1) fnfecLion in Lhe,tsavy and tiarine corps,'sEcNAV InstrucLion 5300.30C, March 1990.
486
CTinical Nishimoto, P. v., "HIV InfecEion and Women of the Military'" L990' fssues j PerjnataT llomen's HeaJEh NursinEr' 1(1):107-114' PtactiEioner' O'Grady, S', "AIDS ClassificaLion and che MiIitary"' Nurse 1991. 16(6):16-l-8, PeLersen, L', M, Busch, G' SaELen, R' Dodd' D' Henrad' et a1" 1'l2 Generation Anti-HIV "Narrowingf Ehe Winclow Periocl with a Third of Blood Enzyme Irnunoassay: Relevance to P24 Antigen Screening in Ehe U'S'," PosEer presented at IX fnternational AIDS Donors Conference, Berlin, 1993'
Prier,R.E',andJ.G'McNeil;"HIVInfecEon:MilitaryOccupationaJ' SequeJ-ae , " Military Medicine' 156:108-113 ' 1991 ' Ehe U'S' Renzull-o, P.. J. McNeiI, F' Wann, L' Gardner' J' Brundage' and MilitaryMec]icaICorsortiumforppIedRetroviralResearch,"HIV SeroconversionTrendsamongYoungAmericansServingintheUnited statesArmy:Lg85-Ig92,,.PosEerpresenLedaELheIXInLernationaIAIDS Conference, Berlin' 1993 ' Renzul]'o, P' o., J' G. McNeil, L. I. Garc]ner, and .]. F. Brundage' ,,InpatientMorbidibyamongHlV-InfectedMaleSoldiersPriortoTheir DiagnosisofHlVlnfection,',A.lnerican,]ourna].ofPubTicHeaTth'
81(10) :1280-1284, 1991
F' RenzulIo, P. o', J. G, McNeil, L' I' Levin' J' R' Bunin' and J' Virus Brundage, "Risk Factors for Prevalent Human Immunodeficiency No (HIV) InfecLion in ctive DuLy Army Men Who Initially Report Tdentifiecl Rsk: A Case-control SEucly '', JournaT of Acquired Jmmune Deficiency Syndrones, 3 t266-2'lI, l-990'
Rothberg,,J.M.,M.!^J'Bain,W'Boggiano'andW'R'CIine"'Dealingwith the stress of an HIV_Posltive Dlagnosis at an Army Medj-cal Center',, Military Medicine, 155:98-104, 1990 ' R' Ledsky, Runde]l, J. R., L' Temoshok, S. ]"1 ' Blake, E. S. Sharp, andDiseases in Associatecl with Acquiring $eually Transmitted "Factors the U.S ' rmy, ,, Internalionaf Conference on AID1, Thc 1558, 8 (1) :1h.77 ' t992 (absrract).
SchocheEman, G', and Management fssues,
J' R, George (eds')' f.DS Testing: MethodoTogy and Springer-Verlag' New York' L992' R' Seibt, A, C., A. L' McAlisLer, A' C' Freeman' M' A' Krepcho' A' Men Who anc] A. Wilson, ,,Colldom Use anc] Sexual Identity Among Hedrick, Have Sex with Men--DaItas, 199L," Jour-ta7 of the American MedicaL Association, 269 (6) t734, 1993 ' Selik,R.M.,S'Y.Chu,anclJ'W'Buehler"'HlVlnfectionasLeading of cause of Death among Young Adults irr us cilies and states," JournaT 269(23l :2991-2994' 1993' the Aterican Medical- Associat'ion,
.\,
49,1
Silvestre,AnthonyJ.,Lawrence'Kingsley'PatricaWehman'Ryan in HIV Rates and Dappen, Monto Ho, ancl Charles R' Rinafdo' "Changes 1984 to 7988/92"' American Sexual- Behavior among Homosexuai Men, Journal of Pubiic Heal'Elt, 1993, Vol ' 83 ' No' 4' pp' 578-580 ' Smith, T' W,, "Adu1t Sexual Behavior n 1989: Number of Partners' Frequency of InLercourse, and Risk of AIDS"' FamiTy Planning Perspec]ives, 23 (3) r102-107, 1991' StaII, Ron, Thomas J. Coates, ancl CoIIeen Hoff' 'Behavioral Risk ReductionforHlVlnectionAmongGayancBisexua}Men;AReviewof ResultsfromtheUnit'edStateS,',AnericanPsychoJogist,1988,Vol.43' No.11, PP.878-885. Jeff Sta11, Ron, Don BarreLt, Larry Bye, Joe Cabania' Chuck Frutchey' Older and Henne, George Lemp, and Jay Paul, "A Comparison of Younger GayMen'sHrvnisk-takingBehavj.ors:ThecommunicationTechnologies 19B9Cross-Sectonalsurvey,,,JournaTofAcquiredrmmuneDeficiency Syndromes, 1992, Vol' 5, PP ' 682-681 ' and R. Ledksy, Temoshok, L., S. M' Btake, J' R' Rundell' E, S, SharP, Risk-Relevc-rnt Behaviors in the U.S. ArmY , " InternationaL "HfV Exposure (abstract) ' Confetence on AIDS, ThD 1528, 8(1):Th70' L992
Temoshok,
L., S' BIake, J' R' Runclell' R' Zachary' and D' Ostrow' ,,Factors Predicting Transmission Risk-Relevant Behaviors in PaEienLs,,' ln1ernaEional- Conferalce an AIDS, M'D' 4087 ' 7 (Ll:4]-I' 1991
(absEracE)
'
Temoshok,
L', "Prevent:-ng HfV Transmission by HlV lnfecEed lndividuals; Amsterdam' The Forgotten Focus," International Conference on AIDS' Address, JuIY 20, 1991' PlenarY ,,AlcohoI consumption and Unsafe Trocki, Karen F., anc] Barbara C' Leigh,
Sex:ComparisonofHeLerosexua]sandHomosexualMen,,,JournaTof pp' 981Acqltired J.runune Deiiciency Syndrone, 1991' Vol' 4' No' 10'
986.
c
Turner,Char].esF',HeatherG'Miller,anclLincoInE.MoSes(eds')' AIDI, Sexua-1 Behaviot", atTd InEravenous Drug tJse, washingEon, NaEionaI Academy Press, 1989' Warcl,J.W',anclD'P.Drotman,"EpiclerniologyofHIVandAIDS'"inG' wormser(ec]'),4D5ano'otherManifestationsofHlvlntectjon,2nd ecl., Raven Press, New York' 1992'
D'
'
Weniger,BruceG',KhanchitLimpakarnjararat'KumnuanUngchusak'Sombat Thanprasertsuk, Kachit Choopanya, supherk Vanichseni' Thongchai uneklaSh, Prasert Thongcharoen, anc chanEapong wasi, "The Epidemiology ofHlVfnfeccionandAlDsinThailan''AIDS'5(suppt2)r571-585'
r-991.
c00
w' Lang' R' Winkelste j.n, W' , Jr. , M. Samuel, N' S ' Paclian' 'J' A' Wiley' E,Anderson,andJ.'Levy,"TheSanFranciscoMen'sHealthStudy' Ill.Reducti.oninHumanlmmunodeficiencyVirusTransmissionAmong ,, ].98.7 ' Homosexual/BisexuaI Men, ,l.ner ican JournaT of PubIic Hea].th, . VoI. 77, PP. 685-689 J' F' l,{ithers, B. G., P. W. KelleY, q' G' McNeiI' ' B' N' Cowan' and of che Epiclerniology of HlV in the U'S' Brundage, "A Brief Review L992 ' Army, " MiTiEary Medicine, 157:80-84 "
BIBIJIoGHPHY FoR CHPTER
9
Gujdeljnes Amercan Medical Association (AM) , DiagnosEic and TreaEment fL' on Dornestic VioJ-ence, American Medical AssociaEion' Chicago' t992.
Anderson,c'L,,,,Ma]esassexua}AssaulEVictims:MulLip}eLevelsof pp' 145-1'62' Trauma, " Journaf of Honrosexualily, VoI' ? ' 1982'
Anti-Violence Project, Pless Release from Ehe Los Angeles GaY and L992' Lesbian connuniEy Servces Center, Los Angeles, CA. March 11, Berrill, K., "AnEi-Gay Violence and VictimizaEion in the United States: An Overview," Journa7 of InEerpersollal VioTence' Vol' 5' No' 3' 1990, pp . 21 4-294.
Bohn, T. R., "llomophob-c Violence: Implications for Social Work PracEice ,,, in Homosexua-li ty and Socja]' lVork, New York: Harringeon Press, Inc', 1984, PP' 91-J-12'
comsEock,
G, D., "vicLims tt R.'ri-av/Tlesbian violence," Journaf of Interpersonaf Viol'ence, Vol' 4, N' 1, f9B9' pp' 101-106'
Comstock,G.D',VioLenceAqait'tstLesbiansandGayMen'NervYork: Columbia UniversitY Press, 1991' Discrimination D'Auge1i, 4., "Lesbians' and Gay Men's Experiences of Journaf of and Harassment in a university communiLy," merjcan Coununjty PsychoLoqy, VoI. 1?, No' 3, 1989' Finn,P',anc]T'McNei].,BjasCrjllleandCrjrjnafJustjceResponse: 'SurrunaryRepc.rEPreparedforEheNatjolra.lCrjlnjna-lJusticeAssociation,
Cam}:ridge, MA,
19BB '
No'
VioJence Gross, L., S. Aurand, A' Aclclessa, eL aI ., Discrimination andCornrnonwealth Against Lesbiart wdnetj a)7d Gey Men itt Philadelphja ad Ehe
-489of PennsyTvania, The Philadelphia Lesbian and Gay Task Force' Philadelphia, P, L992' Harry,J','DervativeDevianceTheCaseofExtortion'Fag-Bashi'ng'and ShakedownofGayMen,"CritinoTogy,Vol'19'No'4'L982'pp'546-565' of InterPersonaf Harry, J., "conceptualizing An!-Gay VioIence"' JournaT Vioience, Vo1' 5, No' 3, 1990' pp' 350-358' Issues for Herek, G. M', "Hate Crinres Against Lesbians and Gay Men: No' 6' June Research and Policy," Anterican PsychoTogisL' Vol' 44'
1989, PP.948-955'
of Herek, G. M., and K' T' Berril], "Documenting Lhe VicbimizaLj-on Methodologca1 rSSues," JournaJ. of rnEerpersonaT Lesbians anc Gay Men: Violence, Vo1. 5, No' 3, 1990, pp' 30L-315'
Herek,G.M',anc]K.T'Berritl,,,PrirnaryandsecondaryVictimizationin Anti-GayHaLeCrimes:officialRes.ponseandPubticPolicy,"Journalof Interpersonal- violence, VoI' 5, No' 3' 1990' pp ' 40l.-4I3' (ecls')' HaEe Crimes: ConfronEing Herek, G. M., and K. T. Berrill London: SAGE VioJ.ence AgainsE Lesbjans and Gay Men' Newbury Park' PublicaEions, 1992 ' ,,Project Safe: An rmed Forces McNe}is, P' .T., and, S. J. Awa}t', CooperativelnitiativeForthePrevenLionanc]TreatmentofFamily violence,,, EvaJ.uation and Progrant PTanning, VoI. 9, !986, pP' 233-241 NaLiona}Gay&LesbianTaskForcePo}icylnstitute(NGLTF),AntiGay/LesbjanVjoTence,Viccirrrization&Detanlationinl99l-:Locaf TrendsvicEimizatjonsLucJjes,IncidentDescripEions,officiaJ'& CommunjEy Responses, Washington' D'C'' 1992' Naciona]Gayt.Les}ranTclskForcePo}icyInSLitute(NGLTF),AnEiGay/LesbianViofence,Victjnizatjollt,Defamationin]-992:Locaf ,lrends VicEinlizaEjor Sudjes, Ilcident Descriptions, officia] Communiy Responses, l^lashingLon, D'C' ' 1993'
e
'
Reiss,A.,Jr.,andJ.A.Rolh(eds')'UnderstandingandPrevenEing Vioience, Washington, D'C': National Acaclemy Press' 1993 ' of Pol"l , " San Francisco Exaniner' June 6 ' ]-989 ' p' A-19 '
'/ResuLLs
Sales,E.,M.Baum,anc]B.Shore,',,Vic,timreacljustmentfollowing assaulL,"JournafofsociaLrssues,Vol'40'No'1'1984'pp'117-136' Crimes,,, Sessions, W., ,,Data rrom Lhe FBI'S Statistical Program on Hate Press Release, U.S, Department of Justice' 1991- '
Down Gay Sterngol-d, J', "KiIler Gets Life as Navy Says He HunLed p' 1' Sailor, " The Netv York Tintes, MaY 28' 1993' Secti'on A'
- 490 -
the UniEed States' U,S. DeparLment of Justice, Crjrjnal VicLjljzaon in jona.l Crjrle VjcEinzaEion Report, NcJ-139563, Washington, 1991.: . Nat D.C., December 1992'
.
Wertheimer,D."TreatmentandservicelnterventionsforLesbianandGay VoI. 5, No' 3, Male Crime Victims,,, Journal of InterpersonaT Viofence, pP' 384-400' 1990, Yeskel,F,,TheConsequencesofBeingGay:AReportontheQualityof LifeforLesbian,cayandBjsexua.lstudentsaLbhe'Universiyof MassachuseEts .-tt Amherst, AmhersL ' 4' June i'985 '
BIBI,IOGRPHY FOR CITAPTER 10
(ARI)
Borman, II . C', S. J' MoEowidlo, S' R' Rose' and L' M' Hanser' evelopmenlofaModelofsol'dierEffectiveness'Alexandria'VA: Sciences' U.S. Army Research InsLiLuLe for the Behavioral and Social
1,981
.
Criterion Petfotmance Dr-tf fy, and S' Shif letrt' jn Smal] Combat UniEs, Measures ot Leadership and UniE EffecEjyeness Alexandria,VA:U's.ArmyResearchlnstituEefortheBehaviora]-and Social- Sciences ' 1975' on EaEon, N.K., and J' F' Neff, The EffecEs of Tank Crew I\rbuLence Tank Gunt)ery PerfornlCr Alexandria, VA: u.s. Army Research InSctutefortheBehaviora}.anc]'Socia,ISciences,I9.78. Hedlund, M', ancl E. Yoest, croup Cohesian in Conbat: A Review' Alexandria,VA:U.S.rmyResearchlnstitutefortheBehavioraland Sociaf Sc j-ences ' 19B4 ' Henderson,W.D.,Cohesiott:f]heHurnal:Efetttent'NaLionalDefense UniversitY Press, f9A5' Henderson,W.D.,TheHollowA-my,NevJYork:GreenwoodPress'1990' Anong U.S. Maef, F. A., Measuring Leadership, MotivaLjont and Cohesion the SoJdiers, lexanclria, VA: U'S' Army Research TnsLiLute for Arny j-aI Sciences, 1989 ' Behavioral ancl Soc Nieva, V' F', E' A. Fleishman, A. Rieck, and H' C. Slrasel, Their Measuremet' and Their Dimensjons: Their Identity, RelaEjonships,Alexanclria,VA:U.S..ArmyResearchInstiEuteforthe Behavioral ancl Social Sciences, 1985'
Team
oliver, L. 14., ?he Re]aionship of Group Cohesion Eo Group Performance: AResearchnEeqraEjonAttejnpL,AIexandria,VA:U.s'ArmyResearch for the Behavioral and SociaL sci'ences' 1988' Institute
-49t-
oliver,L'W..CohesiollResearch:Col.,CeptuafandMethodoTogjcafrssues, lexandria,VA:U,S'ArmyResearch'Ins!ituteforEheBehavioraland Social Sciences, 199 0a ' oliver,L'w',?heRe-ZatjonshipofGroupCohesiontoGroupPerformance: A Meta-Ana-lysis and crj Eique of Ehe LiEerature, unpublishedfor Lhe manuscript, Alexantfria, VA: U'S' Army Research nsttute Behavioral ancl Social Sciences, 1990b'
CombaE Pl-aEoon Siebold, G. L', and D' R' KelTy, Development of the Research InsLiEute puest.ionnaj:-e, A]exandria, VA: U.S' Army Cohesion Personnel for the Behavioral and SociaI Sciences' Manpower and 1988a Research Laboratory,
.
Platoon Cohesion Siebold, G. L', and D, R' KeI1y; DeveTopntertt of the VA: U'S' Army Reearch InsLitute folt-he Index, Alexandria, Research Behavioral ancl SociaI Sciences, Manpower and Personnel 19Bgb' LaboratorY, on Leader BehaviorYoest,, E. 8., ancl T. R. Tremble, "Impact of Cohesion in A' D. Mangelsclorf f and .]. M. King (eds. ), ouEcome Relatonships,,, CohesjonandMoEiva-tion:Mu7Ei-NaljonafEfforEsinEheArmedForces, UnitedstatesArmyHea].thCareSLuc]iesandClinicallnvesigaLion TX: U'S' AcEiviEy, ConsuLtton Report #85-001' Fort Sam Houston' Army Health Services Conmand, 1985' p' 6-14" Walter Reed Army InslEute of Research
(I^IRIR)
CrossGa1, R., and F' J. Manning, "Morale and fts Components: 17, Nationat ComParison , " JournaL of Appfied Socjal. PsychoTogy, Vo1 ' 369-391. 1987, PP.
Griffith,J.,GroupCoJ:esjcn,TrainirtgPerforntance'sociaTsupport'and theArn/'sNeUnitneplacententSystenl'WashingLon'D'C';DeparEment of Mj. IiLary PsychiaLty, Wttttt Rgec Amy Insti-tuLe of Research' 1987 ' Griffith, J., "Measuremenu of Grop cohesion in U's' rmy UniEs"' Basic AppTied Social PsvchoTogy, Vol-' 9' 1988' pp' 149-171' and J,, "The Army's New Uni'L Personnel Replacement and lLs criffith, Rela!ionship Lo unit cohesion.and social support," MiTitary PsychoTogY, Vol. 1, 1989, P:' I7 -34'
on Anerican lnqraham, L. H., The Boys jlr he Barracks: Observajons MiliEary Lif e, Phi-acelphi'r, PA: ISHI' L984 '
-492Ingraham, L. H,, Fer and LoaEhing jn Lhe Motor Pool., washington' D.c' WaIter Reed rmy Institul-e of Research, 1986'
Kirkland, F. R., Leading it- cohort cotttpanies, Report WRAIR NP-88-13' Washington, D'C.: Walter Reed Army InstituEe of Research, 1987' Kirkland,
F. R., eb a}. , Unit Manning: SysEen Fjeld Evaluation, of Research, 7987 I^iashingLon, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute
Manning,F'J,,,,Plusesanc]MinusesofUnitCohesion:SomeHypotheses Based on observations of Army special Forces," in A. D. Mangelsdorff and J, M. King (eds.), cohesjon and Motivation: MuTti-NationaT EfforEs in ehe rrned FoIces, UniLed StaEes Army HealLh Care SEudies and cLinicaJ Investigation ActiviLy, consultaLion ReporL +85-001-' Fort sam HousEon, TX: U.S. Army Health services command, 1985, p.
Manning, F. J., and L. H' Ingraham, An InvesEigation inEo the Vafue of lniE Cohesjon jn PeaceEine, Washington, D'C': Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1983 ' Manning, F. ql ., and T. D. FuIlerbon, "Health and I,1eI1-Being in Highly cohesj.ve units or the u.s. Army," Journaf of AppTied social" PsychoTogy, VoI. 18, 1988, pp. '503-519 ' Marlowe, D. H', Cohesion, rrbjcjpated Breakdown, and Endurance in BaEtTer consjderatior:s fo.- ,severe and High rnLensity combat, unpubl ishecl ciraf t . lnlashingron, D. c . : walter Reed rmy InsL itute of Research, t979 '
Driske11, J. E., R' Hogan, ancl E. Salas, "Personality and Group performance," in c. Henclrick (ed.), Group Processes and Intergroup Felatjons, Nevrbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987 '
Dropp, A. H., uniE cohesion and Ehe surface Navy: Does cohesion Atfect Perfornance?, Master's Thesis, Naval PostgraduaLe School, MonLerey,
California,
1989.
Garvey, G. J,, ancl J, J' DiIuIio, Jr., Republic, April 26, 1993, pp . L.B-2I
New
- 493 i
Goodacre, D' M. III, ,,The Use of a Sociometrc TesL as a Predictor of pp' L48-L52' ComiraL UnL Effectiveness," SocionteEry, VoI' I4' 1951' Goodacre, D' M' ]II, ,,Group Characteristics of Good and Poor Performing CombaE Unj-Ls , " SocioneLriy, Vo1' 16, 1953, pp' 168-179 ' HemphilJ., J' K.. and L. Sechrest, "A Comparison of Three CriLeria of Air Crew EffecEiveness in Conbat over Korea," 'Journaf of AppJied Psychology, VoI. 36, 1952, pp ' 323-32'7 '
Ho]zwarth, D. R', Cahesiott uilding in the Training Base: New perspective, usAIJC MiIiEary stuclies Program Paper, Carlisle Barracks. Pennsylvania: U,S ' rmy War ColIege, 1988 '
.]ohns, J. H', et aI', Cohesion in the U.s' Military, Defense Management Study Group on Mi]i!aIy Cohesion, WashingLon, D.c.: National Defense UniversiEY Press, l-984.
Kahan,,J.P.,N'Webb,R.J.Shavelson,andR'M'SEolzenberg' lndividuaf CharacterisLcs ad UniE Performance: A Revievt of Research and MeEhods, R-3194-MIL, Sant'a Monica, CA: RAND. 1985Kish, F. 8,, cohesion: The vitaT Ingredjent for successfuT Army units, carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania: u.s. Army War Co1lege, 1982' Mangelsdorf f , A' D., ancl J. I'l . King (eds ' ) , Cohesion and Motivation: MuJti-NaEjonal Efforts in the Artned Forces, United States Army Health care studes and cliricaL lnvesigaLion Actvity, consulLation Report #85-001, ForE Sam Houston, TX: U.S. Army Health services command,
1985.
Mareth, T, R., and A. E' B::ooker, "Combat Stress Reaction: A Concept in Evol-ution,' Military Medicjne, Vo1. 150, 1985, pp' 186-190'
Nerv
1947.
Motowidlo, S. J,, and W' C. Borman, "ReLationships Between MiliLary MoraLe, Motivation, satisfactj-on, anc uniL Effectiveness, " JournaT of Applied PsychoTogy, VoI- 63, 1978, pp' 4'l-52' NeIson, P. D., and N, H. Berr-y, cohesjon in Marine .Recruit Pl-atoons, ReportNo.66-26.\,JashingEon,D'c.;NavyMedicalNeuropsychiatrl-c UniE,BureauofMec]icinecanc]surgery,DepartmenfoftheNavy,1968. sarkesian, S. C. (ed' ), ConlbaE EffecEiveness: Cohesion, ^stress, and the VofunEeer MiTiEary, Beverly HilIs, CA: Sage, 1980'
Savage, P. L., ancl Gabrie}, R' 4., .,Cohesion and Disintegration in
Ehe
- 494 Scull, K, C., COHESION: ,lhL We Learned from COHQR?, USAWC Military Studies Program Paper, Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War ColJ'ege,
1990.
Shils, E. A., ancl M. JarorviLz, "Cohesion and DisintegraLion in the Wehrmacht in World War Ir," Public opinion Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1948, pp. 280-315 ' Tziner, 4.. and Y' Vardi, "Effects of Command style and Group Cohesiveness on the Performance EffecLiveness of Self-Selected Tank Crews," Journaf of AppTied PsychoJogy, YoI. 6'7, 1982, pp. 769-7'75' Tziner, 4., and Y. Vardi, "biIiLy as a ModeraEor BeEween cohesiveness and Tank crews Performance,,' JournaT of occupaEionaf Behayjour, vol. 4, 1983, pp. 137-143. Vickers, R, R., M. T. WalIick, and L' K' Hervlg, The Marine corps Basic Training Experience: .gtresses, Leadership, and Group Cohesion as predictors of Atti:udes, Health, and Performance, Bethesda, MD: NavaL Health Research Cent.er, 1982'
Wesbrook, S, D,, "The PotenLial for Military Disintegration," in S. C. Sarkesian (ed. ) , Corrrbat Ef f ecEiveness; Cohesion, ,9tress, and the VoJunteer MiTitary (pp. 244-218), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980'
WilLiams, R. M., "The American Soldier: An Assessment, SeveraL LaLer, " PubLic Opittott Quar.-Le.r-y, Vol . 53 , 1989 ' pp. 155-174 .
smal1 Group Psychology f,iterature
Adams,
Wars
s., ,status congruency as a variable in smalL GrouP Performance," Social Forces, 1953, PP. 16-22,
Anthony, T., et a1., The EffecE of toup Mendrer SimilariEy on Cohesj,eness; Do Birds of a Feather ReaJJy Ffock Together? Unpublished nanuscripL, Department of Psychology, Syracuse
University,
1993.
Back, K. W., "Influence Through Social Communication," JournaL of Abnormaf and Social Psychology, YoL 46' 1951. pp- 9-23.
Beeber, L. S., and M, H. Schmitt, "Cohesveness in Groups: A Concept in Search of a Definition, " Advances in NursinEr Science, VoI. B, l-986, pp. L-11.
Berkowitz, L. , "Group Stanclarcls , Cohes iyeness , anc Procuct ivi Relatjons, VoI . 7 , Ig54, pp.. 509'-51.9 '
EY
"
Human
-495Berscheict, E., ,, Interpersonal Att.racEon, " j-n G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds,), The Handbook oi SociaT PsychoTogy (3rd ed,), Vol' 2, 1985'
pp. 413-484.
Bo1Ien, K. 4., and R. H' Hoyle, "Perceived Cohesj-on: A Conceptual and Empirical Examinatiorr, " .scjal Forces, VoI . 69, l-9'90, pp . 479-504 '
Cartwright, D., "The Nature of Group Cohesiveness" (3rd ed'), in cartwrighc and A. Zancler (eds'), Group Dltnamics: Theory and Research, New York: Harper f. Row, Chap. 7. 1968, pp. 91-109'
D'
Col1ins, B. 8., and B. H. Raven, "Group Structure: AEtraction. Coalitions, Communication, and Power" (2nd ed.), in G. Lindzey and E' Aronson (ecls,) , The Handbook of SociaT Psychology, Vo7, 4: Group psychology and Phenonlena of rnteraction, chap. 30. 1969, pp. 102-L26. Davis, J. H,, Group Pe:fortnance, Reading, pp. 7BrB1.
Mass.
: Addison Wesley,
1-969,
Dion, K. J., N. Mi11er, ancl M' N. Magnan, "Cohesiveness and Social Responsibility as Determinants of Group Risk Taking, " Journaf of PersonaiiEy and SocjaJ Psychology, YoI. 20, 1971, pp' 400-406' Dion, K. L., "fntergroup Conflict and fnEragroup Cohesiveness," in W' G' AusEin and S. lIorchel (eds. ) , The Soca7 PsychoTogty of Intergroup Re-lat jons (pp. 211-224 ) , Morcerey, C: Brooks/CoIe, I979.
Drescher, S., G. BurJ-ingae, ancl ' Fuhriman, " Cohesion: An Odyssey in Empirical Understancling," smalJ Group Behavior, Vol. 16, 1985' pP' 330.
Duckitt, J., "Authoricaianism ancl Group IdenEification: New View of an old ConstrucE," PoliEicaJ Pycho)oqy, VoL. 10, 1989. pp' 63-84'
Eisman, B., "Some Operational Measures of Cohesiveness and Their Interrelations, " HuJtt.t.rl Re-laLjolrs, Vol ' 12, 1959, pp. 183-189 ' Evans, N, J,, and K. L. Dion, "Group Cohesion and Performance: A MetaAnalysis," gmalJ Group Research, YoL. 22, 1991, pp' 175-1-86. Evans, N. J., anc P. A. Jarvis, "Grollp Cchesion: A Review and Reevauation, " Sma-ll. Group Behavior, Vol. 11, 1980, PP' 359-370. Evans, N. J., anc P, A. Jarvis, "The Group Atttude Scale: A MeasuremenL of AtLt-action t.o Group, " gnal-1 Group Behavior, Vol- 17, 1986, pp. 203-216.
FesEinger, L,, "Informal Socia] CommunicaLiont " PsychoTogical Review, Vol. 57, 1950 , PP. 21I-282 '
- 496 French, J.R.P., Jr', "The Basis of SociaL Power," n D' Cartwright (ed.), studjes n gociaJ- Powef, Ann rbor, MI: Institute for social Research, 1959. Gross, N., "Primary Functions of the small Group, " Atnerican Journal of SocioTogy, VoI. 60, 1954, PP. 24-29' Gross, N., and w. E. MArtin, "on Group cohesiveness, " An'terican JournaT of SocioLogy, YoI. 57, 1952, pp. 546-554'
Hof f man,
L, R . , and N. R. F . Maier, "Qr-ral ity clnd Accept.ance of Problem solutions by Members of Homogeneous ancl HeEerogeneous Groups, " Journal of PersonaliEy and SociaJ. PsychoTogy, VoI' 6, 1967, pp' I15t82.
Hogg,M,A.,TheSociaiPsychoTogyofGroupCoi:esivenessrFrcm AEtracEion to sociaf Identiy, Nerv York: New York universiby Press,
].992
.
Hogg, M. A., and T' C. Turner, "InEerpersonal EtracEion, Social fdentification, and Psychological Group FormaLion, " European ,Iournalof SociaT PsychoJ.ogy, VoI. 15, 1985, pp. 51-66'
Janis, I. L,, Groupthjnk: PsychoTogicaL gLudies of PoTicy Decisions Fjascoes (2rc1 ed. ) , Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983 '
and
Kerr, N. L., "MoLivation Losses i-n Task-Performing Groups: A Social Dilemma Analysis," JournaT of PersonaJiLy and socia] PsychoTogy, vol' 45, 1983, pP. 819-828 . Kerr, N. L., anc R. J. MacCoun, "sex.Composition of Groups and Member Motivation: EffecEs of Relative Member Ability, " Basic and AppTied Sociaf PsychoJogy, Vo], 5,1984, pp.255-27t. Kerr, N. L., and R. J, Maccoun, "The Effects of Jury Size and Poling Method on the Process ancl Procluct of Jury Deliberations," ./ournaT of PersonaLity and Sociaf PsychoTogy, Vol' 48, 1985a, pp' 349-363' Kerr, N. L., and R. J. Maccoun, ,,Role Expectations in Social Dilemmas: sex Roles and Task Motivation in Gl.oups," Journal of Petsonality and SociaJ PsychoTogy, Vol' 49, 1985b, pp. 1547-1556' Kerr, N. L., and J. A. SLanfeI, Role schenras and Member Motivation in Task Groups, unpublishecl manuscripE, 'Michigan state university, September 10, L992' Latan, 8.. and S. Wolf, "The Social Impact of Majorties and Minorities," PsychoTogicaJ Review, VoI. 88, 198L, pp' 438-453' Levine, J. M., "ReacLion to opinion cleviance in small groups," in P' paulus (ec1., PsychoTogy of Group InfTuence (2nd ed,), 1989, pp. LB123r.
- 49 I -
Littlepage, G. E., L, CowarL, and B. Kerr, "Relationshp Between Group Environment scales and Group Performance and cohesion. " SmaTL Group Behavior, VoI. 20, 1989, PP, 50-6f . Longley, J., and D. G. Pruitt,,' "Groupthink: A Critigue of ,fanis's Theory," in L. Wheeler (ed.), Review of PersonaTity and SociaL PsychoJogry, Vol . 1, 1980, PP . 7 4-93 ' Lott, A. J., and B, E, LotE, "Group Cohesiveness, CommunicaEion Leve1, and Conformity, JournaT of Abnornal and Social Psychology, VoI. 62, 1-961-, pp . 4OB-412 . Lott, A. J., and B, E. LotE, "Group Cohesiveness as fnterpersonal Attraction: A Review of Relationships with AnEecedent and ConsequenE Variables," PsychoJoqicaJ BuTleEin, VoL 64, 1965, pp' 259-309'
Markides, K. C., and S. F. Cohn, "ExLernaI ConfLicL/Internal Cohesion: A Reevalua!ion of an ol-d 'Iheory, " nerjca: SocioJogica-1 Revjew. Vo1 ' 47 , 1982, pp. 88-98.
MarshaIl, J. ., and R. Heslj.n, "Boys and Girls TogeLher: Sexual Composition and the Effect of Density and Group Size on Cohesion. " Journaf of PersonaliEy and 9ocia. Psyehology, Vol. 31, 1975, pp. 952961.
McGrath, J. 8., "The InfLuence of Positive Ineerpersonal Refations on Adjustment and Effectiveness in Rifle Teams," Jaurnal of AbnormaT and Social- PsychoTogy, '1962, pp. 365-375.
Mccrath, J. E., Groups: inueraction and Performance, Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Ha11, 1984.
Mikalachki, 4., croup Cohesjon Reconsjdered, London, Canada: School of Business Administration, University of Western Ontario, 1969,
Moreland, R. L., ancl 'r. M. Levine, '/NevJcomers and Oldbimers in Small Groups" in P, B. Paulus (ed.), The PsychoJogy of Group InfLuence, (2nd ed.), 1989, pp. I42-L86. Moreland, R. L., and .1 . M. Levine, "The Composit.ion of SmaIl- Groups, " in E. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, and H. WaIker (eds,), Advances in Group Processes, Greenwich, CT: ,IAf Press, Vo1. 9, 1992, pp. 23'7280.
Mudrack, P. 8,, "Defining Gr:oup Cohesiveness: A Legacy of Confusion?," 9a11, Group Behavior, Vol . 20, 1989a, pp. 37-49. Mudrack, P. E., "Group Cohesiveness and Product.i-viLy: A Closer Look," Human ReJations, YoI. 42, 1989b, pp. ?7I-185.
- /oa
MulLen, B. , "Operationaliz j-ng t.he Ef f ect of Lhe Group on the Ind j-vidual A SeIf-AtbenLion Perspective," Journal of EvperjnenEal SociaT Psychology, VoI. 19, 1983, pp. 295-322.
Mullen, 8., and C, copper, The RefaEion BeEween Group Cohesiveness Performance: An Integration, Unpublished manuscripE, DepartmenE Psychology, Syracuse University, 1993.
and
o
Mullen, 8., e aL, "Group cohesiveness and Quality of Decision Making: n Integration of Tests of Ehe Groupthink Hypothesis," SnaJ)- Gtoutr) Research, in press. Piper, W. 8., et al-,, "Cohesion as a Basic Bond in Groups," Relations, Vo1. 36, 1983, p. 93-108.
Jluman
Park. W. W., "A Review of Research on GroupEhink, " Journaf of BehavioraT Decision Making, Vo1. 3, 1990, pp. 229-245.
RuEkowski, G. K,, C. L. Gruder, and D. Romer, "Group Cohesiveness. Social Norms, and Bystander fntervencion, " Journal of Personafity and SociaL Psycho)ogy, VoL. 44, 1983, pp. 545-552.
Schachter, S., "Deviation, Rejection, and Communicaton," JournaT of Abnormal ad Socjaf PsychoJogy, Vo]. 46, 1951. pp, 190-207. Schachter, S., The PsychoTogy of,4ffjljaLion, University Press, 1959.
Shaw, M.
Ner^r
Group Behavior,
Shepperd, J. 4., "ProductiviLy Loss in Performance Groups: Motivation Analysis , " Psycholoqi-c.t) Eullet j, VoL 113, 1993, pp. 67-81.
SLein, A. ., "Conflict and Cohesi.on: Review of Ehe Literature." JournaJ of Conffjct Resoluton, VoJ". 20, 1976, pp. L43-I72. SEeiner, L D,, Group Pocess and Produccivity, Press, 1-972
Sumner, W.
G.
New
York:
cademic
1906
Tanford, S,, and S, Penrod, "Social fnfluence Model: A Formal InEegraLion of Research on MajoriLy and Minority InfJ.uence Processes," PsychoTogical Bullelin, Vo1. 95, L984, pp. 189-225. Turner, .I C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Turner, and P. I'l . Smith, "Fail-ure and DefeaL as Determinants of Group Cohesiveness," British JournaT of Social Psycho)ogy, Vol. 23, 1984, pp. 97-11-1.
-499Tziner, 4., "Differential Effeccs of Group Cohesveness \rpes: Clarifying Overview, " Socja-l Behavior arrci Personality, VoI ' L982a, pp. 227 -239 .
L0,
Tziner, 4,, "Group Cohesiveness: A Dlrnamic Perspective," SociaL Behavior a::d PersonaJiLy, VoI. 10, 1982b, pp- 205-211.
Zaccaro, S. J., and C. A. Lowe, "Cohesiveness and Performance on an .Additive Task: Eviclence f or Multidimensionalily, " JournaT of .9mal1 Group Psychology, VoL 12B, 1-988, pp. 547-558'
Zecce'ro, S. J., and M. C. McCoy, "The Effects of Task and Interpersonal Cohesiveness on Performance of a Disjunctive Group Task, " ,fournal of ppJied .gocial PsychoTogy, Vo1' 18, 1988, pp. 837-851.
spores Llterature
Bird. A. M. "ConvergenL and fncremenEal EffecLs of Cohesi'on on ttributions for Self and Team," Journ"tf of Sport PsychoTogy' VoI.2'
1980, pp.1BL-193
Brawfey, L. R., A. V. Carron, and W. N. Widmeyer, "Assessing the Cohesion of Teams: VaIidiEy of the GrouP EnvironmenE QuesEionnaire," Journaf of Sport Psychology, Vol. 9, 1987, pp. 275-294. Carron, A, V., "Cohesiveness of Sport. Groups: InterpreEations and ConsideraEions, " Jourral. of .Sport PsychoTogy, Vol. 4, 1982, pp . I23138.
Carron, A. V., and P. Chelladurai, "The Dynamics of Group Cohesion in Sport," Journal of Sporc Psychology, Vol. 4, 1981, pp. 123-139' Carron, A, V,, W, N, Widmeyer, and'L. R' Brawley, "The Development of an Instrument to Assess Cohesion j,n'Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire," Journal- of SporE Psychology, Vol. ?, 1985, pp.244266.
Granito, V. J., and D. l,. Rainey, "Differnces in Cohesion Between High School and College Football Teams and gtarters and Nonstarters. " Perceptual and MoEor Skj.lls, Vol . 66, 1988, pp' 47L-4'"1 .
Landers, D. M., M. O. Wilkinson, B. D. Hatfield, and H. Barber, "CausaliLy and Lhe Cohesion-Performance Relat.ionshp," Journal of Sport PsychoTogy, Vo1. 4, 1982, pp. 170-183' Martens, R., and J. A. Peterson, "Group Cohesiveness as a Determinant of Success and I'fember Satisfact.ion in Team Performance " lnternaEionaL Review of SporE Psycho)ogy, Vol, 6, 1971, pp. 50-59.
500 -
Mel-nick, M. ,1 ., and M. M. Cherners, "The Ef iects of Grolp Socia1 Structure or t.he Success of BasketbalL Teans," The Research Suarterfy, Vol . 45, I9'l 4, pp. 1-8. Ruder, M, K., and D, L, Gi11. "Immediate Effects of Win-Loss on PercepEions of Cohesion in Intramural and Intercollegiate Volleyball Teams," Journal of Sport PsychoJogy, VoL.4, 1982, pp.227'234,
Taylor, D. M., .J. Doria, and ,f . K. Tyter, "Group Performance Cohesiveness: An Att.rj-bution AnaIysis," JournaL of Sociaf Psychofoqy, Vol. 119. 1983, pp, 1B?-198.
and
Watson, G. G., and B, J. Gibson, "Derterminants of SociaI Integration n Children's Sport Teams: The Case of Australian Rul-es Football'' InternationaL ,rournaJ of Sport PsychoTogy, Vol. 11, 1980, pp' 75-90.
Witliams, J. I'{,, and c. M. Hacker, "Causal Relationships Among Cohesion, SaLisfaction, and Performance in Women's Intercollegiate Field Hockey Teams," JournaT of Spot-t PsychoTogy, YoL 4,1982, pp.324-337.
Wrisberg. c. 4., and M. V. Draper, "Sex. Sex Role Orientation, and the Cohesion of InLercollegiaEe BasketbalL Teams," Journal of Sport Beharzior, VoI. 11, 198, pp. 45-54.
YukeIson, D., R. Vieinberg, and A. Jackson, " Multidimensional Group Cohesion fnstrument for Incercollegiate Basketba1. Teams," JournaL of Spors PsychoTogy, \1oI.6,1984, pp. 103-11?.
Indusrial-organizatonal Lit.erature
Anderson, L. R., "Management. of che Mixed-Cu1tural Work Group," OrganizaEionaJ. Behavior a:d Human Perfornance, Vol' 31, 1983, pp'
303-330. Bakeman, R.
, and R. Helmr'.eich, "Cohesiveness and Perf ormance: CovariaEion and CausaliLy in an Undersea EnvironmenL," JournaT of Experirnenta.l -gocjal PsychoTogy, Vol . 11, 1975, pp. 4'l 8-479,
Bass, B. M., StoqdiJJ's Handbook of Leadership (revised and expanded editrion) , New York: The Fre,e .Press, 1981 .
Greene, C. N., "Cohesion and Productivity:.n Work Groups," SmaTl Group Behavior, Vol. 20, 1989, pp. 70-86.
Hollander, E. P., "Conformity, SEacus, and fdiosyncracy CrediE," PsychologicaL Revier, Vo. 65, 1958, pp. ILl*12'l,
- 501 Hollander, E. P., "Leaclership and Power," in G. Lindzey and E. (eds.), The Handbook of Socja-l PsychoTogy (3rd ed.), Vol. 2, pp. 485-538.
Aronson
1985,
Kel}er, R. T., "Predict-ors of the Performance of Project Groups in R Organizations, " .cadeny of Managreatent ,JournaL, VoL. 29, 1986, pp.
715-726.
Locke, E. ., and G. P. Latham, "Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the Encl of Lhe Tunnel," PsychoJogical Science, VoI. I, pp.240-246.
1990,
o'Rei]ley. C, ., and D. F. CaldwelI, "The ImpacE of Normatve social fnfluence and Cohesiveness on Task PercepLions and LLitudes: Social fnformaEion Processing pproacl:.," Journal of Occupationaf PsychoTogy, Vol. 58. 1985, pp. 193-206. Pfeffer, J., "Organj-zations and organizabion Theory," in G' Lindzey and E, Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social PsychoTogy (3rd ed.), Vo]. I, 1985, pp. 379-440.
Seashore, s. E., Group Cohesiveness jn the Industriaf Work Group,
Ann
Research
, 1954.
Schreischeim, J. F., "The Social ConEext of Leader-Subordinate Rel-ations: An InvesEigation of the Effects of Group Cohesiveness, Journaf of AppJied PsychoJogy, YoI. 65, 1980, pp. 83-L94.
"
Stogditl, R. M., "Group Productivity, Drve, and Cohesiveness. " OrganizaEional Beh,avior and Hunan Pe'fornance. VoI. 8, 1972, pp.2643.
Summel:s,
L, T. Cof f el-8, anc R. E. l{orton, "Work-Group Cohesion, Psychologica.l Repo.t-cs, Vol. 63, 1988, pp . 621 -636.
"
Van Ze1st, "sociomeLrically SelecLed Work Teams Increase Production," Personnel. PsychoJogy, VoL. 5, 1952, pp. f75-188.
Cortacts
Nev
York: Addison-Wesley,
H.
ronson, E., The Social ,Anjtrai (2nd edj,tion), San Francisco: W. Freeman, I916.
Austj-n, W. c., and S, Worchel (eds,), The SociaT PsychoTogy of InEergroup ReJations, MonLerey, C: Brooks/CoIe, 1979.
-502Brewer, M. 8.. "In-Group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup SiEuation; CogniLive-Motivational nalysis, " PsychoTogical Bu77etjn, Vo1. 86,
1979
, pp.
307 -324
Britton, D.
M. , "Homophobicl rcand Homosocial!ty: n AnaJ.ysis of Boundary MainLenance," The SociologicaJ QuarterJ.y, VoI' 31, 1990, pp' 423-439.
Brophy. I. N., 'The Luxury of nti-Negro Prejudice, ' PubLic Opinion Quar|erly, VoL 9, 1945-1946, pp.456-466. Desforges, D. M., et.41., "Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact on Changing Negative AELitudes Toward Stigmatized Social Groups." Journal of PersonaliEy and Socjaf Psychology, Vo1. 60, 199L, pp. 531544
-
Devine, P. c., M. J. Monteith, J. R. Zurverink, and A. J. Elliot, "Prejudice with and wj.thout Compunction," JourndL of PersonaTity Sociai PsyehoTogy, Vo1. 60, 1991, pp. 817-830.
and
Fiske, S, T., and S. L, Neuberg, " ConEinuum Model of Impression Formation, from Cacegory-Based o IndividuaEingr Processes, " in M' Zanna (ed. ) , Advances ir: E',tperimental Soci a7 PsychoTogy, VoI . 6, 1990, pp . I-'7 4. Gaertner, S, L,, .] Mann, A. Murrell, and J, F. Dovidio, "Reducing fnterqroup Bias: The Beneiits of RecategorizaLion, " JournaT of Persona.ljty and Social Psychology, VoL 57, 1989, pp, 239.249' Gaertner, S, L,, et crl. , "Ho\.J Does Cooper"rtion Reduce Intergfroup Bias?" Journaf oi Personality and Socia-? PsychoTogy, Vol-. 59, 1990, pp. 692704.
Gaertner, S. L., eE aI., "The Cornon fntergroup Identity Mode: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias." To appear in W. Stroel)e and M. l{ewsEone (eds. ) , European Review of SociaL Psychology, Vol. 4, I993, in press.
Gof fman, E. , StiErrrra: Noles on Lhe Managenent EngJ.ewood CIiffs, NJ: PrenEice Ha-1, 1963.
of SpoiTed Identity,
Herek, c. M., "SLigma, Prejudice. and Vj.olence AgainsL Lesbians and Gay Men, " in ,J. C. Gonsiorek and ,J. D. \leinrich (eds . ) , HomosexuaTity: Research IrnpJcations for Publ-ic PoJicy (pp, 60-80), Newbury Park, Cr Sage. 1991. Herek, c. M., "Psychological Heterosexism and Anti-Gay Violence: The Soci-al Psychology o Bigocry and Bashin9," in G. Herek and K. Berri]I (eds.) , HaEe C'jmes: Confronting VioLence Against Lesbjans and Gay Men (p . 149-169 ) , Newbr.iry Park. CA: Sage, 1992 .
503
Hewstone, M., M. R. lslan, and C. l. Judd, "Models of Crossed CategorizaEion and InCergroup Relations , " JournaT of PersonaliEy and SociaT PsychoTogy, Vo1. 64, 1993, pp. 779-793.
.ohnson, D. W,, et aI., "Effects of CooperaEive, CompetiEive, and Indiviclualistic Goal ScrucEures on Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. PsychoTogicaT Bulletjn, Vo1. 89, 1981, pp. 47-192.
"
Johnson, D. W,, R, Johnson, and G. Maruyama, "Goaf InEerdependence and fnterpersonal- Attraction in Heterogeneous Classrooms: A Metanalysis, " in N. Miller and I"f . B. Brewer (ecls ' ) , Groups in Contac: The Psychology of Desegregation (Chap. 9, pp' IB7-2I2) '
New
1984.
Johnson, D. t/.. and R. T. Johnson, Cooperation anci Competition: lheory and Researc, Edina, MinnesoLa: Interaction Book Company, 1989.
Jones, E. 8.. et aL., -gocjal Stgrna: The PsychoTogy of Marked Rel-a|ionshjps, New York: W. H. Preeman, L984.
LuhEanen, R., IdentiEy, SEigrna Management, and Seif-Esteem in Lesbians and Gay Men, u:published nanuscript, Psychology Department, SEaEe University o New York al Buffalo, 1993.
Mackie, D. M,, cand G. R. Goethal.s, "Individual and Group Goals, " in Hendrick (ed.), Group P-ocesses (Review of PersonaJiEy and Sociaj Sage, L981. PsychoTogy, Vol. 8, pp. I44-166), Beverly Hills:
C.
Messick, D. M., and D. M. Mackie, "InLergroup Relatons,".Anual. Review of Psychology. VoL 40, 1989, pp,. 45-81.
Mi}ler, N., and M. B. Brewer, Groups in Contact: DesegregaEon, New York: Academic Press, 1984.
The PsychoTogy
ot
Mi11er, N., and G. Davidson-Podgorny, "Theoretical Models of Intergrou) Relations and Lhe Use of Cooperative Teams as an Intervention for Desegregated Settings, " in C. HenCrick (ed.1, Group Processes and Intergroup ReJaLjons (Rerzjew of PersonaTiEy and Social PsychoTogy, Vol-. 9, pp. 41-6?), Beverly HiIls: Sage, 1987.
Ostrom, T. M., and C. Sedikides, "Out-Group Homogeneity Effects in Natural- ancl Minimal croups , " Jou:nal of Personality and SociaL PsychoJogy. Vo1. TL2, 1992, pp. 536-552.
Sherif, M., et aI., Intergroup ConflicE artd Cooperation: The Robber's Cave ExperinenE, Norrnan, OK: University of oklahoma Press, t96L.
Sigelman, C, K., et aI., "CourLesy Stigma: The Social Implications of Associating wiLh a Gc'.y Person. " Journal- of SociaL PsychoTogy, VoL 131, 1991, pp. 45-56.
-504-
::
Slavin, R, 8., "Cooperative Learning: Applying ContacE Theory in DesegregaEed Schools," ,lournaJ. of SociaJ- fssues, Vo1. 41, 1985, pp'
45-62.
(eds.), Ihe Handbook of goctaf PsyclzoTogy (3rd ed,), vol. 2, pp. 599*658.
1985,
SEephan, W,
G., "The ContacE HypoEhesis in Intergroup RelaEions," in C. Hendrick (ed.), Group Processes and fntergroup RelaEions (Revjew ot Persona"ljEy and SociaT PsychoTogy, VoI. 9, pp. 13-40), Beverly Hil-Is: Sage, 1987.
SEruch, N., and S. H. Schwartz, "InEergroup Agigression: ILs Predictors and Distinctiveness from In-Group Bias, " ,Tournal- of PersonaJity and Social PsychoTogy, Vo1. 56, 1989, pp. 364-373.
Tajfel, H., and J. C. Ttrner, "n Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conf lict, " in W. G. AusLin and S. I,Jorche1 (eds, ) , The SociaT PsychoTogy of ItlEet:group ReJaEions (pp. 33-47), Monterey, CA: Brooks/cofe, I979. Taylor, S 8., and S. T. Fiske, "Salience, AtEention, and AtEribuEion: Top of the Head Phenomema," in L. Berkowitz (ed,), Advances jn Experjmenal SociaL PsychoToqy (VoI. l1), New York: cademj-c Press,
1978.
WhiLley, B. E., "The Relatl-oirshrp of Heterosexuals' Attributions for the Causes of Homosexuality to AEtitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men," Personal-ity and SociaL PsychoTogy BuJJetin, Vol. 16, 1990, pp. 369r 311.
:
WiLder, D. A., "social- Categorization: ImplicaLions for Creat.ion Reduction of fntergroup Bias , " Advances in ExperjmenLai Social Psychology, Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 291-355. tftudee and Ehelr Relationshlp to Behavior
and
belson, R, P., "Psychological Status of Ehe Script Concept," Anterican PsychoTogist, Vol . 36. 1981, pp. '775-'729 .
Ajzen, L., "The Theory of Planned Behavior," Organizational Behavior l/uman Decjsion Processes, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 179-2I1. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein, Understanaing AELiludes and PredicEing Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, N.l: PrenEice-Hafl, 1980.
and
Aronson, 8., and J. Mill-s, "The Ef fecL of Severity of Inj-tiation on Likinq for a croup, " Journai of Abnornal and Sociaf PsychoTogy, Vo1. 59 , 1959, pp . I11 -.I}L
- 505 Bandura, A., "Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Review, VoI. B4, 1982, pp. 191-215.
Campbe11,
Human Agency,
" PsychoTogical
D. T., "Social AtLiEudes and Other Acquired Behavioral Disposj.tions, " in S, Koch (ed, ), Psycholoqy: A Study of a Science' Vo1. 6, New York: McGraw-Hi11, 1963.
Cialdini, R. 8., C. A. Ka1lgren, and R. R. Reno, "A Focus Theory of NormaEive Conduct: TheoreEica] RefinemenE and ReevaluaE,ion of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior," in M. Zanna (ed,), Advances in EyperimenaL Socaf Psycholoqy, YoL. 24, 1991, pp. 201-234Eagly, A. H., ancl S. Chaiken, The PsychoTogy of AtiiLudes, Fort t^lorth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993. Festinger, L., A Theory of Cogni.tive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Peterson, L95"7 .
Row,
Festinger, L., H, W, Reicken, and S. Schachter, When Prophecy Fails, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1'956.
Fj-shbein, M,, and L Ajzen, BeTief, AEtiEude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction Eo Theory and Research, Reading, M: Addison-Wes1ey,
1975.
Kelman, H. C., and V. L. HamilEon, -.Crines of Obedience, New Haven, cT: Yale Universicy Press, 1989.
LaPiere, R. T., "Attitudes vs. AcEions," SociaJ Forces, Vo]- 13, I934, pp. 230-237.
O1son, J. M,, and M. P. Zanna, "AtEitudes and Attitude Change," nnual Review of Psychol-ogy, YoL 44, 1993, pp. Lt1-154.
Triandis, H.
1
C.
0a a
Wicker, A. W., "Attituces Versus Actions: the Rel-ationship of Verbal and OverL Behavioral Responses t.o E.EiEuce Objecbs, " JournaL of SociaL .Issues, VoL, 25, 1969, pp. Af-fg. Zajonc, R,, "tEitudinal EfiecE.s of Mere Exposure, " Journal of PersonaLity and Socia-l PsychoTogy, Vol. 9, 1968, pp. L-27.
Other sources
CampbelJ",
D. T, and D. W. Fiske, "converJent and Dj-scriminant Validation by the Mul-t j-trait-Multimethod A1>proacl^r, " PsycJtological Bulletjn, VoL 56,1959, pp. B1-105
-'
'
i 506 -
Cohen, ,J, , StListic f Power na-lyses f ot the BehavioraL ,9ciences, HiIlsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988' Coyne, J, C., and G. Downey, "Socj"aI Factors and Psychopathology: Stress, Social Support, crnd Coping Processes," AnnuaL Review of PsychoTogy, Vol. 44, 1991, pp. 4OI-425.
Harry, J., "Honrosexual Men and Women who Served Their country," Journaf of Homosexuality, Vo1. 10, 1984, pp. 1L7-L25.
Ilouse, J. S., K. R. Landis, and D. Umberson, "SociaI Relationships Health, " Science, VaI. 24, 1988, pp. 540-545.
and
Nisbett, R., and L. Ross, Huma: Inference: Stra|egjes and Shortcomingls of Social- JudgnenE, EngJ.ewood CIiffs, NJ: Prentice HaII, 1980. Nunnally, J. C., Psychontett'ic Theory, New York: McGraw-HiJ,1, I97B'
Rogers, S. M., and c. F. Turner, "MaJ-e-Male Sexual Contact in the U.S.A. : Findings f rom Fj.ve Sample Surveys , L9'70-1990, " The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 28, 1991, pp. 491-519. Diecuggions with ExPerts The foLJ-owing experts provided useful suggestions and insights during the preparation of this chapter. They are noe responsible for Ehe concl,usions of this chapter.
Dr. Marilyn Brewer, UCLA, on intergroup conLact Dr. Jennifer Crocker, SUNY BufiaIo, on. stigmatization Dr. Paricia Devine, University of Wisconsin, on prejudice Dr, Susan Fiske, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, on stereotyping Dr, Samuel Gaertner, University of Delaware, on intergroup contact Dr. Norbert Kerr, Michigan SLate University, on small group behavior Dr. David Marlowe, Walter Reed Army Institute, on group cohesion Dr. Geoffrey Maruyama, University of Minnesota, on intergroup contact Ms. Laura Miller, NorEhwestern UniversiLy, on military attitudes Dr, Richard Moreland, University of Pittsburgh, on smalI group behavior Dr. Charles Moskos, Northr.'estern University, on military attitudes and group cohesion Dr. Brian MulIen, Syracuse Universiy, 'on group cohesion Dr. Steven Neuberg, Arizona St.aEe University, on stereotyping Dr, Laurel OJ.iver, Army Research Institute, on group cohesion Dr, Guy Siebold, Army Reserch InsEitute, on group cohesin
Baehr v. Director of the DeparLmet:L of HeaTEh, Hawaii, Supreme court of Hawaii, No. 91-1394, 993.
1989 )
,'
v, Hardwick,
BradIey, Leigh, Paul Koffsky, and Captai.n Melissa l^Ie11s-PeEry' 'Homosexuality n the Mlitary, " The Fifteenth.Anual. Homer Ferguson Conference of Ehe U.S. Court of Mil-iEary Appeals, Milit.ary Law InstiEute, George WashingLon Uniwersity. Judqe dvocates Association. and Federal Bar Assocj.aLron, Washington. D.C., May 1990. Braschi y. Stahl ssocjaies Co., 543 N.E.2d 49 (l'fy
1989)
.
Burrell-i, David F., Honosexuals and U.S' Mi. litary Personnef PoTicy, Congressj.onal Research Service Report for Congress, 93-52 F, January 14, 1993. Childers y, Dal-lcrs PoLice Departnenc, 513 F,Supp' 134 (Texas l'981). City of Cieburne v, Cieburne Living Center, Inc,, 473 U'S' 432 (1985). Davis, Major Jeffrey S., "MiIiLary Policy Toward Homosexuals: Scientifj.c, HiscorrcaL, and LegaI Perspectives, " Military Law Review, VoI. 131, 199I, pp. 55-103.
Dawson
v, StaEe Law Enf o-ceneJlc Djvision and Robert M' Stewart, U.S. DisErict Court for Lhe District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, No. 3:91-l-403-17, 1992. v. Zech, 74I F.2cl 1388 (D.c. cir. 1984).
ronenburgr
Editors of the Harvard Law Review, "Developments in the Law: Sexual Orientation and the Lar.v, " Harvard Law Review, Vol . 102, 1989, pp.
1508-1671.
Go-ldman
v. llei.nberger,
4'75
Gormley, Ken, "One Hundr:ed Years of Privacy, " Wisconsin Lavt Review, 1992, pp. 1335-1441.
Hatheway
r/.
.gecrec
ry of
che
Hermansen.
Kurt D., "Analyzing the Military's Justifications for Its Exclusionary Policy; Fifty Years WithouE a Rational Basis," LoyoLa ot Los Angeles Lcl.w Review, Vol . 26, November 1992, pp. L57-2LI .
* 508 High Tech Gays v, Detense Ind. Clearance Office, 895 F,2d 563 (9th Cir.
100^\ LJ)w
I .
S., "A Judicial Blow to the Military's PruiLL v. Cheney, 943 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. f991).
nti-Gay Pol-cies:
KarsE. Kenneth L., "!the Pursuit of Manhood and Ehe Desegregation of the Armed Forces,' UCLA Law Review, VoL 3B, 1991, pp. 499-581,
Law Review, VoL.
1161-1179
MatLovich v. Secretary of the Air Force, 591 F.2d 852 (D,C. Cir, 1978). Meinhold v. U.S. Departnent of Defense, B0B F.Supp. 1455 (C.D.Cal,
r.993 )
.
Prujtt v. Cheney, 963 F.2d ll60 (9th Cj-r. 1991). Rivera. Rhonda R., "Queer Law: Sexual orienEat.ion Law in the MidE-ghties , " Universiiy of Dayton Law Revie', Vo1 , 11 :2, 1986, pp ,
398.
2'15-
ed ,
, /.esbjans,
Schlueter, David 4., Mj-l jcar,4 Crirtti.l Justice: Practice and Procedure, 2nd edition, CharlotLesville, VA: The Michie Co., 1987.
^9.N.E. v. R.L.B., 699 P.2d
8'l
5 (Alaska f985).
- 509 seffan r/. spin, No. 91-5409 (D.c. Cir.), Brief of Plaintiff-ppe1lant Joseph C. Steffan, May 1993. Steffan v. Cheney, 780 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C.
1"991).
Stoddard, Thomas 8,, "Lesbj-an and Gay,Rights Litigation Before a Hostile Federal .Tucticiary: ExEracting Bnefit from PeriI, " Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberlies Latn Review, YoI.27, 1992, pp. 555-573.
Sunstein, Cass R., "Sexua1 OrienEaLion and the Constitution: A NoLe on Lhe Relabionshp Between Due Process and Equal ProEection," Unversity of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 55, 1988, pp. 1161-1179.
"The L9B4 Manual for Courts-MarEial: Significant Changes and Potential fssues," Department of the rmy Pamph.et 21-50-t39, n The Army Lawer, JuIy 1984, pp. 1-58.
Todd v. Na'ar::o, 698 F.supp. 871 (S.D.FIa. 1988).
U.
s. v. curt i s, 32
M.
. 252
(cl"IA
19 91
(NMCMR
1990),
United states ceneral AccounLing office, "Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuaj.iEy," GAO/NSIAD-92-98, June l-992.
ltal.Lace v. ChappeTJ, 661 F.2d 7?9 .{ l98l).
WaLl-s
Wells-Petry, MeIissa, .xcl.usjon,: Honosexua.l.s and the Right Eo Serve, WashingLon, D.C. : Regnel:y Gateway, 1993.
woodward
AIlaire, Yvan, and Mihaela Frsir:otu, StraEegies in Large Organizatons, " No.3,1985, pp.19-34,
AlIison, Graham, "Conceptual Models and Lhe Cuban Missile Crisis, American Political Science Review, Vo]. 63. No. 3, L969.
"
and
Bardach. E., "fmplementation St.udies and the Study of Implements," paper presented Co ehe 1980 AnnuaI MeeLing of the merican Political Science Association, tnlashington, D.C., 1980. Bender, Jonathon, ard Thomas Hammond, "Rethinking AIIison's Models," American PojiticaT Science Review, VoI. 86, No. 2, 1992Berman, P., and E. Pau1y, FederaT Prograns Supporting Educationaf Fac|ors AffecEing Change AgienE Projects, R'7589/2Change, Volume II: HEW, Santa Monica. CA: RAND, 1-9'75. Berman, P.. and M, Mclaughlin, FederaJ Programs Supporting EducationaT Change, Volume IV: ?e Fjndjngs in Review, R-1589/4-HEW, sanEa
1975.
Berman, P., P. creenwooc, M. MclaughJ-in, and J. Pincus, Federal Programs Supporting EcJucatjonrJ Chanqe, Volume V: Executjrze Suwnary, R-1589/5UEW, Santa Monica, CA: il'lD, I91 5. Berman, P., and M. Mclaughlin, Federaf Programs Supporting EducationaT Change, Volune VII: F:cLors AffecEing InpJenentaEion and Concinuation, R-1589/7-HEw, Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 7917. Berman, P., and M. McLar-rghlin, Federal Progrants Supporting EducationalfnrpJenrenLinq and Susainjrrg Innovacions, RChange, Vo-lue Vfff: 1589/B-HEw, SanLa Monica, C: RAND, 1978.
Berner, Kevin, and Thomas Daula. Recrutingr GoaJs, Fegrime Shifts, and the SuppJy of Lbor to Ehe rny, unpu]]shed paper/ review versj-on,
11
Bolman, Lee G., and Terr:ence E. Deal, Refranljng Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1991.
Bolton, Laura, Carolyn Aycin, GeraLdine Popolow, and Jane Ramseyer, 'Ten SLeps for Managing Organizational Change, " Journal of NursinEr Administration, YoI. 22, No. 6, T992.
Brockner, JoeI, Tom R. TYler, and Rochelle Cooper-Schneider, "The Influence of Prior CommitmenE bo an InsEituEion on Reactions Lo Perceived Unfairness: The Higher They Are, the Harder They Fa]1," ,Ad:ninistrati'"'e Science QuarterJy, VoL 37, 7992, pp. 24I-26L, Buddin, Richard, El:fjscre:t Effects of Ehe 2+2+4 Recrujting Experiment, R-4097-, SanCa Monica, CA: RAND, 1991,
Bui-lder, CarI, ?J:e Masks oi i,'lct'.' lrerican l4iliEary StyJes in Strategy and Anaiysjs, Brltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.
- 511
Burke, John, "Policy ImplemenLation and Ehe Responsible Exercise of Discretion, " j.n Dennis P.rlumbo crnd Donald Calsta (eds. ) , ImpTementation and Lhe Po)icy Process: Opening Up the BLack Box, York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
New
Carson, Kerry, and Rodger Griffeth, "Changing a Manaqement Information Syst.em: Managng Resistance by AEEendng to the Rights and ResponsibifiEies of EmpIoyees, " EmpToyee Responsj.bjljtjes and Rights Journal., VoI. 3, No. 1, 1990. Clement, Kevn, EquaI OpporLunit.y Officer, U.S, rmy, personal
communcaEion,
1983.
Apr1 29,
1993.
Culbertson, 4., P. Rosenfeld, S. BooEh-Kewley, and P. Maqnusson, .Assessment of SexuaT Harassment in the Navy: Resuits of the 7989 Navy-wide Survey, San Diego, C: Nal1z Personnel Research and Development Center, 7992.
DACOWITS, Defense
Advisory Corunittee on Women in the ServJ.ce, Proceedings fror the Spring Conference, Apri-l 26-29, !992,
DaIzieI, l,turray, and Stephen Schoonover, Changing fy'ays, New York: American Management Association, 1988.
Damanpour,
Fari)orz, "Organizational Size and Innovation, " Organizational" Studies, Vo}. 13, No. 3, 1992, pp, 315-402.
Davidson, M., ACLU at.corney, persona-[ communicaLion, May 18, 1993. DiMaggio, Paul J., and WaLer lrt. Powell-, "The Iron Cage Revisited: InstituLional Isomorphism and CoLlective Rationafity in Organizational. Fle1ds," American SocioJogjca-l Revjew, Vo1 48, 1983.
Eisen, Marvin, and cail- L. Zellm.rn, "e Heafth Beliefs Field Experiment: Teen Talk, " in B. C. Miller, J. J. Card, R, L. Paikof f , and .I . L. PeEerson (eds.), PrevenEinq AdoTescent Pregnancy, Newbury Park, C: Sage Publications, 1992, pp. 220-264.
Emore, Richard, "Backward Mapping: ImplementaLion Research and Poicy Dec j-sions , " PoliEic.tJ Scte)1ce Quarte:-J.y, Vo1 . 94, No. 4, 1980, pp,
60r-616
.
Elmore, Richard, "Forrvard and Backward l"fapping: Revers j.b"e Logic in the Ana.ysis of Public . , " in K, Hanf and T. Toomen (eds, ) , PoTicy Implementation irs Federa-l and Uni.ary SysEems, Boston: Martnus Nijhof , 1-g85
-5L2Elmore, Richard, "organizational Models of Social Program Implementation," Public PoTicy, YoI.26, No.2, I978, pp. 185-228. Elmore, Richard, Harvard Business School, personal communication,
ttr 1002
May
Gilberd, K., "Sexual HarassmenL in the Military, " GuLd Practitioner Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, L992, pp. 38-54.
Ginzberg, EIi, and Ewing W, Reil1ey,, Effecting Change in Large OrganizaEions, New York: Coumbia University Press, 1-957 Goodman, Robert
Law
M.. and Allan B. SEeckler, "The Life and Death of a HeaIth Promocion Program: An Inst.it,utionalization Case Study, " InternationaT Quarterly of Community Health Educaton, VoI. 8, No. 1987-88, pp. s-21.
1-,
Goggin, M. L., PoJicy Design and the Politics of Implementation: The Case of Child Health Care jn the American .9ates, Knoxville: The
1-987
Goggn, M. L., Department of Political Science, University of Houston, personal communicat,ion, ,Iune 9-L0, 1993.
Gottlieb, Ne1l, Chris Lovato, Riki I,einstein, Lawrence creen, and Michael Eriksen, "The Implementation of a Restricbj-ve Worksite Smoking Policy in a Large Decentralized Organization, " HeaLth Education Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1992. pp. 77-100.
Greenwood,
P., D. Mann, and M. Mclaughlin, Federal Programs ,supporjnr Educational Change, Volume III: ?e Process of Change, R-1589/3-HEW, SanEa Monica, CA: RND, L9'75. Control, organizabional Structure, and Bureaucrati.c PoIitics," American JournaJ of PoLiticaL Science, Vo1. 30, No. 2, 1986, pp.379-42.0., |
.
Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman, "structural- Inertia and Organizational Change," American SocioTogcaJ Review, Vo1. 49 (April),
1984.
Her1z, Rosanna, Guardingr Against Women? Responses of MiTitary Men and. Their Wives to Gender Integration, We1lesley, M; Wellesley Co11ege, Department of Sociologry, 1990.
Heymann,
Philip, The Politics of Public l"lanagement, University Press, 1987, pp. 12-4!, 109-189.
New Haven,
CT:
YaLe
Hickson, David, "Decision-Makng at the Top of the Organizations,', Annual Review of Sociol-ory, Vo!. 13, 1987, pp. t65-I92.
- 513 Hunter. James, CuJture Wars: The StruggJe to Define America, Basic Books, fnc., 1991.
New York:
Jackson, ,John hL, and Cyril P. Morgan, Organization Theory: A Macro Perspectjve for Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Ha11,
.tv /
.
,Janz, N., and M, Becker, "The Health Belief Model: Decade Later," Healt.h Education QuarterJy, Vol. 11, t984, pp. 1-47.
Jeczala, Sergreant, Defense Equal OpporLunity personal communication, April 30, 1993.
Management
InstituLe,
Kanter, Rosabeth M-, The Change MasEers: Innovation and ^Entrepreneurship jn te American Corporation, New York: smon and Schuster, 1983.
Kilmann, R-, "A Completely fntegrated Program for Organizational Change, " in . Morhman, S. Mohrman, G, Ledford, E, Curninqs, and Lawler (eds.), Large-Scale Organizational Change, San Francisco:
,Jossey-Bass, 1989.
E.
Knott, ,Jack H. . and Gary iL :Mi1ler, 'Reforming Bureaucracy: The PoTiEics of fnstitutional Choice, Englewood'C1iffs, NJ: Prentice HaL, 1987. Kreftj.ng, Linda, and Peter Frost, "Untangling Webs, Surfing Waves, and WildcatLing: Multiple-Metaphor Perspective on Managing Organizational Cu1ture," in P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin (eds.) , OrganizationaL CuiLure, Beverly Hi1ls. CA: Sage Publications, 1985, pp. 155-168.
Lanqbein, Laura, and Cornelius Kerwin, "ImpLementation, Negotiation, CompJ.iance in Environmental and Safety Regulation," Journal of PoJitics, Vol. 47, No.3, 1985, pp. 854-880.
and
Lawler, E., "St.rategic Choices for Changing Organizabions," in . Mohrman, S. Mohrman, G, Ledford, T. Cummings, and E. Lawler (eds.), Large-Scale Organizational- Change, San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 1989, Ledford, G., S. Mohrman, A. Mohrman, and E, Lawler, "The Phenomenon of Large-Scal.e Organizational Change," in A, Morhman, S. Mohrman, G. Ledford, E. Cunmingsr and E. Law1er (eds.), Large-Scale OrganizaEionaJ Change, San Francisco: .Tossey-Bass, 1989, Levin, MarEin, and Barbara Ferman, "The Political Hand: PoLicy Implementaion and Youth Employment rograms," Journal of PoJicy ,AnaJysis and Managiement, Vo1. 5, No, 2, 1986, pp. 311--325. Irevitt, Barbara, and James March, "OrganizatonaI Learning," Review of SocioTogy, Yol- :..4, 1988, pp. 319-340. Lind, E. Allan, personal communication, pril 27,
1993.
ii
nnua-l
-514Lundberg, Craig, "On the Feasibj-liLy of CuJ.tural fnLerventon in Organizations," in P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, and.f. Martin (eds.) , organizatonal Cufture, Beverly HiI1s, CA: Sage Publications, 1985, pp. 169-186. March,
.Tames G,, and .lohn P. O1sen, Rediscovering Institujons, i' York: The Free Press, . l-989 .
t-
Ne\,
Martindale, MeIanie, "Sexual Harassment in the Military: Manpower DaLa center, September 1"990.
Mazmanian, DanieL
1988," Defense
A., and Paul A. Sabatier (eds.), Effective PoTicy -lmpJementatjon, Lexington, M: D, C. Heath, 1"98L, pp, 3-35, 4., and Paul- A. Sabatier, Implemenation and Publ-ic PoTicy, Glenvew, IL: Scott, F<>resman and Company. 1983.
Mazmanian, Danj.el
McDonnell, Lorraine, and Richard Elmore, ATternative PoTicy Jnstrl:rnents, JNE-03, Santa Monica, CA: The RND CorporaLion, 1987,
Mclaughlin, M., "Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy fmpJ.ementation," EducationaJ Evafuation and Policy AnaJysis, Vo1. No. 2, 1987, pp. I'l L-178.
9,
Mclaughlin, M., "The RAND Change AgenL Study Revj-sited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities," EducaEionaf Resercher, YoL 19, No.9,1990, pp.11-16. Mclaughlin, M., P. Shields, and D. Rezabek, ,9Eae and LocaL Response Lo Chapter 1 of the Education ConsoJ-idation and Improvement Act, 7987, 86-.A,6, Stanford: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and
Governance,1985
Meyer, .Iohn, and Brian Rowan,. 'Institutionalized Organj-zations: FormalSLructure as Myth and Ceremony, " American JournaL of SocioTogy, VoI. 38, No.2, 1977, pp.340-363.
Moe, Terry, "The Nev/ Economics of Organization," Tejcan JournaL of Political Science, Vol.2B, 1984.
Mohrman, Mohrman,
4., S. Mohrman, G. Ledford, T- Cummings, and E. Lawler (eds.), Large-ScaJe Organizational- Change, San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989. S., and . Mohrman. "Environment as an Agent of Change," in A. Morhnan, S. Mohrman, G. Ledford, E. Cummings, and E. Lawler (eds.), Large-ScaJe OrganizationaL Change; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
Moore, S. Craig, J. Stockfisch, Matthew S, Goldberg, Suzanne M. Holroyd, and Gregory c. Hildebrandt, Measuring Military Readiness and Sustainabiljy, R-3842-DAG, SanLa Monica, CA: RAND 1991.
-515Nord, I^Ialter, "Can Organizational Culture Be Managed?" in P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C, Lundberg, and.T, Martin (eds,), OrganizationaL CuTture, Beverly Hi11s, C: Sage Publications, 1985, pp. 18?-196. Nord, VJalter, and Sharon Tucker, ImpJemening Routine and RadicaL Innovations, Lexj.ngton, MA: D. C, Heath and Company, 1987,
O'Too1e, Laurence, "Alternative Mechanisms for Mult.iorganizational fmplementation: The Case of WastewaEer Management," AdminisEration and Society, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1989, pp. 31-3-339.
Ouchi, William, "Markets. Bureacracies, and Clans,' Administrative .Scjence Quarterly, Vo1 . 25, L980 . Ouchi, William, and Alan Wilkins, "Organizational Culture, " Annuaf Review of SocjoTogy, YoI. ]-L, 1985, pp, 457-483.
Palumbo, Dennis, and Donald CalisLa, "Opening Up the Black Box: fmplemenLati.on and t.he Policlz Process," in Dennis PaLumbo and Donald Calista (eds.), Implementation and the PoJicy Process: Opening Up the
BJ.ack
Box,
New
York:
Greenwood
Press, 1990,
Peters, T. .1., "Symbols, Patterns, and SeEtings: An Optimistic Case for Getting Things Done," Arganizational Dynamics, Autumn 1978. Pettigrew, Thomas, and Joanne Martin, "shaping the Organizational Context for Black American Inclusion, " Journaf of Social- fssues, VoI. 43, No. L, 198?, pp.4l-'78. Prottas, Jeffrey, 'The fmpacts of. Innovation: TechnoLogical Change in a Mass TransiC. Authority," PubTic-AdninisEration Review, Vo]. L6, No. L, 1984. pp.117-135.
Rosenstock, 1., V, SLecher, and M. Becker. "sociaL Learning Theory and the Health Belief ModeL," HeaJth Education QuarterJy, Vol. 15, 1988,
pp. 175-183.
Rousseau, Denise M., "Psychological and Impl-ied Contracts in Organizations, " Employee Responsibrl.iljes and Rights ,Iournal-, yol- . 2, No. 2, 1989, pp. L2I-739.
Schein, Edgar, Organizatioal Culture and -teadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publ j.shers, LgB'1 ,
Scheirer, Mary .Iane, and James criffit.h, "studying Micro-fmplementation Empirically: Lessons and Dilemmas, " i: Dennis Palumbo and DonaLd Cal-isfa (eds. , Implementation and the PoTicy Process: Opening Up t.he Black Box, New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.
- 516 Scholz, Dr. John, Stoneybrook, personal communication, May 14_1_5, 1993, scott' Richard, organizations (2nd ed.), Englewood cr.iffs, N,f: prentice
Ha11, 1987.
Siehl, Caren, "After the Founde: n Opport.uni.ty to Manage Culture,,, in P. Frost. L. Moore, M. Louis. C. Lundberg, and .I . Martin (eds. , Organizational Cul"ture. Beverly Hi1ls, CA: Sage Publicabions,) 1985. pp. L25-140 .
sumner, c. c" and G, zerr-man, Federaf programs supporting EducationaL change, vor-ume vr: rmplementing and sustaining rtl" Projects, R-1589/6*HEW, Santa Monica, CA: RN, lrg.l7. vrr BiJingual
T\zfer, Tom, "The psychorogy of proceduralJustice; A Test of the croup value Model , " JournaT 0f personality and sociaf psychaLow, i"t.si , 1989, pp. 333-344 T\Ier, Tom. and E. Allan Lind, ,,A RelationaL ModeL of uthorj.ty in croups,,, Advances in Experimetal Social" psychoTogy, VoI. 25, ..gg2, pp. 1L5-191. walsh, John, "The sociar context of Technor-ogical chanqe: The case the Retail Food Industry,,' SocioTogical euarterTy, Vol-, 32, No. 3, of 199L, pp . 447 -46s .
Watman,
l_993.
Weat.herley, R., and M. Lipsky, .,Street-Leve1 Bureaucrats ancl rnstitutionar- rnnovation: rmplementing speciar Education Reform,,, Harvard Educational Reviery, yol., 47, No. 2, 1977, pp. I7I_II1.
Inleimer, David, and Aidan Vining, policy Analysis: C.,ncep, ad Practice, Englewood C1i.ffs, NJ: prentice Ha1I, IggZ. whyLe, w11am F., organizationai Behavior: Theory and Application, Homewood. rL; Richard D' rrwin, rnc. and the Dolsey press, rg69.
9Jildavsky, Aaron, ^gpeakjng Truth Eo power (2nd ed. ) , Transaction publishers, 19g?, pp. zLZ_23j.
New
Brunswick, N.I:
wil"ms. wel1ford, "Soft policies for Hard probrems: rmprementing Energy Conserving Building Regulations in CaIifornia,,, publ.ic.AdminjstraLio Review, VoL 42. No. 6, 1982. pp. 553_561.
Wilson, James, Bureaucracy: What Government.Agencjes Do ft, New York: Basic Books, fnc., 19g9. Zetka,
and
Wy
They Do
.Tames R., Jr., "AuLomated Technologies, Instibutional Environments, and skitred Labor processes: Towarcr an rnstitutional Theory of Automation ou.comes," sociological guarterLy, vo1, 32, No. 4, 1991, pp. 557-5j4.
51/
17, 1993'
Barnes, Jeffrey, .rack Dempsey, Deirdre Knapp' Pat Lerro, and Connie Schroyer, Sunnary of Military Manpower Market Research 'SLudjes: Technical ReporE, Human Resources Research organization, FR-PRD-91-08,
September L991.
Benedict, Michael E., The 7989.Rf RecrujE Experience Tracking Survey: Descriptive,gtatjstjcs of NPS (AcEive) Amy SoJdiers, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Research Product 90-16, March 1.990.
:
RND,
Buddin, Richard, Trends in AtErition of High-QuaJity MiTitary Recruits, Buddin, Richard, Daniel S. Levy, ,fanet M. HanLey, and Donafd M. Waldman, Promotion Tempo and Enlisted RetenLjon, RAND/ R-4135-FMP, 1992.
Burrel1i, David F., Homosexua-ls and U.S. MiTitary Personnel. PoTicy, Library of Congress, congressional Research Service, January 1"4, 1993.
Canadian Forcest Charter Task Force: Final- Report, Ottawa, September
1986.
Center for Human Resource Research, Natjonal. LongitudinaT Survey of Youth, Ohio State University, L991.
Chow, Inlinston, and ,J. Michael- Polich, ModeLs of the F'jrst-?erm Reen-Zistment Decision, RAND, R-2468-MRAL, 1980,
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek jzen, BeTief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theoy and Research, Addison-Wesley,
Readi.ng, MA, I975.
Hosek,James
R., John nte1,. and Christine E. Peterson, "Who Stays, Leaves? Attrition Among First-Term EnIistees, " Armed Forces and Society, VoL 15(3), 1989, pp. 389-409.
Who
Hosek James
R., and ChrisLine E. PeLerson, Enl,isLmenL Decisions of Men, RAND, R-3238-MIL, 1985.
Youngi
/ and Christine E, Peterson, EducaEjonaT Expectations and EniistmenE Decisions, RND, R-3350-FMP, 1986.
An
R., and ChrisLine E- Peterson, .gervjngr Her counEy: Analysis of Women's EnJistment, RAND, R-3853-FMP, 1990.
:518 Office of tshe ssistanL Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), Population RepresenaLion j Ehe Military Services, FiscaT Year 7997, Department of Defense, 1992. Office of the Assistant Secrelary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), Force ManagemenE and Lhe Drawdown, Briefing, AprJ.l 1993, orvis, Bruce R., and Martin T. Gahart, Refa|ionship of EnfismenE Inention and Market Survey Information to EnListmen| in Active Duty MiTitary Service, RAND, N-22gz-ylIL, 1985. Orvis, Bruce R,, and Martin T. Gaharb, .R1. jstnenE Military Service: Determinants and ncentives,
1990.
Among AppJicanEs f RAND, R-3359-FMP,
or
Orvis, Bruce R., Martin T. GaharE, and ALvin K. Ludwig, Validity and tJsefulness of EnlistmenL fntention Information, RAND, R-3775-FMP,
L992.
Rostker, Bernard, Harry Thie, James Lacy, Jennifer Kawata, and Susanna Purne1l, The Defense Officer PersonneJ- Management Act of 1980, RND,
R-4246-FMP,1993
Sbolzenberg, Ross M., and John D. WinkIer, VoJunEary Terminations trom MiTitary Service, RAND, R-3211-MIL, 1983.
Thibaut, J. W., and H. H- Ke}Iey, The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, L959
John
Verdugo, Naomi, and Kenneth R. Berliant, EsLimating the Army's Prjme Recruiting Market, United Sates Army Research Institute, Technical Report 832, April L989.
WashingEon
Wilson, Christine, "Gays in the Forces: Clinton Backpedals," Pacific Research, Vol. 6(2), May 1993, pp, 14-15.
0g
utll
ll
lilfilltil
t..-
PEBS-TR-89-OO2
December lggg
:(
;.,.":,j 'i."',
\;
i.
t..
l; ir
t-:
,.
;:. , .
., ''
._.
i.,
...,,
...
center
'*:i
OSD
PERS-TN-89.002
December 19gB
Summary
his study of the suitability of homosexuals for military servce was prepared the conten of our ontinuing t",.rn in roi connections between personar the pot'ntiar for securitv vrations. histoiy items and (including the observance ro job p.rfo,'n..'"nc* of ...rrity regulations), i"n te centrar issue s the variitity of DoD's long'time prlgticg ot oenvng miiitary yrilpreyme': the basis of rheir sexuar orientation, '''| r'i""'!q'v irpr"v,,,,"t to hornqsexuars,solery cn
;pi"-"riis"rerated
obiectives
The research objective and court decisions, (2) the (3) the history of changing These reviews provide th
practices.
....,,
.:
:" '
'
.,
was to write'a pap3.r_that reviews (1) changing fotkways current scientific status of atypical sLxuaf orientation, and social:constructions of nonontorrnini re"r"r background for an r*rrinii"'ot'*"rrrrnt behavior.
personnel
Aooroach
From current scientific publications, legal studies, and social abstracled findinos pertinent science litgrature, we to tne ssue-of whetnri'nt,]1or.xuars military service' uo oy extension,'.Jtror" are suitabre for ior r"cri-.rrr"n".. he the task ditferent but overlapping authors bring to tramworks: socia lvarogy and forensic psychiatry, Besults The product of our efforts is a schotarly document thi recenr resar decisions, and the rindns rrom oiorgai ;;:,irifr:
!::Jffiii,i.i;
Table of Contents
Preface
Summary
7
11
:
Dgviance as criminal Behavior. The sickness construcrion--The Medicarization t oun"" The Minority Group construction-:Homosexuars as lon-tnni" liriorty Group. "
he Moratity construction--Good and Evir as Fundam"ntur ctg;"r: ::: The Legal construction--sexual
Deviance
12 13 15
tt
19
Regulatory Policies in the The Traditionarriew in the Light of previous Flesistance to Change Summary
Mititary
Discussion
24
ild
tmpations
33 39
Feferences
List of Appendixes
45
lntroduction
to remove traditional barriers that exclde hornosexuar men and also social pressures women trom military srvice' it is timely to review current perspective, on no*osexuality. As context for this review, we examine three kinds:of relevant informtion; judiciaf
(1) trends and shitting folkways, (2) contemporary scientific contributions, ano (o) historicaland current social constructions of homosexuality. lnferences drawn from these formulations will serve as a background for examining the currency of existing military codes ior. considering the potential outcomes of maintaining or modifying these codes. "ni
rt is a common practice to emproy the concept of sexuar preference in discussions of same-gender and opposite-gender ="res,' The use of ,,preference,, is misleading except for persons who'are bisexuat, that,1no to whom either gender is acceptable as a sex partner' For most other cases, inu-g"noer choice of sex partner is not a mafter of "preference," The desired genoei of te sex partner is fixed or at least firmly conditio.ned by biological preparation and habits laid down early in tife. Embryological events and the subsequent reinforcement history of gender-related acts create a condition that might belter be labeled sexuar orientatio! or sexual status.
os
P&R 007331
.,
.},.:ii. .,rj,,...
other''iudicial decisions since Norls! have propelled society to acknowledge that discriminatory practices toward homosexats are ;ot 'consonan wth constitrtiond - , guarantees of individ-r-autonomy and-equr-pfeteetion;--A-case.-that drew nation-I-media ,aftention in 1975 is that of .sersearrt' nro: p. ;r;";il'[no.o.**uur sergeant" 1975). Matlovich was disrniJsed from the Air Force with a tess than honorable dischar'ge after he voluntarily admitted th"t " *"a a nomosexr.. n 1p-year veteran 'who served in combat in vietnam, he rr" olen awarded Bronze star and pur:pte Heart medars and had an exemprary perrorman", ,.";; i;;;ime he was dismissed' The bases for his separaton from military seruice were the codified Department of Defense and Air ,Force regulationu'iut persons who admitted to homosexual orientation or conduct,bould no'ti.*" n the:Air Force. ln 1,g7g, the united states court of Appeals in washington, i DC, ruled that the Air Force had acted improperty in.discharging Sergeant ratrovicn wtout Sp"",t'"Jooolr,, reasons othe'than being hornosexuar.-rn 1g81, the same .Jurt retroastive promotion (Guevarra, lggg). "*"i;;d hi. b;;n;r; ;
The more recent case of S:r!:?,1, perry..Watkins (Henry, . 19Bg) may have profound implications for future lgal Jhailengs, wa*ins entered the service in 197 at ase 19, admitting on a preindution mediat torn-in"t:n; ;il;o*u"l tendencies' At that time, the A.mv dischar:sed *li"gis r,".ffi;il:;lj; not for "homosexuality." The dlstinction Sgroiersil batween noinoseiu acts n nio=exuatity is difficult to draw' The authors of the rdigultion:proo"y employed a notion that was
osb
P&R 007332
ll
since law and custom tend to influence each other, it is instructive to note shifts in social practice in dealng with discrimination against nmosexuals. ln 1g77, the u,s. commi5sio on civil_fionts to.qk jurisdictlon oi.r i which discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation nao been alieged, r".r'' r poii"" n"ras=ment of homosexual men and..women 11977). The Civl Service Commission in 197S and 1976 amended its regulations'so that no person would be denied Federal employment sexualorientation(see,1975,1g.77),TheNational on the basis of
Security Agency has.recentry moved-io-rantE;;iluA srnriiiu frnrented info'mation (scD security c-learnes (Bo, 1se8), oniin" highest,crassifications for access to sensitve information. ln June 1988, the veterans nomiislmti;;'rodified. ,l:lyt". with regard to benerits roi uei"i*. ir.-;; ror homosexuariry. hose discharged prior to 1980 had as a rule been given a-".rs than,honor"ot"'ir.nrrg, charcterization which resulted in denialiot osi .nitrThe vA has now:upgraded those discharges. "The new rure was propo;rJ;r -;tter otfai,ness,, (Maze, 19gg).
nondiscrimination ordinances. ln the state of california, municipalities and counties are;i *ii;]l: no longer using the category,of sexual cjrientation n the nlring of police oni."rr. appears to be the outcorlne oflhe-currentJegal-and-soeial-eiimate. sexual orienttion (bonaride occuparionar fl'^-:tl qualification) and few, if any, employers are " lgsN'"*-oe witlig to risk tegat chanenge by .'#,i:"'l?l ing against homosexuals. Although there is no-specitic state legislation in alifornia prohibiting employment dscrimination on the basis of sexual orentation, discrimination based on sexual orientation in services i_s prohibiteo-ov tn unruh civil Rights Act, and in other areas by civir code sections-s1.2, s as wet as by penar code section 4?2'6'422,9 and 1 170'75. California Attorney -Cnrrul "no-2.1, Van de Kamp has atso interpreted the rabor code as protecting homosexuas from discrimination.
ln 1978' it was eported that nearly a quarter of.America's largest corporations instituted o[cie" i lu"iantee equal opportunity to homosexuar emproyees (veri, 1g8ot, Anothe,r sign i ihe cnanging tJriivs is-the granting of recognton to politcal groups irpp-,tn equat rights for hornosexuats (Vetri, 1980)' Many universities ha-ve adopted nonis"rrn"irv oi'"i'n niring, housing, and opportunities for advancement. r"uni"'paiti.r by the core have,adopted,:
5,,:,?Lji}.t]$f
j:,i: q"o
tegitimate for courts to review the constitutionality of the bn's'dismissaf of employees. ln 1gg2, ,,John Doe," described as a covert electronics technician, voluntarily told an Agency security officer that he was a homosexual. The Agency conducted a thorough investigation, including a polygraph examination designd to uncover whether he had disclosed": classified information'. Although Doe passed the test, he was dismissed by then director wlliam J' casey on the gtouds thai he was a national security risk. he effect of this supreme court decision is that Doe can now appeal to the Federal courts to sustain .1i ..
;;1
of persons who hold. nonconforming sexual orientatons, another aspct of the rights may be seen as a fuher indicator of change' ln webster v. og. (1988), the Court hetd that it is
i I'
,i
,g,t
'
oso paR
007333
"i
t"uu
The qmergence of scientific medicine in the nineteenth century brought with it the practice of assigning medical causes"to conduct that had earlier been oontrued as sin or crime. ln this context, scientific'tneoris *;;;]";;rtared to exptain homosexuat behavior in terms of heredity an'd de'generative ;;.";r'r tn" centrine.vo;u .yrrur. The iggers in the.sgientifrc study t sexuality, ni"*o- von Kraft-Ebing (1880/1g22) and Hqverosk Eilis (r?_rl] inborn condition. An ?rgr"_q-thar horno#r;"r;ty alternate view was advanced 'y; sigmund Freud tlgslgg).and othr,psychoanarytic writers who traced the cause t r'morexuat conduct to faulty.psvcr..roi oevelopment resulting in an arrest or a fixatlon at an eariy stage, The power structure of the family, lYPiaatly a dominant but seductive mother rra'urk father, was offered as the major cause of nonconformng sexual orntation. Thus, from the eginnings of scientific inquiry, theories ot Juir"rity reftected different emphases: bilogicar vs. psychosocial' or nature vs' nurture. contemporrrv-t"ories reflect th;;; contrary ' orientations (Kotodny, Masters, and Johnson, f
"ni
i", ,"
iS,'
ln the 192Qs, with advances in endocrinorogy and bioehemistry, new theories aered that rplid sbxual behavior to levetsrcr:ex or*ons:-EffiE soridGvidence has been presented, to suooort a'hypotnesiluo linr< between homosexuar ligwever conduct nd circurating hormone revers in adurts.
in genetic research. The study of twins has en a fiitrrr so.uroe of genetic hypotheJes. Kaltman (19s2) reported a concordance rate of r00 percent for ''homosexuality,, for 40 pairs of identical twins' That is' when one of a ptirloi'io"nticai twins i!io""titied as honnosexuar, the other was lso found to u. l'totosexual,-:Ths occo.r"Jeven when the:twins had been raised ?Pfr, The autlror of the rtry ..o,io".Jl;,"h", data are not concrusive in supportjng the genetic, hypothesls-.1'he t\,vins ,rv-iu" responded to the same sociatizing infruences. tn iis conneciion, Marmor'(ri), a.weil-known psychiatrist, claimed tnai re "most pr:eva1;"1il;;; concerning the cause of homosexurity is that which an.ibutes it to a paing^i;,ig backg'ound.tL
Perhaps the most thorough research undertaken to advance the frontiers of knowledge about sex,aritywas tht orftgo Kinsey irin.*y, pomeroy; & Martin, 1948; 11"y,Pomery Ma.rtin, & Gebhard, 19Sg). ,ooldi.i,'iin=ry or:ganized his research program along etirologjcal and epidemicJlogical lnes.-ie varia:ble t int"r"rilor Kinsey was sexul acts' The raw oti" t"i hislstudie. *uru-obtained thr.ough structured
populaton, regardless of social toferance, as in the Philippines, polynesia and Brazrl, intolerance.as ln the united states;'or repression as in the soviet'u;ion 19BB). This oonstancy in the face of ctturat divrsity suggest!1Fral -' biologicf i.i"r, may be the fundamentar source of homosexuar orieniatol--:-
"ffi;,
including same'gender attraction, They conclude that current sietific findings support the view'tht hormonal and neurotogctvariaores opratrng ouring the gestation period are the main contributors to'sexual orientation, For the:-ultimate formation of sexual identitv, rhe ilis-Ames rheor,y does not exgludg p=vnJs"iu,;-;;;Ii rio,rn,,r, modifier of the phenotypicar expression of bioros".r oeuiopment. From their review of current research, Ellis and Ames propose that sexuality be studied throush the consideration or five dimensions, ih;;J";;:n,.(ie effects of sex chromosomes, XX and Xy, and yalius.""fojS karyorypes); qentat (eifects of internal and efernal genitalia, the malb-femle differenti"tion, which begins n the frst month or er'bryonie life); npnqental mpBhli].*.tr or secondary sex characteriStics..bodybr.rild,.Voice,n'@(maleandfemalebrain
ditferentiation and associated sex-typioar actionsGffii?irences and the formation of sex'typed roles)' Most of the events shaping the oeveroping organism,s sexuality along these dirnenqionsioccur between -he firsr nd fifth:mtn
more reports' Ellis and Ames (1987) have advanced a rui-ta"torial than 300 research theory of sexuality,
;fr;i;;";fr,
These
il:g:
*i-ii*';'ii:#:I'fl:
Adult sexual orientation, tlten,,hs.its oiigins, if not its expresson, in embryonic development. Eltis and Ames conciude that:
;ffi;
;;r!
",
we have already alluded l the'research of Atfred Kinsey (1g4g, 1g53), a turning point in the history of the social construction ot s"nuty. Aftei detareo niv.i, of the sexual histories of thousands of people, Kinse.y (1g48) c'oncludgd that beings" does not represent t*.j ir*t. porrijo!,'"r"rosexuar the class,,human and homosexuar, and that the world: ri
is. no! to be divided-inte=heep--n-g-.tilfi---a fn_ damentat of taxonomy rhat natu* categories, Only the human rnind invents categories and ''.,iv1 tries to foice facts into separate pigeonhotes. n"1iJng wortd is a continuum in each and evry on". of its apeits. The sooner we rearn. this concerning human sexuar behavior the sooner we sharr reach rord uno.r.inn-oiin, realities of s.ex (p. 639).
ilhi#i;
"
The obseruations,of historian-s (see, for exmpre, Builough, 1g76) and the reports (s-ee, for exanrpt,'or gr[', *,; Marshat & Suggs, 192l; and Devereaux, 1963) support the notion "nJ that n siruiionr piaced nn su-gender sexualiry are sociat. As Kinsey, remarked. ,,gnrv iesories,,, At eertain times, and inlmany societies, most variations in the expre-ssion 'sexuatity have been resarded..as normar. rr s r.he,apoj* starutes that determines whether samelgbnoerlor-ffi;';j;nouct is ctassified= as acep, table, tolerable, ofrensive, or crlminat, Such ruli J=rt"trtrr-,i-in' lroro, ot custom, supported by the power veste.d in authority. .urty with abundant clarity, forms of authority change. 'tn n. tnr historical record shows tmes, moral rules were enrorcd bv men and women enactins p''irriv"ir...' lir,';il';;'.i.!".posed
of ethnographer:s
11
oso pan
007336
held that sex served only one purpgse: picreation. This,doctrine was supported by the :lairn that suct'rwao od'sinteui;n.ri'crating irre'wrro of nature. Therefore, sex for pleasure was suspect, eppecilty. sme.gendr s-ex,-since this ii oouirrry non. procreational' The appellation, "sins againsi nature," appears frequeny in doctrinal arguments (Bullough, 1976). Since same-gender sex was nonprocreative, it clearty was a sin against nature.
!
ln the Judeo-Christian traditlons, Gogd and Evil are the oategories that provide th9 fo1-d1lt[g,,u"l* ludqments q" r"*ri oncqnfsrmity.,Ar.ising rrom ?Sakqrgund primtive ta.oosl the po,"werful,im.ag,.o1 ,;qin'l w", *rjoved:to define the,unwanted condr,ct. undmentalist qr;eacheis Who take .the, Snipurr. as the literal reveated Word of God ate conlemporary advoc?lpg:cf tf.te elif that"nonconfor,ming behvior is sinrur. Tfe'ar!utjon or inftrhess urri"ri"itip[;;;;i;;;#;n sexuat some groups, sih i expraineo s'viut.yl."rptrnce of satanic infruence; among others sin is believed to produce jlawed. or s:poiled identity- o""t"t reactions to sin include 1 ostracism; corporal pttnishmg,nt,' impiison..ni .n n--ore draconian tirfles, torture, stoning, hanging burning er the stake g";;"i;
"nj;ven
sin is an attribution, a constructin made,by others or by oneself. lts force lies in"its'attachment to religiouq do-ctrine,' l-ike iaboo, th" .n."t of sin is :-nlrenched acquired by peopte before they raih r..lr- oi'r"ni. The argument thar sin is a social construction is nowhere beer iliuslrated tlnun'in tne oebaies of theotogians who have puzzied over the critei'fa for sinfi;;;i,1";r:whar
actio-hbereqaidbdasavenial-sjn..q"'amortalsin?-.--.
conditions shoutd an
Arising from precepts. legislaJive acts were introduced 1e]igious to control nonprocreative sexuaf 'behavior. Fhse (]gg-A,9or*rting on the relationship of taws designed to control sexuai behavioito i,ldr-criiti.'r.igious teachings says:
I
the very terms used for anar intercourse show their origins in a phitosopny wnich interrwines r"* "0-lrouo-niri"n morarty, "sodomy" obviusry comes rim th, name of the doomed city of the prain, and "buggery" is a corruption of "beugrerie," named after so-caile.d;'uriarian,' heretics who l.1: pyilty .i 3 f?IT of Manicheqn heresy, Aioisensianism-. rney berieved that piiysical things aie evit, and tus refr.sed lhe..bannilg of nonprocreational sex'act: lfe:long celibaoy would havo to be construed as "unnatural,, and therefore, sinful behavor.
, ,, i :
,
13
experiment, At the prssent time, the legal concept, "crimes against nature,,, is defensibLe rhetorical device to contror ironprocreatve sex. lt has no u"iuniiti;-;;i;;.: nty as a "'
The niqeteenth century witnessed the social construction of deviant conduct as sicknpss. Aftlough the medical model of deviance had its origi; : in sixteentn ^ century' it was not until the gfgwth and. suecess of technologi rno sirn.e in the , nineteenth century that medicat pratiiionHrs created eiaborate theories to account for unwanted oonduct, Many of ,the fanciftjl early theories of crime and craziness were gven credibility because they wer uttered by physicians and, therefre, pumeo to e scientifc. The prestige conferred upon the rctitioners of scienc. -n tecnnotogy blanketed the medical pr:oression, tt was our,ing tr' tt"r nrt oiitiu'-"iurv tn"t medical soientist initiated the movernent to "meicarize'r not only poorly understood sornatic dysfnaions, but all human behavior. conouct that in.lhe past. had been assignd to moraiists r to the law ;r;purview or moical authority. o* .. Deviant conduot sT..?nI kind;became topics ot inieresi ior dootors. The brain had afready been given it place as ihe. most important coordinating ofgqn of the body; and the "mind" was somehow located in the ur"irt, i;"ti;;; ny item of behavior,thaf was norms coutd be an.ibutJ to rritvli;i;I PPCI qll #il,rs;,fiaved mnlal .:lJuvrLrsp, ^- L.-.ro+'i ir,.-^^ "rr,l::r r. uu[r. tn Ine a.sence o,f fobust l.vrty Yl 'j[U5.;ITEIVEO ',,v,,rq, pSychological thgories, the Qservation and study of'noReonmins-behvrorled physicians to-aEsimilate the-es Irarron oI :L:::':t.I,:-Tidr:] jo rh,eories or soniatic disease. ih'creaton and eraboration or disease theories was based upon the all-encompassing notion that every human action could be accounted for through the application of the*raws of chemistry and physics. ln this context, homosexuality and other nonproereative forms of sexual conduct were construed as'siclcness' To be sure, the rr.iiitio--n of nonconforrning sexual conduct failed'r replace entir'ty the otder rorcioJ'"rirt-n"t many cases persons suffering from suh il{nesses contin.ueo ""rJiiriiilji, ano rn to be punsneo.
y.*
1::lt:.:Ti[:th
It is interestilg.-. to the term, homogexuatity,t, itself did not appear in 1.o19 t^", English writings until the 1890s: Like most meoc-t"iri it was and Latin roots. Prior to that tme, labels for noncntrming created out of Greek sexual conduct in the English language had been free of medicel conotations, as, for example, the words 3odornl, buggery, p.91eision, cgruptin, lu*brr,nJ'ir"ntnnness. one outcome of the medioalizatiorl'of nonconforming seiuat cgnri *r i" inclusion of homosexuality '''ou**uatity in teritbooks of psychiatry and md-icat'psy."n"logt, was otficiaily
tisred
'This js not to gainsay the use of this metaphor to connote war and the pollution of our atmospheie and our rivers,-iaxes such events as nuclear ano oceans. tc
i ,
'i
mpairment in iudgment' homosexualitY Per se implies no s.oal .or vocational capabilities. ,uoirity, reiiabttiiy- orenrut :sso"iuti'n.J.ror ait uuic and private discrimina-:Tr,; public accomiion in such areas as employmeltl housing' supports and modtion' ano licensing""Te Association ih; nrt*unt'oi civit rights legislation.,.that would
I
il#
offer citizens
engage in 'hornosexuality the same the basis of race' potections now iuut"n-ttc to oihers on creed, color' etc.
*o
Association in 1976'
Substantiallythesameresolr.ltioh:wasenactedbytheAmericanPsychiatrio
of persons identified as The available data on the psychological functioningt1l, of variation in that. fange homosexuals tead to an ,nurrduus coicltsion: (ohlson' 1'974)' A review
p"rron"i-r.t.n;"i;
no different.rrom that of heteroexuals (1957, 1965), gave studies, uegtnning.wiin noorer's,in-depth investigation of 14 major orientation ws' sickness (Freedman'
, treterose;i-.;="J'*o*ri'in eriiain, found no significantditference :iuostantially, i-epll-cating thg- lgl1l9!-9gr!i, 9land.heteror.*"i gir|r, 'had'een wolfenden
studies in the u.s. Report i izln" stated earlier in the famous rr,e coiuJion ou.i. to,, rhe repeat of sodomy starutes in England:
no,upp ton"nypoines.isinutt*.rr'qender 1976)'EmployingVariousoiustment.]c}iteria;,thestudiesuncoverednocorrelations;',, in','twor'''rir,:i' a ment;aiilness construction, Siegleman (1978 & 1979)' that would 'upport psychological adiustrnent i nomo"sexua! T.gn and wornefi1*, it, studies comparing btween"'t::i':
'
-+osexuat
;;;t'*inmanycaseitis"theonlysymptomandis
ompatiOle with full mental health (p' 32)'
'1960s and 1970s paved the wly for an The civil libertarian movements of the We have already noted 'that the earlier atternative *rtr.tion of homosexual conduct. This work associates (1948) had received wide publioity' work ot Kinsey could not be sorted an behavior "nJnii helped to strengthrn ttr. notion that te*ul status perhaps model of normal and abnormal,' The recognilion that into a simpte Wo-vtue adopted nonconforming sexual at reast.lo percent tne aoutt pourationr,cbnsistenily formulating a construction of roles (i.e., homosexual behavior) was instruniental in ot a nonethnic, nonracial minority group' same-gendrr rr*urrity as the detining properbl in their choice of life style. They lndividuals cme toELtn", to support each other
17
osb pan
007339
BegulatorV Polfcfes ln the Mllitary ln the previous pages, we have frovided ran overview of changing folkways, of scientific findings,, and of vanations in tne sooial .construotion of nonconforming sexuality, Our intention was to lay the groundwork for examining currsnt poTicies that pertain to the suitability for, rnilitary sevice,gf,,mpn and women who alls not'exclusively
heterrosexual.
, .,.
ln our examination of current plicies, we are constrained to use language that is not consonant with our conclusion that sexuality is a multidimensional concept. lf we were writing a sientific tretise,on s'exuality per se,'we would,make preeise distinctions and note ditferences eWveen biologioal role, gender identity, sexual pfactices, and sexual-social role; From su6 : pelpgtive, the use of two broad classQs, heterosex' ual and hornosexual, would be extromely arbitrary, Because, our obieclive is to illuminate the dark oorners of 'sexuality for a particular policy purposg, we must make use of the language currntly ernBloyed. tJnlesq qualified in the text, when we employ the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual," we are,oomplying'with the more common current legalistic, categorical usage
The Otfice of the Secretary of Defense formulated a concise summary of ofticial policy (Department of Defense, 1982) as follows:
-.-
Homosexuality
Armed Foroes to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among the members; torensure the integrity of the system of rank and cornmand; to , facilitate assigqment and- worldwide deployment of members who fr:eQuently rnust live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the military services; to maintain the public acceptability of military services; and, in certain circumstanoes, to prevent'reaches of security.
.i
Appendix A reproduces oD Directive 5200,2.H, which contains the current policy regarding granting clearances to homosexual rnsn and women, Since homosexuality s an:abstract term (not tnlike "helerosexuality"), the policy can only be implemented-if positive c:iteria afe forrnu'lEted, Such' criteria are to be found in the Uniform Code of Miiitary Justise (UCMJ), set,fqrth in the Manual for Courts
19
Both the sodomy and the indecency articles are applicable to heterosexual as as to homosexual acts, Thg sodomy article, as writien, proscrbes well heterosexuar nonaginal intercourse, For exmple; oral-genitaf'"*tr.itWorld be a criminal offense subjeci to severe punishment. The artcle 9-o". oot Jiguish between married and unmarried partnErs' As currently used in military law, re sdomy charge is employed far more. often in cases of heterosexual ,behavior; and the toiat numqr o-f such charges is small' For example, in the u.s. Army durinj tiscai ;; 1987 through Aprit of Fy 1988, t[ere,were '178 sodomy charges, iz onra.iJtirt" ..qle and 1?7 victims were female, 54 of those cases oing cnsensuarw s.';;h;, u.s. Army crerk of court, \"r v' I errvrr' personal communication, May iggg).
marriage, and family relations would aise questions about the UGMJ's crminalion -oral;gniiai''t*i ot prry, especiallv since this is praqlieed by a tai'se perc;G; or th; ;;;aj' rlr,,on (Kathaoourian & Lunde, 1975). since militry p"r*""iare orawn from the general population, it is reasonable to assume that large numers of rititary men and omen, married and unmarried' ae in violation of theooomy.rttJt". rilt.i.0,'*ni," ,ra would lead to punitive personnel. actions, inctuding .orrm.rnrti;,
i";;;
untold
;r;;
|Liri,ury
'
prgvio?,an, empirical basis ror reconsldering traditionat policies tp.oiii.-eirr.u, assembled data for the fiscal years 198s, r-9ge, and lsbz roith uriors r'J.u,,.n. data are not strictly.oomparabie to the data etensively- r.eported.hy willjams-and.* ----"--weinberg (1971) becs''offierarecord*eer Nevertheress, rooking: back over the past 20 years or more, it is inconovertible 'that there has been a dramatic decrease in the rate of punitive Jt".nrg".'t";;;"rexuafi!y,
riiirar
For the Army, during 'ts three-year period, gzg enlisted were separated administr:atvely for homos'exuafity,--bril-il;'men an l1 otficers ; "p"rod, gS4 enlisted wpmen and 3 officers were separated. Mor, r"uraling and more useful for policy decisions are the percentages: for rnen, .046 prro.nifiuu tn"i tooool, tor women ,12 percent (12 in 10,OOO),
F9r-tfre.ftuv, the numbers are higher. For the three.year priod, 1g25 entisted men and 30 orricers were separated, Att- were nunrri J;htv tiJqi ror one enlisted man and one offier who, were subject to cou,is-maniar, For women, 3g2 enristed and 4 0fficers were separared; o, males wre administrativety sepaiated (almost 13 in 1O,O; .and .Z7.percent of women (27 in 1O,OO0).
wh;';ir;d;;.*;rrJ,:!rii'"r.rn,
The Marine cgros leing a smaller service, reported 213 separations of enlisted men and 6 separations of orficers: For women, o were sepaiated, The "nriatud
21
women are performing their miltary roles satisfactorily and that their sexual conduct does not come to the attention of their cor.nmanders,'
To account for the large discrepancy between the actul number of separations
;il,'rir,
"ur.-gender
orienration,
(1) Men and womn who identify themserves as homosexual do not enter milltary service. This hypothesis is difficult to sustain. Hrrry (1gg4) found lhat homosexuar and heterosexuar men were-eguaily rikery to hava served, in the miritary. Homosexuaf women were morg . ri!<ery than heterosexuar.women to have had riritary u**i".. weinuerg and wiilams in a sworn affidavit state: "the vast majority of homosexuars in the Armed Forces remain undiscovered by uf,orties, and comprete their l,lt.v servie with honor'i (see Gibson, 1978). nuse (r) wrote:
activery so. They do not gei caught or pfosecuted because thev a1e djscreet or' rucky,'or beczuse ,thorities eye' But ths rures do exist, and every now and turn a brind then some unfortunate gets snmeshed in the net fp. AOl,
H:at:'"'ements
(2) Men and women with same-gender interests inhibit the expressjon of sexuality during g,ir nrre in the Armed Forces. This hvpothesis is without rounoatiJ JJ nrouo invorved and rhe increasing lack of,cetiOacy among yoont Or[J.
;;.;;-;;r.'*,,il
(3) Men and worne who enter mjlitary service continue to express their sexual interests. This appries to those who are excrusivery heterosexual, those who are excrusi"ry- no,'rextar, and those who rnake up Kinsey's intermediate groups.' They do not como to the attention of
There is the continually nagging queston of the definition of ,,a hornosexual,,, Do rie, mat<e an otherwise heterosexual person a "-o homosexual? conversely, most woulo'aie tn*t-',-t"* n.r.rosexul acs by an othenrvise exc[usively hqmosexual pe'son do not'make this person heterosexuar. rt rhe p*irns-r"beiled ,,homosexuat,, :::I: Iescapabre that hornosexual by the mititary services represent all degrees of orientaton ano rra" in .or,.'.'on onry the fact of being identified by the rnilitary as engging in some trniot homosexuat
behavior,
23
As a result of the co-dependency foster.g oy training reeuirements, space sharng, commensalism; common goals, and rnutual trust ano rspect, tne reiiio*', among members of combat teams are like t?r_1:f grows. tnformal rarher lrimary than orders, bond the membeis olthe group. lt hasleen "ou"nn,., commonly assumed that the existence of deep'seated preiudlce qganst homoseurr. a class would be a barrier to the creation and development: of atudes that woulJ foster ". .one.i" lonr,
Although not well'publicized, the available data all point to the conclusion that preservice'backround characrerization and subsequrnt io[r.ft-r.un.."li nomosex,uals,:in the mititary is satisfactory (Wi[iams & Wil;,'i.SZl, MoDaniel 19g9; Zuliani, 1986; crittenden Feport,'1957' whether the presen. or men or women identified as nonconforming in sexuat orientation actually inluen"s rqt, fr."trru, of nrary life as disciprine, grup morare, ec , ca ,bu= ."i-Jr as a hypothesis and tested directly and irdirectly' . ]ntqgrity, Dirct iesting wu o .lnvorv-ntegr"ting rnen who identify themselves as holding nohconforming iexual altitudes with men who:are unselected for discriminatory attitudes' The samedsign ou r.o'ior, *o*rn, such testng woutd be similar to the testing carried ort oy ""n reggarch i"". when black soldiers were -,h;;"nsiry integr:ated into formerrv alr-white piatoqs, u"ttin., r, rri;nt . or prejudice against horosexuals may be or in" !"* ro"i.-i orilo'"e againsr bracks in 1948, when the miritary ws oroerei 'rir". The order to integrate blacks was first met with in the mirftary esrabrishment. Dire conseqr;;";; stout resstance by tr.aditionalists ;;;. predicted fr maintaining -rg"Rizatienl-qsats--l{one diseine, building qroup-morale,
and actrievrng mlirrv of-these predictions of doom has com true Solial scince specialists helped davetop prograrns for cornbating racal discrirninti", ;h;; o* tn" mititary services are leaders in providing equal opponunty for black tr no'*omen. lt would be wise to consider applying the experience of ine purt'+o years to the integration of homosex.
uals.
lndirect evidence to establish whether homosexuals could be satisfactorily integratod can be derived from'rerr.ospgctive ,r.ornij ot ild*bry Jil.rgro ,nrn and women who were homosexuars at th trm;-; th;; seruica ' tn;'toz stuoy conducted bv the lnstitute of sex Ftesearch ar the unvrsi'ofio"n"lot"ose,,'.,rt. homosexuals;'2lq had served in the military, of ;ho;'?i percent Discharges. A later' study reported' tn.r or'rgo hmosexuals received Honorabte who had been in the military services, 76 peroeht recived'Jro_norgia oiiJ"-iuq ;d"'einbe,g, 1971),,Another study,(H,arry, ilsg+1. anatyzed. intprvew J'n'i:;H'r.p' onorn,r, rnen and women, who had serveci'in tne mttitary HJm,ns"xual and,heterosexual men were equally lit<efv to have:servdiin tne mititary white homil-;;i;a*i'irr" ,0,,. likely ffian heterosexual women to have serveg. Neaity 0, p*r."nt of the homosexuat personner in these sampres received honorabre oiscnrges.
fuffir
25
The current status in the Sheriff's Depament is that sexual orientation is not an issue for hiring or continugo emgfoyrnent. sttirt'.r r'no ronger kept on the sexuar orienttion'of personnel lt'iq,eptimqted tat so lioout 10 percent) of the sheritf,s fo 19 Department may be classified's homosexual. About'a guarter of the frce is made up of women, of whom about 10 percent aIe SSFUmed to be hornosexual (R. Dyer, personal communication, April 27, 1988),' The San Fr:ancisco police Department initiated a"smilar nondiscrimination potcy in 1,979, as r'as-t-,-". potice Department"' Most ii not allllarry etorcemgnt'ajencis in cdro.rni" o"giies aie*nw hiring whout regard'to sexuar or.iehtation. Many berie,"ihat they arJU L* ,o oo so; as we pointed out on page S. Resistence to Chanoe
ln the foregoing analysis, we have tried to make the case that the military services shouldprepare for a shift in legal and pubtio ofin"n on discrimination against homosexuals' such a change in a tim-honored p.""ii"" is not likely to be accepted without'active resistance. ln tne absence of compelling reasons, bureaucracies,*resist change' The first line of such resistance is the invocaiion of the concpi itiilr. ln general, the argumenls against change contain decla,ations of the necessity for preserving such absrract qualtes as integ-rity; ,,noi"s,t", pride, leritv,-o so on.
men cannot be rugged, tough, and macho.r" The stereotyq of homosexual men, as we mentioned earlier, centers on the ferninized male who'is unable to perform masculine tasks' lt is interesting to,note that this stereotype to flourish
one of the more powerfgl ,easonq for rejecting change has to do with the the corqrat sotdier_.Although'unsuirportecffevtdence, thbelieT__ is widely hetd that.men must;be,ruggd toug, n.il."no to achieve success battle' ln the belief system of currentraditionl miritary authorities, homosexuat in
idealre_e!_rmagery_,of
"unti*",
even though
t^ -San
"Although the Lo Alseles Polic:e Department (I-APD) has an official potcy of nondiscrimination against hornosxuAls and sHCh discrimination is also forbidden in ernployment by the Los Angeles Municipat:CoO, a-je*u.sive anti-homosexuat bias is alleged to exist in the LAPD: Mitchelt Giobeson, a nroJ*ual former potice sergeant claims in a five miilion doltar suit against the t-ApD tat-f," was discriminated against, abused, intimidated and had to resgn becauie he feared for his life (stewart, 19gg):
"'ln classical Greece homosexuality and hcmosexual bonds betwoen soldiers were considered an asset to the performance of the fighting man in terms oi piotism ano military
courage.
.t,
'27
Most of the issues rased by Major webb, which reflect traditional anti-homosex. ual arguments, are reminiscent of the issues raised when blaci-",nriLr"6nen catteo Negro athletes) were first aflowed to partcipte i pi.otessional baseball. webb,s concerns are also reminiscent of the arguments advarlced againgt tg desegregate rnilitarv estabtishm'ents, and rhe ratr rrgu-;it!".rut]i'o" oro.,. ,o mnmir* the role of wQmen in the Armed'Foroes, Despite it.-"rlv resistant'cn-angs, it is important to repeat that:the mititary establishmnt islw iooi'u'* ilioo*r ro,' racial"and gender integr:ation, .. ln his rist of probrems tha't wourd,be cr.eated if homosexuars were keery admitted into the services, Major webb failed to mention potential security risks. This has oeen one of the main reasons given for screening out'tromoixual men and women from the mititary, and rrom jobs requirins a securiri creara;;. ,n., would be canddates for blackmail if a for'dgn uals' This argument s somewhat blunted *neniye rerio that they were homosex. "g"ni"nedourselves that blackmail is also an option for'foreign agents.wlro acquire knowledje about neterosexual men or wornen secretly engaged in.adultery, Atso, decriminatiiig'h;o*;;jrri'ni "' re'rh' r done. much to ,decrease ihe dan:Eer' of black-rif .
-il
$,fr;;i'.i',n.,
:1?'li::,,1i;"if'3::::n:^'-ntJ ;ql::oen
The Feport contains
Historical support for the notion that security conerns about homosexuals ars neport, tti"i"ttv iabene 'oo,.t or,,'e
t@
a
security riqk
is
homoexualsareaEreaterriskthanh't*,o''*,i ln
unsupported by any factuar'data. Homosexuars no *or a security risk, and many cases are much ress "r" of ,r"rii risk, than arcohorics and those peopre with marked " of inferiority who must: brag of thir knowieuge.offeerings secret inforration and discrose it to,gain statur".'-Fr;r; heterosexuar activity arso provides serious tr"rril tions, p_ome inteiligence officers: consider a senior otri.r, havinE iilict heterosextar rerations with the *if. oia officer or enristed man is much more of a security rsk than the ordinary hornosexuar,,.,The number of cases our..i r*ii as a result of past investigatiorrs of homosexuars n"trigibre. No factuar data exit to support thet:contehtion that
;: l;il;
"
i:''fi::;:t,,i13"i,"1,,'
the 30. yqars since the crittenden report was submltted, no new data have been its concrusion rhat no'o''ui.'J,, security
;;,;;iJl
29
others and Brivately oonvincing hirnself of his highly vatued masculinity (weinberg, 1 973). Those who resist changirlE the traditional polieies support their position with statements f tne negatve erots" on oisciprin;,-";, ;nd other abstract varues of military lire' Buried depp in the supporting conceptrrltir.,"tri i, tnil,',r.g.ry of homosexuars porutins rhe soeiar evironmeni;it wanton expressions of deviant sexuality; tt is s it persons *ith ;i=riorraiig ,u*rur orienttiQns were,always indiscr,iminately'ano aggr;ssiv"ry rri"g'ri*i"i'ri,r,, A' th gtudies conducted on the psychologioat aOultment f hornpsexuais that we have seen lead to'eontrary inferences. Thei,arnunt:of time oevoteo i iuli.ry o,. ,o ovt sexuat,.activity varies greatry fromr person to persn prererence (Kinsev, pomerov, and Martn, 19aB; "o-ir"r;,'!i;,i'i; gender rrJJr..i s6sl r"i, je76; williams and wenberg, 1971). ln one carefutty actuay demonstrated a lower level of sexual interest than heterosexuals "onor"tJJli"ov, (Bell, 1g73).
;r;;;j";;
;;J;
n.r"
Homosexuals are lke heterosexuals in being seleclive in'their choice of partners, rures- of privacy, in consider,ing apf,r,opriiJ""r, of me and prace, in !_-"_bylgsexuarity with connectng the tender sentirienis, on. To be sure,.some homosexual's are like some heterosexuals in,not "n-ro observir p*v or"ii"ryr1*o ln fct, the rnanifojd eriteria that govern sexual interest -re identical ior homosexuals and heterosexuars, save ror onry,ne:c',itrJonl ii.,.
groii;il;;s;r';ijrr
rn"y"'r*J'uJ'ritters
to screen Qut undesirable'or unsuitable potential sex artners. wiih such an array of crles: many (in sgme cqses, ail) potentiar objects ni i"i,'.ri .i,'rr,o"ro,, ,.no., people, only a small number of potential partners meet the manifold criteria. wrl* |. in an Army platoon or in a broker:age otfi"e, peope-aie g.;.iity ;.ti;, in their choice of intimate partners and in thJr expreiron ir*xial behavior. Heterosexuats and homosexuals alike ernploy all these variables in selecting partners, the only difference being that the latter includs same-gender as a defining criterion, the former include opposite-gender.
*l:,tr*FTT speech, crothing, inirrruilnirrrJi!-";,,d: soiar :'T. membersh, maritt staTus, se and shape, ""ff; postur', manners, Hi physical and behavior:al criteria are att inereri;;; ;;;.
rote,
.
ln recent years, traditionalists have pointed to the AIDS crisis as a cogent reason maintaining the.-discriminatory potic.ies. -cl"riv il responsibte persons are concerned about AIDS as a critical health problem,'whether in government, in the military, or in the private sector, ADS is a serious prri. health problem. when the disease was first identified in 1981, it was often called the ,,homosexual disease,' and the Bgcaue no prepa(alpry inrorrnatisn naJ,o"",fi"_s1y, tasue." uu.inu 0.,,., quickty spread that AlDs was exoiusivelyr'a disease of homosexuals (euaooino"n shattes, sez- subsequent,iesear,ch'#d ob;;;"; ;;, confirmed hat everyone rs
for
'31
Sumrnafy and lrnpllcations An examination of recent'sociai and political history points to the fact that the courts are slowly moving toward eliminating discrmination qo the basis of nonconforming sexual orientation. Active citizen gror:p! and lobbies provioe of nondiscrimination our studied cncluson is that the'military support for advocates services asked by the cour.is c' tho Congress to r.*"*.rlu their policies wll soon be and practices regarorng recruitment and retention of men and women whose sexual.interests deviate from.the customary' Tnis wil become'ia brning ir.;aiit it is necessary to resoft to dr'atting toun$ prsons tor mititary servce becaJse oi a decreasing supply of volunteers' under prevailing social conditions, a pubtic admission or noriosexlity carries less stigma than in earlier times, and is no legal bar to most employment, Thus, unless the military is willing to adopt nondiscrimnatJry policies, r"r" clajm of homoexuatity, whether true or false' would excuse any person who " wants r ilj ,'i,i,v?*,..
our analysis directs us to regard people with nonconforming sexual orientation as a minoritv oroup' our nation hasla long history of successfully d-eairng wrtrr minority gloups, parrrourarly ethnic minorities. ln the recent past, We haVe also learneo how to ntegrate racial and. othej minorlty groups, notabry women, into nearry every aspect of poltical and socjal lrte. The suooestion'that *. pr.uiur-ho.or**ual men and women as a minority'or:oup follows from our analysis of conternporary scienbfcsocialandryal observations. 'Tne social construction of homosexuals * rin**v'grbers is scies th-r",y;;. rhe earrier :ln:_"|?,rf -'-.- crime.-and sicl(ness-our-orgest of the available body of -sierific;";#i;;ns:,,,sin,xno*iJgYrlrat i[?r:j]g": tl1 rhe.uncriticar use of binarv caresories does viorence ro the findings reported by scientific obervers. ri" iiJ tegories, heterosexual and homosexual, although necessary ior certain prrpoes, are inadequate to reflect the complexity of the multidimensont antecedents of 'sexuai status. constructing a catatog of the variety of biological nd socio-sexuar vnel "ss'rportant than to questions of ths folm: Do.gs at[picaf iseiiuat orientation inftuence finding answers ;oo prrrrmance? Stuclies of homosexual veterans mke glear that ha;"g.;;ame-gencler or an oppositegender orientation rr]'1r.1t1i. to iob-pgrformance n 'rrv same way as is being left- or 1s ' -':Y' ine e right-nanded (Wriliams & Weinberg, lg:zl).
ii:'i:T: :J[::,,T]
i::,,:
For the purpose of military organization, however, quality job of performance may be less important than the effects r homosexuars (minor:ity 'group ;b.; on that important but ephemeral quality: grou cohesrJn. ri. ioo,ranr question to be raised in future research must centei on tne'claims tnat persons with nonconforming sexual attitudes create insurmountable problems in the maintenance of discipline, group cohgsion,morale,organizationalpride,arrdintegr
ln our study of suitability for military seryice, we have been governed by a silent assumption: that social attitudes are historically conditioned. tn oui o*n ti*-,'*e have
33
to another
ln the spirit of a heuristc model, the categories are suggestive, not precise, The large rectangle embraces conduct in genefal, ihe interior rectangle represents sexual conduct' The hori2ontal line and the lerticat tine r:e nundaries between ctasses conduct' The lines are broken to indicate perrneabilty. That is to say, ctu=s,ticaton of or socal acts' under ceftain conditins, can be moved thiough the bount; one ce'
"Customary" and "different" shouid be perceived as regions on a dmension. Some acts are more "different" than others. ln the interst of simplicity, hewever, w write of 'lcustomary" and "different" as diqcret classes, tiicar, economic, and moral conditios influence the sorting of scial acts as- custorrv or different,
that are not custornary, ("diiferenf'). Thq term "different" is super,ordiate to,the often-used 'Ideviant." our current speech conventions gi.ye ,'different,l its meaning:tim,in. notion of relative frequency. "Eeviarit'i adcis a pfraiive vaiu judgment-to tne meaning.
The horizontal line s.eparates customary ("normal") social acts frorn acts
The vertical boundary 'is alsg'permeable; it separates lawful and unlawful acts, At timet certin acts are lawful but dfferent (Cen'lrj), roin"i r""wg'i.r.. ,o denote such'acts are "attention-getting," "eccentric," and ',far-out.i n*"*"pre would e flagpole.sitting. Because c. taaiqq in connq'tion with traffic control of curious drivers, a munieipalty enacts an ordinanir *"ilng ilpore-si,tting a misdemeanorj,At time2; then, flagpole-silting has been reciassifiei tf-err lV, ditferent and tnlawft1. Judioil decisions and legislative acts prode the criteria tor recrssiV"n;;; particular t99l?! =q
=19@ul-untawfut)
Cell I contains most of our everyday acts. We conduct ourselves according to custom and accor,dins to raw. cerr jr is popurated tt ;;jJ;'ih"i;;" widery praoliced ut unlawful, such as exceedin.g spe,ed limitp, jyw-alking, tax evasion,,driving "under the influence," !tc. Cefl lll is populteo by sociai's wnicrr are curreny but not widely 'practiced; ' suqh as flagpoe,.ning,' alligator-wresfling, and lawful, wearing 'ioutlandish" costurnes" ln the 1930s *oren toox-i *"ing trousers when trousers were onsiderediproperly part of men;s'attirg, At that time, suoh ,lecentric', acts were classified'in Cell lll, different but not'unlawf-ut. in ear,tier e;, ;;orr:;;;sn-g iao oern assigned to Cell'lv' ln New England, as late as the ninetegnth century cross-dressing was a crime: The contents of the criminai, COd-e had been formed',fro.m rrv.r Scriptural ! --injunctions, among
them:
A wornan shail not wear,anything that prtans to a man nor shall put on a womar s garment; 'fi rwhoever does these things a man l, n abomination to yahweh yor God (Deuter,o-homy
2z:5).
35
It should be emphasized that although the vertical boundary is permeable, it is Sexual acts that invoive children, violene, or public indecency, i,e,, criminal offenses, ara not likely to be reclassified. Such otfenses tear the very fabric of social order,
our purpose in presenting this model is to make clear that the values that any society places on social acts are subject to change, The model is consistent with a underlying premise that we live in.an ever-changing dynamic world. The lessons of history tell us that the legitimacy, of of,r behaviors, custms, and laws is not permanently resistant to change. Custom. and law change with the times, sometimes with amazing rapidity. The military 'cannot indefinitely isolate itself from the changes occurring in the wider society, of which it is an integrat part,
w'
American Fores press Service (1ggg; April 1g)' DoD,s homo_sexual policy unchanged. American Forces presslSelrv.ic.e, press a nn p""f, *lO.
Elarnett, W, (1979), New Mexco Press.
Bell,A.P'(1973).HomosexualititeS:Theirrangeandcharacter.@
on Motivation, 21, j-26.
s. (192g), uoror"nrrl!"j1. New york: simon & schuster. Bieber', 1,, Dain, H, J._ Dince, p. R , Drellich, M, G., Grand, H, G., Gundlach, R. H., Kremer, M. w,, Rifkin, A. H., wirbur, c,8., & Bieber, T, B. (jg62). Homosexuarit,
e ovqoanatvtic
New york,
Ny:
Basic
Books.
--
Bishop, K' (1988, June 10). Court to rehear challenge to Army's homosexual ban. New York Jmes, p. Ag Brzek, A', & Hubalet<, S. (1988). Homosexuals in Eastern Europe: Mental health and psvchotherapv issues, JorJ,rnar of Hornosexuari!v-l#-a .
Bullough,V.L.(1976).Chicago,lL:University
of Chicago press,
Devereaux, G, (1969). lnstitutionalized homosexuality of the Mohave lndians, Ruitenbeck, H. (Ed.), The orobrem of ,homsexuarily. New york: Dutton. Department of Defense. (1982, January 28). DoD Directive 1332.14.
ln
Egelko, B' i1989, oct..13), Judiciai panetlrear arguments against Ar.my homosexual poticy. , p,74.
Ells, H. (1915), F, A. Davis.
Ellis' L', & Ames, M,A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: ,theoryofhomosexuality'heter:osexuality.w,191(2),233-258. A
Ford,C,S.,&Beach,F'A'(1951),'NewYork:Harper
& Brothers
39
Kelly, D.D. (1985). Sexual differentiation of the neryous system. ln Kandel, E., & Schwa$z, J. (Eds.), Frincigles,of nepral scieEce, Znd editign. New Vorx:Ltsevier,
Kinsgy, A', Pomeroy, w:, ivrartin, c., ! ebhard, p, (1gsg). Sexu?r behavior in the human femate, philadetphia; W, B. Saunders & Co.
Klein,F',&Wolf,T'J'(1985)'lntroduction.@,11,1.5. Kolodny,R.C.'Masters,W'H.,&Johnson,W.E.(1979)'@
Boston: Little; Brown & Co. rcratft'!!.i191.R' (von) NY: Physicians & surgeons Book
(lsaa).
co.
Law, S, A. (1988)' Homosexr,rality and_the social meaning of gender, Wjsconsin Law . ReVieW, Votume 1999, No. A, 197-2Ss
Livingood,
of Homosexuili[
'i'
zl
-. ;
Marmor, J. (1975). Homosexuality and sexual orientation disturbances. ln Freedman, 4.M., Kaplan, H,1,, & sadock, B.J, (Eds.), cornorehengive te{tbook of psychiatrL --r--:--------ll. Baltimore, MD: Williams &
Wilkins.
Marshall, D.s., & suggs, R.C. (Ed,s.), (1971). Hqman sexual behavigl, Newyork: Basic Books. Matlovich v. secretary of the Air Force. 47 u.s. Law week 2631, (0.c. ct. App,, Dec.
6,
1978).
..
Maze, R. (1988, June 13). VA extending benefits to more homosexual veterans. NaW mes, p. .14,
Mcoormick, M,(1988, February 29). Man the barricades, the federal court is letting - 'Ihem" in. Naw Times, p, 6A.
41
osD P&R
007351
sagarin, E. (Ed,) (i971). The other minorities, wattham, MA: Ginn & co.
slegleman, M' (1978). Psychologlcal adjustment of homosexual nd heterosexuat men: A cross nationar reprieation. fcrjvds of sexuar Behavior,z, 1-11. Siegleman, M. (1979)..Adjustment of homosexual and heterosexual women; A crossnationar reprication. Archives of sexur Behavioi, g(2), 121-125.
singer v, u,s, civit service commission, 500 F.zd 247 (9th cir, 197s). singer v. u.s. civir service commission, 42g u.s. 1og4 (1977).
Spetor, M' & Kitsuse, J' l. (1987). Cgnstructing sociat orohlems. New york: Aldine-de
Gruer,
Stein,T'J'(1976).Gayserviceorganizations:Asurvev' 3, g4-97.
stewart, B.
w, (jg8g, sept,29).
Anoeles
Times,
Stuart, T', Jr. (1988, June 16), Dismissal of gay CIA worker is subject to review, cou holds. New yo.rk Times, pp. A1 , DZ4.
Washington,
he
Wolfenden Beport (1963, orig, rg57). Report of the committee on Homosexual Affairs and prostitution. New york: StenOEf-
Vetri,D'(19s0).Thelegalarena:Progressforgaycivilrights.@
5,25-34.
Webster, William H., Director of Central lntelligence petitioner v, John Doe, 49 S.Ct, (1s88)
weinberg, G, (1973), societv and the hgarthv homosexuql. Garden city, Ny: Anchor Books.
43
..
List of Appendixes
t,
A. B. C. D,
45
APPENDIX A
A-0
This appendix summarizes current DoD laws and regulations which address homosexuality and homosexual behavior. There is also a brief overview of current civilian crirninal law concerning, homoseXuality.,
The,appendix is organized as follows: urrent DoD Policy
13
14
_il.
20
A. Overview
B.
U.S. State Criminal Law ,. . . . .
,
20
21
23
A-1
Article 80
Attempts
Tert
An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under thfs chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to etfect its commission, is an attempt to commt that offenie.
Elenrents
(1) (2)
That the act was done with specific intent to comrnit a certain offense under the code;
(3)
to
more than
mere
(4)
EXolanFtion. To constitute an atternpt ther:e must be a specific intent to commit the offense accompanied by an overt act which drrec,tly tends to g99_Qtplislr the purpose. -Preparation consists of devsing .r r""ndng --rnlawful necessary for the commission of the otfense. The overt act th; means or rneasures required goes beyond preparatory s!ps and is a direct movement toward tne commission of the
offense.
IaXtrnum ounishment
the same maximum punishmnt autho:ized for the commission of the otfense attempted, except that in no case snarr tne Jeatn penalty or confinemerit exceeding 20 years be adjudged.
A-3
Tha!, at the time of the,,assault, the accused intended to commit sodomy; and
That, under the circurnstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudica of good order and discipling in the armed fsrees or was of a nature to bring:disedit upon tho armed forces,
MaximuF punishment
:",
'i
(1)
Dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay & lowa n cesJine;Ef n -m nt ai h ard a bor oi'TO years
a
I I
(2)
Other cases: Dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay allowances, fine, confinement at hard labor for S years
&
A-5
That the accused committed a cenain wrongful act with a certain person;
That the act was indecent; and That, under the circumstances, the condut of the accused was to the prejudlce of good order and discipline in the armed frces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the rmed frces.
Exp-lation, "lndecent" signifies that form of imrnorality relating to sexual impuri which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to com-mon propriety, bjt tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respct to sexual relations,
Maximum punishment
(1)
Dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay & nces, fihe, con-ffnernent I hard laboi for S years
A-7
EXTRACT FROM DOD DIRECT|VE 133A.14 - Jan. 28, 1982 ENLISTEO ADM,INI.SRATIVE SEPARATIONS
HomoFexuality (Part 1, Section H)
1.
Basis
a. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statemeRts, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seiiously impairs the accomplishment of the mititary ri"in. Th presen.. o'sucn' rn"*o"ru adversely affects the ability of the Military Seruices to mantain disciptine, good order, and morale; to foster rnttual trst and confidence ambng servicemembers-, to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate usrig.Lnt and worldwide deployment of servcernembers who frequently must live and work under cloqe condjtions affording nf inimat.pr.ivaey; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to mainlain the public acceptabllity of military servlc; and to prevent breaches of security b,
As used in this action:
Homosexual means a person, regardless of sex, who engages desires to engage in, or intends to eng3g_ajq homoiexual acts;
(1)
in,
Bisexual means a person who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts; and
(2)
A homosexual act rneans bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, betriveen members of the sarne sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires,
The basis for separation may include preseruice, prior service, or current seruice conduct or statements, A member shall be separated under this section f.one or more of the following approved findings is made:
(3)
c.
(1) The member has,engaged in, attempted to engage in, or soliciled another to engage in a homosexal ct or acts unless there are approved further
departure frorn the mmber,s usual and
A-9
EXTRACT FFOM DOD DIRECTIVE 1332,30 ? Feb. 12, 1986 SEPARATION OF FEGULR QOMIIJIISSIONE OFFICERS FOR CAUSE
DEFINITIONS
Bisexual.. A person wfro engges in, dgsires to engage in, or intends to engage in both homosexual ahd heterosexual acts.
Ho.nosexual. A person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. Hggoqexual At. Bodily contact, actively underjaken or. passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the p-urpobe'of satistying sexuat
desires.
Homosexuality. The basis for separation'may include preservice, prior servtce, or current service conduct or statements, A commissioned officer shall be separated under this provis'ion if one or more of 'the following fifidings is made:
The officer has elggged in, has.attempted tA engage in, ,or has sotieited___ nother to engge in a homosexual act or acts, unless there are further findings that:
a.
(1) Such conduct. is a departure from the officer's usual and customary
, '.,,,,'l',
Such conduct was not accomplisheQ by use of force, coercion, or intimidation by the officer during a period ol military sevice;
Under the particular circumstances of the case, the officer's continued Presence in the Service is'consistent with the proper discipline, good order, and morale of the Service; and
(5)
homosexual acts,
in
4,11
C,
Service.tqoulations
1, 2.
U'S' Navy .
U,S. Arrny
SECNAVINST 1900.9C (Policy for members of naval service involved in homosexual conduct.)
3. 4. -
SEONAVINST
U,S. Marine Corps Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, 1900.16C, paragraph 6207 (Otficers & Entisted)
U.S. Air Force
Chapter 5, Section 6
3,
5,
L,i
The service regulations, although they ditfer somewhat in wording, substantially repeat. the DoD regulations on which they are based. For that rason they are not ,, reproduced
here.
4.13
EXTRACT FROM DEFARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL SECURITY PHOcRAil REGUI-ATION, DoD SZOI.Z-R - t6 Dec t986
APENDIX
I
in making deErrinations with respect to an individual's eligiblity for employmnt or relention; i' sensitive duties or eligibility fol. access to 'classified infrmatlion. Adiudication policy relative to access to sensitive compartmented information is
contained in DC|D1i14,
While reasonable consistency in reaching adudicative determinations is desirable,
The following adjudication policy has been developed to assist DoD adjudcators
the nature and complexities of human behvior prelue the develoBment of a single set of gr,idelines or policies that is equally appficable in every personnel security caie. Accordingly, the following adjudication policy is not intended to be inierpreted as inflexible rules of procedures, The following policy requires dependence:; or the adjudicator's sound judgment, mature thnking, and careful analysis as each:cas*rmust be weighed on its own merits, taking into consideratign all relevant circumstancesr:and prior experienee in similar cases as well as the guidelines contined in the adjudicarion policy, which have been cornpiled from common experience in personnei seugty
determinations.
Eaoh adjudication is io be ar1 overall common sgnse determination based upon consideration and assessment'. rof 'all available informtion, both favorable and unfavorable, with parlicular emphasis being placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency and rnotivation for the individual's cnduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undErtaken with knowledge of the circumstances or
consequncesa involved; and, to'the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the future. The listed "Disqualifying Factors,, and 'lMitigating Factors" in this set of Adjudication Policies reflect the onsideration of those factors of seriousness, recency, frequency, motivation, etc., to common situations and types of behavior enountered in personnel seuity adjudications, and should be followed whenever. an individual case can be meaSuied against this policrT guidance. Common sense may occasionally necessitate deviatidns trdm tnis policy guidnce, but such deviations should not be frequently made and must be carefully explained and documented.
conduct under the criteria that can justity a deterrination.to deny or revoke an individual's eliEibility for accesg to classitied lnformation, or appointmeni to, or retenton
A-15
'
The "Disqualifying Factors" provided hrein establish some of the types of serious-
'
adverse etfect
Adultery that ig recen!, frequent and likely to continue and has on goed order or discipline withjn the wrxptace t. an g otfcerlehtisted, supervsor/ subordinate, instrlctoristudent).
,
h.
i. j'
2.
or pressure.
The conduct has been recent, The conduct incrases the individual's vulnerability to blackmail, coercion
Evidence that the applicant has intention or is likely to repeat the conduct
3.
4'
in question
---l[ture.
Sexual misconduct occurred on an isolated baqis durinn or. Oi,ng adolescenoe with no evidence of subsequent conduct or a similar na-ture, and:cfea indicqtion-!!st the indiyidul ha-s, no intenrion-or panicip;ti;gj"-*"h-."ri:i,]n
. 1.
.i.
:1,,i,
2. Sexual misconduct was isolated, ocurred more than 3 years ago, and there is clear indiction that the individual has no intention of participating in such conduct in the future.
3.
he
individual was
another.
by
The individual haE succesflly comleted professional therapy, has l^ren rehabilitatejd and diagnosed by competent medical authorily that misconouct is not likely to recur.
4,
5. Demonstr:ation that the individual's sexual misconduct can no longer form the basis for vulnerability to blackmail, coercion or pressure.
A-17
g. h.
l.
Alcohol
l(,
t.
Adjudicative actions concefning'rthe foregoihg items are gxamined in greater det-ail below.
SEXUAL CONSIDERATIONS
Sexual promiscuity, prostitution, nd extiamarital relations are of legitimate cohcern to,the,SCl adjudieator where suoh condust rfleets laok oi judgrrr anO oisfrtion or When the conduct otters th potentiat'for undue influenoe, Ourss or exploitation by a foreign intelligence service. Deviant sexual behavior can e a relevant consideration in circumstances in which
it indicates flawed'iudgment or a personality disorder, or could result in exposing the indivjdual to direct or indirect pressure b-cause of susceptibitity to. blackmail or coercion as a'result of the deviant sexual beavior. Such behavior includes, but is not limited tq, bestiality, fetishism, exhibitionism,'necrphilia, nymphomania or satyriasis, masochism, sadism, pedophilia, transvestism, and voyurism, Homosexual conduct is also to be considered as a factor in determining an individual's judgment, discretion, stability and susceptibility to undue influence or duress.
!n examining cases involvng sexual conduct of security significance, such as thoqe,, described above, it 'is', relevnt t, eon5ider the ago of the person, the voluntariRess,.and the frequency of such actiities,'the pulic'natuie and the recency ql the conduct, as well as any other circumstances which may serve te aggravate or mitigate thq neture or characterof the oanduot. A recommendation for disapproval is appropriate when, in view of all available evidenc concernng the individual's history of sexual behavior, it appears that acess to SCI could pose a risk to the national
becurity.
"'
A.19
The laws of ths German Democratic Republic towards homosexuals are the most lieal of the communist bloc, ln splte of the enremely tolerant otficial aitude toward homosexuality, employing hoinosexuals in th police force or army of tn" OOn is not under consideration (Brzek & Hubalek, 1988),
B.
he first U.S, state to decriminalize adult homosexual activities was'lliinois in 1g62. At that time each of the other 49 etates had sodorny laws on the books. Forty-five also penalized adulterv, 37 states penalized forniation and 15 states penized coabitation. Hefner (1964) noted that even thouEh lllinois had, decriminalized consenting adutt sodomy it retained laws against adultery and fornication, creating the curious situation of permittiag certain 'homosexual (and other) perversions" while prohibiting some "normal" heterosexual,activities. Hefner .observed, uWe are'free in a voting both, in a stockholders' meeting, a union hall or a house of worship, but we are not free in bed.', The next six states to join lllinois. in removing criminal laws against private cgnsenling qdult hmos.expal Ects were Colorado; Delware, Oregon, Haiai and Ohio (Geis et al, 1976). By 1977, homosexuality was illegal between-consentingladulb in only 31 states (Bell & Weinberg, 1978). Currently (19g) there are no so-cailed sodomy laws in 25 states. Adult consenting homosexual behavior is legal in:
--
Alaska
lllinois
Hawaii
Calfornia
-*
\
Oregon Washington Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Nebraska South akota , Nor,th Dakota
lowa
.:.i, 5'r,,i .:
lndiana Oklahoma Wast Virginia Pennsylvania New'York Delawre New'JerSey Connecticut Velmont New Hampshire Maine
ln 25 states and the District of Columbia, however, sodomy laws remain in force. ln some of these, such as Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana and Nevada, homosexual acts between males are specified for.,prohibition. ln most other state laws, sodomy is spokan of in broader terms as "crimes against nature" and can be applied equally to
A-21
Theoretically a large percentage of DoO military personnel might be criminals under it, ln practice, it is used almost exclusively to punish acts which involve force and/or a minor or nonconsenting partner. The lar:ger percentage of such prosecuted acts are heterosexual.
.
As has been pointed out, the ucMJ Article 125 definition of sodomy s particularty b:oad and covers homosexual acts a$ well as heterosexual acts even *ithin ilarriage,
C.
LaW
Wth the exception of the UCMJ and certain laws pertaining to lndian reservations, Federal law does not proscribe homosexual behavior.
A-23
APPENDIX B
B-0
r,l,-
A
9,246
,64d1
v nz
170,338 19,398 67 2 0 9,140 649
654 33
0 0
U
Admnstrlive
87
59
2 0
O
E
26
0 0
0
3l
0 0
U
O
E
0 0 87 2
0 59 2 0.03
0,01 120
Total Homosxual
JJ
26
0
O E O
E
67
2
31
0 0.34
0
0.05
0.37
,
0.01
177
1
0.28 0 84 2
0.04
0.01 137 7
77
4
iitL,
.'
'
i.:, li,t
431,017 " -,
96,473
20J
15
57,586
11s27
81
4'93,972 96,671
60,694 12,377 68 2
0
Admini$ratlvo
432,s78 95,013
194
13
62,666
12,66s
lt
249
13 0 0
3 0
2
0 0
71
0
0
0
81 it
0 68 2 0,10 0.02
0 0 194
13
201
15
249
13
O
E
2
0. 10
0.04
0.01 177
O
E
0,10 0.02
0.05
0.01 132
21
0.04
0.01
002
52
lnvsstgations
It
.80
5t
7
142 20
B:3
c-0
'
homosexul person. Most definitions nclude some aspect of preference for or indulgence in homosexual acts. Br.lt how mugh pelerence, and how many acts? Along with author:ities on human sexua]i{, we catpgoriclly reject the notion tnt partcipato in a single homosexual act defines homsexuaity, An acceptabte definition of homosexuality needs to contain two elernents., oe behavioral, the,other self.definitional.
of
1' 2'
The person concerned prefers homosexual acts exclusively or significany over heterosexual acts,
The person concerned identifies (at least prvately) with being homosexual,
Second is the problem of locating homosexuals. Save for those who publicly announce their sexual orientation and thse who are occdsionally apprehended for homosexual conduct, lhere is no way to conduct population studis.'d""uur" of the social Stignia traditionaily attached to being homosexuql, many (perhaps rnosg homosexuals remain hidden and are not iden-iied except in specil rr""r"i.r studies. As. a result, thq data cited n: a4y, rsarch irtvestigation are not true population estimates. We can only construct'estimates based o available data and social and demographic theory.
Kinsey (1948) rated hi subjects on a 0-1-2.3-4-5-6 scale (which was described on page #638').frorn exclusivly l'eterosexual (0) to exclusively hmosexual (6). Some of Kinsey's significant conclusions with regard to homosexuality are summarized in the following table:
'and in Appendix D,
p., D.q,
osD P&R
007371
'
persons who rate Z's or 3's who, in terms of the number of coritacts they have made,'may have had more homosexual experience than many persons who rate 6, and the clinician, the social worker, court'otfials;: an sooity in general are nt infrequenfly conceTned'with persons who iate no more than 2's or 3's. Many who rat only 1 or z are much dsturbed over their homosexuar experience, and they are frequentry among those who go to clinicians for help.
With regard to . bisexuality, Kins.ey stated that nearly 46 percent of the generat population engages in homosexual cgnduct or reacls to persons of both sexes in the course ef their:adult life.
Kinsey's data can bE confusjng, especially with regard to specific rates, because he excludes pre'adolesce1;;hoEosexual,experincas froin many of his conclusions and presents such a wealth of numbers, The following conclusions, howgver, stand out:
'
tife.
life.
""
exclusively
The Kinsey data are.compllcated; largely due to the fact that sexual behavior patterns are not fixed, but change with age. 'This is probably best reflected by the following twa graphs, also taken.frorn.Knseyrs wor:k:
tv'
..;.
No study since Kinsey has been as comprehensive or thorough, and most susequent work leans strongly on that of Kinsey.
The Wolfenden report (1957) also cites Kinsey's conclusions and states that findings in Great Britain'might be similar, The Wolfenden report atso alludes to data from Sweden concluding that 'l percent of all men were exclusively homosexual, and 4 percent had both homosexual and heterosexual impulses.
The Canadian Forces Study on' Homosexuality (Zuliani, 1g86) stated that .10 percent of the general Canadian population was "non-exclusively heterosexual.', This study also estimated that 10 percent of males and 5 per.cent of fernales in the generat population were exclusively homosxual for at least 3 years between ages 16 and SS. Williams and Weinberg (1971) do not give any estimates of total numbers of homosexuals in the military, but state ".,.there must be a considerable number of homosexuals. At the least, this number must be greater than the 2OOO.3OO0 discharges per year for homosexuatity" (p. Sg), ln the data reported by Harry (1984), homosexual ren and heterosexual men seem equally likely to have lerved in the military. Lesbians are mere likely to have served than heterosexual women.
No hard data have been advanced to counter the conclusion that the percentage general pepulation. -+-the data avaitatrte-it is reasonable-to cor.iclude tht-tprcntag of female homosexuality in the military is higher than in the general population.
u-
APPENDIX D Bisexuality
D-0
Blsexuality with of embryology and the apparent early her.maphroditi charaeteristics the science of the human '"o*.pi embryo (Marmor' 1975), Freud ,=ed this in formulating some of .The.ancient Greek concept of org.anic bisexuality was revived
his psychoanalytic theories, and believed that there is a biotogi. or*"ipiJdisposition, and that all persons go through a homoe,otic phase p"n of normal maturation.
Up to now there has been little consideration of,,bisexuality as a possible separate ctegory. Bisexuality, that is erotc resonse to both.sexes, nas t";j"*r; included with homosexuality, This beconies clear if one .onridrrc most laws and rules conoerning homosexuar behavipr: ,erti9r-aiio.r ll .ingJ. u homosexrui; i; enough to laber a persoR (Kinse,ise. The coverse, however, is not true; a homosexual does"_!^"T:*uar hteroiexuat y not becorne rr' vv^ve behavior / -"-r"rv n sexual vsrrcrvref with the opposite sex. "ng.gin
The Kinsey data, that 4 percent of men are exclusively homosexual, and 63 percent are exclusively heterosexual (after adolescence) leaves a very large percentage, '33 percent, who could be considered bisexuat, as they'eiioit uarying of erotic responss to either sex,
;;;
D-1
it seems likely that many of ln terms of military discharges for homosexualt.y, discharied as hornosexuars are probabry bisexual (and could be comthose noiviauas ptrt"ty heterosexual except for one incident)'
Present this issue is not addressed bisexuality. distinction is made between homosexuality and
At
No
percentage of persons (perhaps 37 The bisexual capablity exists in a large probably the explanation for much of such "situational percent of males or more and is environments where there is ,.,..,otr*u"ly,, as is seen in prisons and other restricted of the opposite sex. ln most cases, persons participating in to members n themselves homosexual, """"r, homosexual acts under such circumstances do not consider heterosexual behavior when this becomes possible' and return 1O
D-3
GAO
Ic
tgt'csjsi( )utl
llcq u()slors
.Irrr.l!)!)2
DETENSE FORCE
MANTAGEMtrNIT
(;AO/NStAI)-92-!)t
UAU $i#5',9ff*
^
Natlonel Securly and Internattonal Atretrg Dlvlelon
a .^.
Unlted Sttee
8-24723
June 12, 1992
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. The Honorable Gerry E. Studds The Honorable TedWeiss House of Representatives This report responds to your joint request that we review the Department of Defense's (non) policy of excluding homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. Also, as you requested, our supplemental report Defense Force Management:Statistics Relate9 to pop's Polic'9n Horyrosexuality lcaosno-2EE$-contains statistical information such as the number of see peonnel expelled for homosexuality as a result of DoD's exclusion policy. Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to interested committees; other Members of Congress; and the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. We will make copies available to other parties upon request'
Please contact the Director for Defense Force Management Issues, Parl L, Jones, on (202) 275-3gg\, if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. The mqior contributors to this report are listed in appendix V,
L ,J
Q0",.,-(-,*.!
i
Executive Summary
Purpose
In response to a reguest from Representatives John Conyers, Jr', Ted Weiss, and Gerry E. Studds, GAo examined certain aspects of the Department of Defense's (ooo) policy of excluding homosexuals from serving in the U.S. armed forces. Specifically, GAo was asked to compile and anae statistics on the separation of homosexuals from the military services between 1980 and I990, including the number of personnel by service, race/ethnicity, gender, rank, and occupational category; determine the cost of replacing personnel separated under this policy and the cost of investigating allegations of homosexuality; identify and analyze the evidence that has been developed by DoD, the military services, or nondefense sources and cited as support for the current policy on homosexuality; and obtain information on the general public's attitudes, other nations' military forces policies, and other organizations'views on the compatibi-lity of homosexuality with the military or other work environments.
Background
According to DoD officials, U.S. forces have had policies prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military since the beginning of World lVar II. DoD's current policy on homosexuality was formalized in 1982 and specifically states thatr
llomosexuality is incompatible with military service. he presence in the military envionment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their sttementsr
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 Military Services to maintin discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the l-nteglity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assigrunent and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditlons affording mininat privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Servces; to malntain public acceptbility of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.
According to DbD, a homosexual is "a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts'" DoD defines a homsexual act as "bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between mernbers of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires. "
Pgo2
Executlve Eumnrery
Resrlts in Brief
On the basis of its poiicy of excluding homosexuals from the military, non
M4jor psychiatric and psychological organizations in the United States disagree with DoD's policy and believe it to be factually unsupported, unfair, and counterproductive. In addition, two DoD/service-commissioned study efforts have refuted ooo's position on the potential security risk associated with homosexual orienttion as well as disclosed information that rai.sed questions about the basic policy. F\rrther, the Secretary of Defense aild the Chairman of the Joint Ct ief" of Staff have recently acknowled!O tnt hmosexuat orientation is no longer a m4jor security
concern.
co
recent polls suggest that the public has become more accepting of homosexuality and of homosexuals' serving in the military; some U.S. allied nations have policies similar to that of the United States, and others have policies that permit homosexuals to be members; and police and fire departments in several mqjor U.S. cities have removed employment restriitions without adverse effects on mission.
Page
:r
gomotorurllty
Eocudve Oummary
GAO tutatysis
Number of Discharges
During fiscal years 1980 through 1990, approximately 17,000 servicemen and women (an average of about 1,500 per year) were separated from the services under the category of "homosexuality." Approximately I,000 military personnel were discharged in 1990. No determination that their behavior had adversely affected the ability of the military services to perforr.n their missions war required. In terms of rank, gender, and racelethniity, the mqiority were enlisted personnel; most were men; and most werewhite,, Hovever, some groups were consistently discharged at a rate higher than their representation in the total active force or individual service, For example, between 1980 and 1990, the Navy, representing 27 percent ofthe active force, accounted for about 5l percent ofthe discharges; and women, representing 11 percent of the total active Navy force, accounted for 22percent ofthose discharged,
Cost of Policy
Limited cost information associated with the administration of poo's policy was available. Basically, only the costs of recruiting and training the personnel needed to replace those discharged for homosexuality could be readily estimated. In fiscal year 1990, recruiting and initial training costs associated with the replacement of personnel discharged for homosexualiff were estimated to be $28,226 for each enlisted troop and 8L20,772 for each officer. The total cost of replacing personnel discharged for homosexuality, however, would need to include other factors such as out-processing and court costs.
The services' investigative agencies could not provide specific information on the costs of investigating alleged cases of homosexualty. However, during fiscal years 1986. through 1990, DoD investigative agencies conduited;a total,of 3,663 such investigations. In 1990, atotal, of about 472 nvesligations were conducted. These figures are approximate because the services can administratively handle investigations involving homosexuality under other categories, and the investigative agencies had to estimate the number of such cases. In addition, Navy investigations are simultaneously categorized as more than one offense, such as sodomy and indecent assault; again, the Navy a{usted its figures to account for this
policy.
Pee 4
Erocutlvo Eumny
in
DoD and the serrrices have commissioned two m4ior efforts that focused on whether homosexuals \ryere more of a security risk than heterosexuals and concluded that there wa{ no factual data to substantiate that premise, The Navy's 1957 Crittenden Report' (which did not question the underlying premise of DoD's policy) stated, "A third concept which persists without sound basis in fact is the idea that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk." A more ecent draft report, prepared by DoD's Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center (eensonnc), commented that the ooo policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military was based on the same rationale used to limit the integration of blacks.z Specifically, it stated:
The order ro integrate blacks was first met wlth stout reslstnce by traditionalists in the military establishment, Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of tese predictions of doom has come true.
The nERSEREc effort, initiated in 1986, has been packaged as several interim products with the final report issued in tate 1991.
In addition, national organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the Americn Psychological Association, farniliar with the extensive rqarch conducted on homosexuality in the general population and with military veterans, disagree with on's policy and the policy's rmptied characterization of homosexuals.
In testimony efore the House Budget Committee, the Secretary of Defense in July 1991 and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in February 1992 backed away from security concerns as a mqior basis for ooD's policy. However, both officials continued to support the policy on the basis of their belief tha[ it is neded to maintain good order and discipline.
lofnctauy, the Report of the Board ppointed to Prepare end Subrft Becornmendalions to the Scretary of the Na:y for the Revbion of Pollcieg, Procedures and Dtrectlveg Dealing lvth Homosexuals, Mar. 16, 1967.
zPresidential Execulive Order 998 t JuIy 20, I 948, required [he integaiion of blacks into the armed , frlrces. Congress also passd the Women's rmed Services lntegra[ion Act in 1948 to institutionalize ceer opportunitils for women,in the military,
Jl|
Pege
Executlve Sumrnary
General public attitudes in the United Sttes about homosexualiW appear to be changing. cAo reviewed three recent national polls, conducted by Gallup and Perur and Schoen Associates, lnc., which indicated that more Americans now say they believe that homosexuals should be allowed to pariicipate in various occupations, including the armed forces. A Gallup survey conducted in March 1991 of a cross section of the American population of ,adults aged t8 and over showed that 69 percent of those interviewed felt that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the armed forces, whereas only'5l percent felt that way n 1977.
Additionally, since the early 1970s, a nurnber of police and fire departments have adopted policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and have hired homosexuals into their work forces. Officials from all eight of the departments that Geo contacted stated that they had not experienced any degradation of mission associated with these policies. Most department officials did not identify m4jor problems related to retaining homosexuals in a work force, but a few pointed out isolated cases of problems indirectly involving homosexuals.
The policies regarding homosexuals serving in the military forces of 17 selected nations-predominantly members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other U,S. allies-ranged from policies very similar to that of the United States to no stted policy addressing homosexuality as either a legal or a military personnel issue.
Four of the I 7 countries, or about 24 percent, had policies that appear to have been designedrto prevent homosexuals from entering military service and to separate fom service or preclude retention beyond an existing service obllgation those active duty personnel identified as homosexual. While l3 countries did not exclude homosexuals from entering their armed forces, several had policies requiring separation if an individual's homosexuality was disclosed later or if an individual's behavior was found to be aggressive harassing, or disruptive. During the past l0 years, at least two countries have dropped their exclusion policies. One of the four countries that now exclude homosexuals is reviewing its policy-it expects to rescind the existing restriction in he near future.
Psge 0
Executlve Summy
Recommendations
On May 19, 1992, a bill to prohibit discrimination by the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation wa.s introduced, While cAo is making no recommendations in this report, co's analysis should assist the Congress in deliberating legislative initiatives relative to changing DoD's policy, which excludes homosexuals from serving in the U.S, armed forces.
Agency Comments
In commenting on a draft of this report, ooo agreed or partially agreed with some findings and did not agree with others. pop said that its homosexual exclusion policy is not based on any belief that homosexuality is a mental disorder, nor is it based solely on secur concern. DoD said that c,o correctly notes that the DoD policy is based on military judgment and that scientific or sociological analyses are unlike to affect its policy of excluding homosexuals from the military, noo said that the courts consi5tntly haVe found that the military interests underlying the policy-good order, discipline, and morale-were substntial and that military coircern about homosexuality has a basis in fact.
said that Go erred in stating that the two cited reports did not support oop's policy. nop said that the Crittenden report clearly supported the policy and tht the PERSEREO draft misstated the policy. That is, oon said that the eERSEREo draft did not address the issues of morale, discipline, and so on, and, therefore, its "analysis" was flawed. DoD correctly states that the Crittenden report did not question the premise of DoD's exclusionary policy - - that is, that homosexualiff is incompatible with inintary service - - and GAo's report points this out. However, the report that was issued in 1957 stated that (1) many homosexuals have served honorably in all branches of the military and (2) the concept that homosexuals pose a security risk is unsupporled. It also noted that the number of homosexuals disclosed represented only a very small proportion of those in the Navy.
oo
With regard to the PERSEREC draft, c,to recognizes that this study went beyond its directed task. However, cAo believes that the information presented should not be discounted by pon solely for that reason,
In a drat of tis ieport,'eo suggested that individual Members of Congress my wish to direct the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the basis for ooo's rohibition. Because legislation has since been introduced on this matter, clo has deleted its suggestion.
?age 7
Contents
Denitions and Population hojection Current DOD Policy Appeals Processes Uphold DOD's Policy Objectives, Scope, and Methodologl
l0 l1
72
l3 l6 t6
t7
24 25 27
Chapter 2 DOD's Separations of Homosexuals Chapter 3 Support for DOD's Policy on Homosexuality Chapter 4 Public Attitudes and Other Views Chapter 5
COnCIUSiOnS and
Discharge Criteria Analysis of Discharges for Homosexuality Investigations of Homosexual Behavior Cost of Expulsions
DOD's Position Judicial Consideration of DOD's Policy Studies Iritiated by DOD ad the Services Do NotAddess the Policy's Rationale Scientific Evaluafions of Homosexuality
27
28
29
36
39
39 40
4L
43.
AgenCV v "
conclwions Agency0omments
Appendix I: Examples of Expulsions forWhich Performance
Was Not an Issue 43 44
COmmgntS
Appendixes
46 54 5 56 79
Appendix II: Other Nations' Policies Regarding Homosexuals in the Military Appendix ltr: List of OrganizationsVisited by GAO Appendix IV: Comnents Ftom the Department of Defense Appendix V: M4ior ConFibutors to This Report
Pae E
i.i
..
Contents
TableS
Figures
Tabte 4,1: Percentdge of the PublicWho Believed That Homosexuals Shorld Be Hired for Vaious Jobs
39
Figure 2.1: Discharges for Homosexuality by Sewice Figure 2.2: DOD-rilide Number of Homosexuals Discharged Figure 2.3:Average Percentage of Whites Sewing Compared With Average Percentage of \his Discharged for Homosexuality Figure 2.4:Average Percentage of Women Serving Compared WithAverage Percentage of Women Discharged for
18 19
20
21
Compared With Average Percentage of White V/omen Discharged for Homosexuality Figure 2.6 Average Percentage of Enlisted Persornel Compared With Average Percentage of Enlisted Persorurel Discharged for Homosexuality Figure 2.7; DOD'Wide Investigations of
HomosexualiW
22
Serving
23
Homosexuality
25
Abbrevlatigne
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Design, Methodologr, and Technical Assistance Group Department of Defense GeneralAccounting Office PEBSEREC Personnel Securiff Reseach ard Eduction Center
Pege
Background
According to Defense offcials, the Department of Defense's (DoD) policy of excluding homosexuals from serving in the U.S' armed forces s based on the professional militry judgment that the policy promotes overall combat effectivenss. Although the language and administration of the military's policy on homosexual orientation has changed since 1941, the current policy has, according to both scientific researchers and poo officials, evolved from the one adopted during the mobilization for V/orld War II. Exclusion was then grounded on (l) prevailing sodomy statutes that viewed homosexuality as a criminal offense and (2) the psychiatric belief that homosexuality was a mental disorder. At that time, the rationale was that the psychiatric screening of recruits for mental disorders (including homosexual orientation) would enhance the psychiatric profession's prestige, as well as be less costly to the government over the long term. That is, it was anticipated that such screening would reduce the patient load of veterans' hospitals after the war. Many psychiatrists also felt that it was more humane to screen out homosexual recruits from the draft and separate homosexual persons already in the military services rather than imprison them under military sodomy regulations. Under present policy, pop defines a homosexual as "a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual ?ts.",poD defines a homosexual act as "bodily contact, actively undBrtaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the prpose of satisfying sexual desires." The limited data currently available (largely Kinsey Institute studies) suggests that the primary sexual orientation of between 5 and 10 percent of the general U.S. population is homosexual. ,,
In commenting on a dra^ft of this report, ooo questioned the predictive value or relevance to today's military of earlier studies conducted by the Kinsey Institute. It stated that we had failed to point out that Doo's exclusion policy-which involves an initial screening out process and a lack of acceptance of honrosexual in the military environment-tends to limit the number of homosexuals in the military,
lBased on a DOD rnilltry population of approximately 2 million, the number of homosexual personnel would range from about 100,000 to 200,OO0 pereoruel usig these percentges.
Pafo
l0
Chapter
BackgFound
DoD is coect in stating that a solid estimat of the militry homosexual population is not available, However, a number of studies done after the Kinsey efforts clearly suggest that (1) there are considerab more homosexuals sewing in the military and completing their terrns of service than are being caught and discharged and (2) the limiting effects of the exclusion policy (for example, the screening processes) may not be particularly effective, 2
DoD's guidance on homosexuality is contained in Diec"tives 1332,14, "Enlisted Adriinistrative Separations, " and I 332. 30, "Separation of Regular Commissioned Officers fot Cause." The first directive was officially revised on January 28, 1982; the second on February 12, 1986. Specifically, the guidance sttes that:
Homosexuality is lncompatible with military service. The presence in the military envionment of ersons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a ropensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously lmpais the accomplishment of the militry mission. The presence of such members adversely aflects the abitty of the Military Services to maintaln discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutuel trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the lnt8nty of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work unde close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and rtain members of the Military Services; to maintain public acceptability of rnilitary service; and to prevent breaches of securlty,
Prior to 1982, noo directives did not require the initiation of separation processing or provide grounds for the possible retention of personnel involved in or suspected of homosexual behavior. Accordin$y, the regulations of the military services differed substantially in how these and other matters were addessed. According to DoD officials, these differences resulted in substantial diffictlties in responding to legal challenges in the courts. According to,oop offibials and documents, the primary reasons for the 1982 and 1igg$,policy fevisions were to (1) establish uniform policies and procedures'for all the services and (2) provide a stronger basis for defending the policies and procedures in the courts. Specifically, the new
2These Btudies include the NaW's Crtllenden Report of 1967; a 1967 study bythe Instltute ofsex Regearch a[ the Universily of Indiana;Homoeexuals Bnd the Military, C.J. Wiiame and M.S. rrlr'einberg, l97l; Homosexual Men andWomen Who Served Thel Courty; Jogrnalof Homosxuallty, J. Harry,
I984.
P8o 11
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
Chpter
Beclground
Current noo regr:lations afford the right to appeal homosexual separations through processes within the military a{udication system' Service members may also pursue redress in the civil court system.
According 0 oop regulations and ooD officials, a service member who is alleged to be or who admits to being homosexual is notified in writing by the appropriate command that he or she is being considered for discharge. At,such time, the service member is afforded the opportunity under the military a{udication system to have the case heard before an Administrative Board, where the individual is represented by an appointed military counsel, militry counsel of the respondent's own choice, or civilian counsel retained at the service member's own expense'
If the Board finds ttie service member is not a homosexual on the basis of the facts provided and recommends retention, the service member is normally retained. If the Board finds that the allegation is supported by the preponderance of the evidence, the service member is normally processed for discharge. The service member may petition the respective Board for Correction of Militaryfi{aval Records, which reviews the case on the basis of possible error. If the Correction Board finds no effor or i4iustice in the decision made by the Administrative Board, then the decision to discharge
stands.
Psge
l9
Chspter I Bekground
If the sewice rnember wishes to appeal further, he or she may file suit in a civil coutt, at which time all expenses, including attorney fees, are incurred by the individual because he or she is no longer in the military'
A service member separated from service under DoD's policy may seek review by a federal court as to whether the discharge was proper' The member may file an action in a federal district court if the member's complaint presents a federal question or if the member seeks a declaratory judgment, In addition, under the T\cker Act, the district courts and the U.S. Claims Court have concurrent juisdiction over actions filed by service members seeking monetary relief not exceeding $ 10,000' The Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction if the amornt claimed exceeds $ 10,000. Further, reviews of administrative decisions by the armed services that have resulted in discharges also may be sought under the Administrative Procedure Act, The act permits courts to set aside action by a military *arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or review board that is otherwise not in accordance with the law" or when it is claimed that a review board's decision was "unsupported by substantial evidence'"
service members discharged for homosexualiW between fiscal years 1980 and 1990 by branch ofsewice, raee, gender, rank, and occupational code' lVe obtained statistics on the composition of the active military force, discharges for homosexualiby, years of serviceay grades, and occupational categories from DoD's Defense Manpower Dat Center' 'Where possible, w anaed costs associated with the implementation of DoD's elicy.'Becase op dqes not routinely maintin such cost data, our cost analysis is v'ery limited. DoD was ble to provide only information on the cost of recruiting and [raining dischargees' replacements' We also obtained py grade and years-of-service data for those personnel discharged for homosexuality between fiscal years 1980 and 1990' In a separately issued supplement to this report entitled Defense Force ManaFement: Statistics Relatgd to ooo Policy on HrnosexualiW (cao/ustlro-92-98s), we present these statistics in full' We were not able to calculate the original investment cost of traiing and compensation, the cost of investigating alleged or actual homosexual cases, or he cost of out-processing servicemen and \omen who had been identified as homo'sexuals. According to DOD officials, there were relatively few service members who had been discharged from service academy and
Pege 13
Chpter I Eacround
Reserve Officer Training Corps progxams on the grounds of homosexuality, and only a few had been asked to repay educational costs paid by the military.
In a 1984 letter to some Members of Congress, we addessed some of the matters discussed in this report. At that time, we provided a breakout of the numbers of serqice members discharged for homosexuality by branch ofservice, race, gender, rank, and career occupation and some costs associated with the implementation of non's policy of excluding homosexuals.o In this 1992 report, we were also asked to evaluate available evidence used by DoD to support its rationale for implementing the policy.
To determine what evidence exists to support DoD's rationale for its homosexual exclusion policy, we asked DoD to identifu any research studies that had been conducted or commissioned and any reports or drafts that had been written to examine the rationale and premises underlying the existing policy. We reviewed the documents so identified. We intehiewed officils from the Department of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, d the Marine Corps to obtain their views on the origin, the rationale, and the implementtion of the policy, We also interviewed officials from the Personnel Security Research and Education Center, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division Command, the Air Force OffTce of Special Investigations, and the Naval Investigative Service. To obtain information on the sttus and results of research in the area of homosexuality in the general population, we met with official representatives of the national professional associations with cognizance of and expertise in this area. These organizations included the American Psychiatric Associrttion and the American Psychological Association. We obtained position papers from each, discussed the understanding and interpretation of the research available on homosexuality, and obtained their views on DoD's policy. cao's Design, Methodolog/, and Technical Assistance Group (ntttec) assisted us in developing our strategr for selecting these organizations and accompanied us on several of the
significant meetings,
IVe also obtained copies of national polls on the public's changing attitudes toward homosexuality in general and homosexuality in the military and discussed the resultc ryrfh polling experts and representatives.
'1
PaEe 14
Chptor I Bac.gound
We also contacted embassy officials of U.S. allies and solicited their current policies governing homosexuals serving in thei armed forces (see
app.II).
,j
,,,,
Finally, we selected and visited eight police and fie departments in four U.S, citieS whre th employment of homosexuals is not prohibited and obtained the officials'views on their policies and experiences (see app. III). While these organizations are not comparable to the U.S. military in all ways, we believe that these organizations have attributes that are similar to those of military units. For example, their members work closely together; sleep in close quarters; use the same restroom facilities; maintain trust, confidence, discipline, and morale; and respect the system of rank
and command, We conducted our review between September 1990 and May 1992 in accordance wth generally accepted Sovernment auditing standards,
; ,!
:l ::l '
t:
Psge 1
Chanter 2
pop-wide statistics show that 16,919 seryicemen and women were discharged under the separation category of homosexuality between fiscal years I 980 and 1990-an average of about I ,500 annually, or about I .6 percent of the average number of involuntary discharges. Most of these personnel were enlisted, men, and white. According to DoD offcials, personnel separated under this category might have been identified in a number of ways, including self-admission, allegations leading to investigations, and being caught in compromising situations. DoD and service officials acknowledged that the numbers we cite do not reflect the total number of homosexual military personnel sparated because homosexuals could also have been separated under other categories such as misconduct.
The costs assoiated with the administration of homosexual discharges, which involye a spparaticin process and may include investigation, are not tracked by oo or the srvices. However, calculations using ooo-provided average costs for the recruiting and initial training of enlisted and officer personnel suggest a replacement cost of approximately $27 million for those personnel separated for homosexuality in 1990-if these individuals were replaced on a one-for-one ba.sis.
Discharge Criteria
uoo's policy states that homosexuality is incompatible with miiitary seryice because the presence of persons who engage in or demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct seriously impairs the accomplishment of phe military mission. Accordingly, identification as a homosexual is the only criterion that needs to be met to discharge a person under this separation category-no specific determination of an individual's negative impact on the military mission is needed prior to
separation.
. both in the military administrative review process and in the civilian court
system. This has been true even in cases ivolving personnel with exemplary service records, such as the following:
I
. '
An Army sergeant, whse comnanding officer said he was "one of our most redpected and truqted soldiers," wa.s expelled after l4 years of service including tours in Vietnam and Korea. An Air Force sergeant, the recipient of a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, was expelled after 12 years of service including a tour of duty in Vietnam,
Psge 16
A Naval Academy midshipmn, rankd at the top of his class, was expelled
6 weeks prirrto graduation. The promotion of a'captain with 15 years' service in the 'rmy Reserve was suspended. She was subsequently expelled from the military. A NaW petW offrcer who had served 9 years as a linguist and cryptogapher with a top secret clearance was discharged. An Army Reserve sergeant who had enlisted for a 3-year term and who wa.s the on female in her drill sergeant training course was acknowledged by her superiors as a fine candidate for drill sergeant school, a capable soldier, and an excellent instructor. She was subsequently discharged one year short of her initial enlistment period.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DoD stated that of necessity, it creates categories to manage military personnel and guide accession and retention decisions. Categories include those mandated by law, such a.s age and citiaenship (for officers), and those mardated by regulation, such as height and weight limits, physical and mental standards, sin$e parenthood,r and homosexuality. DoD cornrnented that each regulatory category is predicated on the professional military judgment of non leaders that creating that category contributes to overall combat effectiveness. Accordingly, DoD separates individuals in selected categories, such a.s homosexuals, regarclless of their individual performance records.
Analysis of Discharges
for Homosexualiff
We sumniarized oOb's data on discharges and separations for homosexuality during fiscal years 1980 through 1990 by service, race/ethniciry, gender, and rank. Our analysis showed that some groups have consistently been discharged at a rate higher [han their representation either noo-wide or in their respective services, Our analysis of discharge data is discussed below. In a separately issued supplement to this report entitled Defense Force Management: Statis Homose
Discharges by Service
The Navy, representing 27 percent of the active force during this period, accounted for 5l pereent (8,638 cases) ofthe totl number ofdischarges for homosexuality. While the Army represented 37 percent of the active force, it accounted for 26 percent (4,235 cases) of all discharges for homosexuality. The Air Force, representing 27 percent of the active force,
I Under current regulatlons, a single parent may not enter the rnllitary servlces; however, lndlvtduals who become sirxgle parents while in service are aUowed to sty.
PEge L7
Chrpter
accognted for t8 percent (2,993 cases) ofall these discharges. The Marine Corps represented I percent ofthe active force and 6 percent (1,053 cases) of the total number of these discharges' The Marine Corps, the smallest service, also had the fewest discharges overall. (See fig' 2' 1')
Homossxuallty by Servlce
60
0
P.rcrntlg.
10
h
Army
AIT
Frc.
Hlrln
Corpr
Mllltrry aarvlc.r
l-l
J
e.,."n' Percontago
ol acvs lorce
DoD-wide, the total number of reported discharges for homosexualiy dropped 47 percent between fiscal years 1980 and 1990 (see fig.2'2). Some DoD ofhcials said tat there may be various reasons for the trend, including, but not limitedito (1) the flexibility available to local commanders to administratively handle situations involvin g homosexuality without brin$ng in an investigative agency and to select an alternative separation category other than homosexua[ty; (2) the likelihood that officers are given the option of resigning, which eliminates the investigative process and the homosexual categorization; and (3) the apparent softefng of the general public's attitude toward homosexuality.
Prgo I8
Homoaexual Dlacharged
60{, 108{l
19E1
Fbcal
y.rr
of
involuntary separations for the period with the number of separations for hornqsexuality.,We fotmd that as theitotal number of involuntary separatios decreased, so did the total number ofseparations for homosexuality. For example, the totI number of involuntary separations peaked in 1982 at slightly over 108,000 actions and opped almost 36 percent by 1990. Separations for homosexuality also peaked in 1982 at almost 2,000 cases and dropped 47 percent by 1990' We were unable to determine why this correlation had occurred,
Discharges by Race
We sumnarized DoD's racelethnic categories into three basic groups: white, black, and "other." In each branch of the military, whites were discharged for homosexuality at a rate consistently higher than their rate of representation, DoD-wide, from fiscal years 1980 through 1990, white men and \omen constituted 83 percent (L4,L26 cases) of all personnel discharged for homosexuality while making up about 72 percent of all personnel sersing (see fig. 2,3). Conversely, bliack men and women accounted for 13 percent (2,204 cases) of all discharges while they uothern category made up represented 20 percent ofthe total serving. The 4 percent (590 cases), while representing 8 percent of the active force,
Page
l8
' , t"f
Chapter 2
DOD'e Separatlons of Homotxuab
Whllec Servlng Comparsd Wth Average Percentage ol Whltes Dlecharged for Homoaoxuallty
100
e0 60 70
P.rc.nl
i0
0 a0
30 20 10 0
t
Army
Nrw
Alr Forca
Mrln Corpr
rroD.wtd.
f !
stttns
otr"nrg.o
Discharges by Gender
In each branch of the military services, \ryomen were discharged for homosexuality at a rate consistently higher than their rate of representation (see fi9.2.4). DoD-wide, from fiscal years 1980 through 1990, women constituted 23 percent of all discharges for homosexualiff (3,900 cases), contrasted with their representation asjust 10 percent of all military personnel. mile /omen in all the senices were discharged for homosexaliff at a fate consistently ran$ng two to three times higher than their rate of iipresentatibn, this pattern was most noticeable in the Marine Corps, whererthe discharge rate was almost six times their rate of representation, Women constituted 28 percent of all discharges for homosexualiff (303 cases) in the Marine Corps, but only 5 percent of all personnel serving. Conversely, ooD-wide men representedTT percent of all discharges for homosexuality and 90 percent of all military personnel.
Pege 20
Flgur2.4t Average Percantag ot Women Sewlng Compared Wlth Average Porcontage of Women Dlschargsd for HomoBexuallly
100
90 00 70 60 60 40 30 20 10 o
P.rc.nt
JrJt
. Army '
HW
Ah
For.
tlrdm
Corn|
DOD-rldt
l-I I
Discharges by Race and Gender
i',
,l
servrne
os"n"rgra
i'
In each military service, white women were discharged for homosexuality at arate consistently higher than their rate of representation (see fg. 2.5). oon-wide, from fiscal years 1980 through 1990, white women constituted 20 percent (3,421cases) of those discharged for homosexuality, while they representedjust 6 percent of all personnel serving. The disproportionate discharge rate of white women was evident in all of the services, but most noticeable in the Marine Corps. Marine Corps women constituted 24 percent of such discharges, while they represented just 3 percent of the personnel serving. Conversely, white men represented 63 percent (10,704 cases) of such discharges and 66 percent of all serving. The percentages for other groups were as follows: black men, 1l percent of those discharged and 17 percent ofthose serving; black women, 2 percent ofthose discharged and 3 percent ofthose serving; "other" men, 3 percent ofthose discharged and 7 percent ofthose serving; and "other" rilomen, I percent of those dcharged and I percent of those serving.
PageZl
Flgure 2.6: Average Percentage ol Whlte Womon Servlng Cornpared Avorago Porconlags of Whlls Womon
Dltcharged
tO
eo
EO
p.rc.nr
70'
60
JtJt
0
t0
Arm!,
tlvy
Alr
Forc.
tlrrln. Corp.
DOD-wlrh
lf I
Discharges by Rank
Servlng
DlBchargd
Enlisted personnel have been discharged for homosexuality at a rate consistently higher than their rate of representation (see fig. 2.6), Their rate of discharge is also higher than that of officers. Doo-wide, from fiscal years 1980 through 1990, enlisted personnel constituted 99 percent of those discharged for homosexuality, while making up 86 percent of all personnel serving, a djfference of l3 percent. Conversely, officers represented I percent ofsuch separations and 14 percent ofall serving.
'
?).
PcBe 22
DOD'o.8eprtlon of Homocxuol
Chopter 2
Flgure 2.6: Average Percentage of Enllted Poronnel Servlng Compared lVlth Averago Parcontage of Enllsted Psroonnol Dlocharged lor
100 o0 80
Homo;exuallty
70
to
60
10
30
20
10 0
Army
Alr Forcc
lrrln Corpr
DOO-wld
E I
Discharges by Occupational Code
SoMng
OlEchErged
DoD categorizes its mititry personnel (both officers and enlisted personnel) under,l0 broad occupational area codes.z The officer and enlisted codes are similar but not identical. DoD-wide, about 50 percent of all enlisted personnel who served during the 11-year period we reviewed were employed in the three job categories of ElectricaVMechanical quipment Repairers (20.2 percent); Infantry, Guncrews, Seamanship Specialist (14.7 percent); and F\urctional Support and Administration Personnel (15,7 percent). These three categories accounted for approximatety 36 percent of the discharges for homosexuality during the period. We noted no obvious, sizable disparities in terms of discharge rates and representation in the occupational categories, However, almost 24 percent of the discharges for homosexuality came from the "Nonoccupatinal" category; while only about 9 percent of the personnel
20ne of these eategories, 'Nonoccupational," ls usd o designat,e individuals such as pa[lents, students, prisonerc, and trlnees and ls not,8n ac[ual occupacion field,
Pcga23
There are three criminal investigative agencies within DoD: the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, the Air Force's Office of Special Investigapions,,and the Naval Investigative Service. These organizations investigaie specific atlegations of criminal activity' Certain sex-related crimes, such as sodomy, may entail either homosexual or heterosexual behavior. We reviewed data provided by each of the services on investigations involving homosexuality, Consistent and reliable information on these cases was not available from the three investigative agencies before 1986, and most did not maintin data by the categories of race, gender, rank, or occupational code, While the Naval Investigative Service did maintain data by gender, it has ory maintained data by race since 1986. Accordingly, for consistency, out analysis covers fiscal years 1986 through 1990. For this period, DoD investigaive agencies experienced a total investigative caseload of about I86,000. Of these, 3,663, an average of approximately 730 per year, were investigations related primarily to homosexuality. However, this figue may be understated because each Dop investigative agency has its own policies and procedures governing investigations of criminal activity involving homosexuality and its own coding process, For example, while the Army and the Air Force use a specific code for categorizing investigations of homosexual, the Navy does not. Navy investigations of homosexuality are categorized under the same offense code as sodomy and indecent assault. Additionally, investigations of homosexuality that are administratively handled at the local command level may not be reported or recorded in the system as such. Cpmmadqrgl have this flexibility.
Figure 2.7 showsithat for fiscal years 1986 through 1990, the Navv conducted 68 percent of all oon-wide investigations of homosexuality' The Air Force conducted 26 percent, ard the Army 6 percent. Our analysis also shows that, while overall investigative budgets appear to be increasing, the number of investigations involving homosexuality appears to be decreasing. The number of investigations of homosexual throughout the services dropped frorn 907 to 472, a decline of 48 percent'
Although pop officials could not explain this decline, some officials speculated various reasons for it, For example, one investigative agency official stated that it could be due in part to the shift in responsibility for homosexualify cases from investigative agencies to the military police or the provost marshall. Other officials stated that it could be due to the advent of a higher caliber all-volunteer force and a new focus on arge, tirne-consuming procurement fraud cases.
?trEe24
,)
Chepter
6%
Crlmlnal lnvostlgative Divislon (Army)
In commenting on a draft of this report, oon stated that the sttistics from the Naval Investilative Service reflect investigations of both heterosexual
and homosexual sodomy/indecent sexual acts. We agee, However, we were told there are a limited number of such cases. Accordingly' we believe
that figure 2.7 andthe discussion of investigations in this section faily represent the activity in this area,
Cost of Expulsions
The costs of administering DoD's exclusion policy were not available because DoD does not routinely maintain records of such costs. lVhile poo criminal investigative agency officials provided us with figures reflecting total investigative budgets, they stated that records of costs related to carrying gl! individual investigations or discharges were not maintained and that such'costs'could not be reliably extrapolated. According to DoD officials, the only costs that were readi identifiable were those for recruiting and providing initial training to personnel replacing troops discharged fbr homosexualtW. For fiscal year 1990, these estimated costo were 828,226 for each enlisted individual and $120,772 for each officer.
lage 26
The total cot of rplacing personnel discharged for homosexuality, however, would need to include factors such as out-processing and court costs.
P',ge9g
Chanter 3
According to DoD, its policy "is based solely upon concerns about homosexuality itself'-that is, the concerns about the effect of homosexuality on factors such as discipline, good order, and morale' Those concerns led to the professional military judgment that the exclusionary policy promotes overall combat effectiveness' Therefore, DoD has not conducted specific research to develop empirical evidence supporting the overall validity of the premises and rationale underlying its current policy on homosexuality. Efforts to examine the security risk issue have concluded that available data does not substantiate that homosexuals pose a security risk' In addition, professional psychiatric, psychological, sociolo$cal associations and other experts familiar with the research conducted on homosexuality in general disaglee with the basic rationale behind DoD's policy.
DOD's Position
Defense officials stated that DoD's policy is not based on scientific or empirical data, but rather on the considered judgment of military professionals and civilian policymakers serving in variors leadership positions throughout Dotl and the services. The policy is ba.sed on the conviction that homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service in that it interferes with maintaining good order, discipline, and morale, oon officials do not contend that homosexuals cannot or do not perform as well on the job as heterosexuals; in fact, in some cases commanders have noted that homosexuals are extremely good performers. For example, an interesting opinion regarding homosexuality was expressed i a recent message from the Commander of the Naval Surface Fleet, Atlantic. The message stated:
Experience has shown that the steteotypical female homosexual in the Navy is more aggressive than her male counterpart, intimidaing those women who might turn her in to the chain of command. s a result, the ability to obtan credible evidence during an investilaticiri of femle homosexuality is often stymied, and all that remains are unsubstantiated rumots leading to accusations of a "witch-hunt" as investigations urrsucces,sfully search for evidence. Experience has also shown that the stereotyplcal female homosexual ln the Navy ls hardworking, career-oriented, willing to put in long hours on the job and among he command's top professionals. .As such, allegations ttrat this woman is a homosexual, paticrIarly if made by a young and junior female sailor with no track record, may be dismissed out, of hand or pursued haU-heartedly.
Defense officials contend that DoD and the seryices understand the elements critical to ensuring the proper emotional bonding of personnel in military unis. In addition, these officials state that a mqjor factor that must be considered when examining the exclusion policy is the lack of
Pege27
acceptalice of homosexuals in general and of homosexuals in the military in particular. Aceording to these officials, homosexuality is not an acceptable bbhavior in society's eyes, and military policy shotId reflect this standard. non policy officials stated that the courts have consistently upheld DoD's position and that the agency has no intention of changing existing policy;.
:
To examine the evidence or rationale pon has for its policy, we reviewed documents related to its 1982 policy revision, This was the last time DoD revised and clarified the poticy, It appears that the main purpose of that revision was to ensure more consistent application of the policy-not a review of the validity of the underlying rationale, For example, in a January 16, 1981, memorandurn to the service Secretaries and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated:
The revision contains no change ln policy. It reaffim that homosexuality is incompatible with militry service. In order to provide workable policies and procedures for all the military departments, however, and to provide the strongest possible basis for supporting these policies and procedures n court, it is important that applicable provisions be both clear and uniform.
[Text omitted.I
l.i i
t, ,,
I have personaliy ,"oi't.O bn this problem from time to tlrne during most o the four years I have served in the Department. I firmly believe that the most importnt aspect of our policy is the abiliff to keep homosexuals oul, of the service and to separte them promptly in the event they are in fact eisted or commissioned.
The courts have consistenly upheld DoD's policy on homosexuality as constitutional under a rational basis stardard of review. Under this standard, the government is only required to establish that regulations implementing the policy are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. According to DoD, the courts have not required scientific evidence to support ooD's policy, The courts, grving special deference to military judgments, have accepted as legitimate governmental interests such military objectives as good order, morale, and discipline, without requiring the government to produce scientific evidence to support the poticy. In more limited eontexts, a few federal courts have cautioned poo on nonconstitutional grounds concerning application of the policy. For example, it has been held that the government must afford a member facing discharge under military regulations that contain an exception to the policy a reasoned explanation as to why that member does not come within
Ptge 28
Chspter
the exception, including a fact-sensitive inquiry into the member's particular chcurnstnces. Also, one federal court has held that the Army could not deny a service member's reenlistment under its reglations when the service, with full linowledge of the member's homosexuality, has repeatedly permitted the member to reenlist in the past' Appendix I lists examples of homosexual expulsions for which performance was not an
ISSUe.
Studies Initiated by DOD and the Seruices Do Not Address the Poliry's Rationale
ooD and the services identifed two m4jor efforts completed in the last 35 years that dealt with homosexuality. These efforts included the Navy's 1957 "Crittenden Report" and a 1988 draft ofa report by the Personnel Security Research and Education Center (eeRsnnuc), which was initiated in I986. Basically, the Crittenden Report was undertaken to look at the Navy's procedures and standards in processing homosexuals out of the military. The ppRsnnsc study was undertaken specifcally to examine the security risk associated with civilia personnel who were homosexuals' Despite the specific objectives of these studies, both addressed issues concerning the overall suitability of homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.
and Submit The Report of the Board for the Revision of Policies Becommendations to the itted to the with Homosexuals was Procedues and Diectives 15, 1957. This document is informally of the Navy on Secretary called the "Crittenden Report," after the Board's Chairman, who was appointed in 1956 to examine various issues surrounding the Navy's policies, procedures, and directives governing homosexuals, including security risk implications, Athough at the time of the study there was icreased knowledge of homosexual behavior and treatment, specific questions had been raised on which the Board was specifically asked to make recommendations, The Board's recommendations were to addess issues involving one-time offenders, voluntary confessions, types of discharge, treatment of offenders, clinical evaluations, review procedures, responsibiliff to the civilian community, the screening of applicants for enlistment, the treatment of women, and related administrative practices. The Board was not asked to examine the validity of the rationale undering the policy. However, it contined considerable information regarding the status of research and homosexuality in the Navy.
Page ?9
llomoaeruallty
The Board, comprised of several members from tlte U'S. Navy and the U'S' Marine Corps, reported its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy in a three-part document, which did not question the underlying DoD policy on homosexualif, but concluded in part, the
following:
The Board was unable to uncover any stistical data to prove or disprove that homosexuals are in fact more of a secwty risk than those engaged in other unsocial or inrnoral activity' Even the number of cases of backmail revealed as a resrIt of past investigatlons, which were cited to the Board, is negli$ble.
Text omitted.l
The Board is in agfeement that a homosexual is not necessarily more of a security risk, per se, than other transgiressors of moral and criminal codes. Further the Board recognizes that the propensites and vrlnerabilities associated with homosexual activity, as in the case of promiscuous heterosexual actMty, do provide serious security implications'
The report fiirther stated that: "Isolated cases are mentioned, but to determine that a homosexual is more of a security risk than a non-homosexual, these instances rryould have to be measued against securiff breaks by non-homosexuals, and against the proper observance securiw by homosexuals." The report further explained that:
of
There is considerable information which would indicate that other factors in the personality constitute the security risk rather than the factor of homosexuality alone. One such item, for example, wor.ld be feelinlis of inadequacy which drive a man to boast of the secrets he poesesses. Such boasting might very well be done to any sexual partner' whether the partner be homosexual or heterosexual. Some intelligence officers consider a senior officer having illicit heterosexual relations with the wife of a junior officer or enlisted man is much more of a security risk than the ordinary homosexual,
The report also stated that, although there are some homosexuals who have adjustment difficulties in coping with military life, the difficulties may or may not be due to their homosexuality. According to the report, there have been many documented instances of individuals who have reported themselves as having homosexual tendencies and who nonetheless have continued on duff and served honorably and viell.
Pee 30
An effort to examine the correlation between homosexual and security risk violations by civilian employees was undertaken by the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center at the direction ofthe Deputy Under Secret?ry of Defense for Seeurity Policy' PERSEREc, estabiished'in 1986, is a DoD research, analytical, and educational facility whose missions are to (l) perform personnel security research and analysis ipr ooo and (2) furnish educational assistance, instmction, and
advice on personnel security research to DoD components. PERSEREO now operates under the guidance of the Assistnt Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) in Washington' D.C., and is based in Monterey, California.
In 1986, PERsEREc was tasked with validating and reporting on existing criteria for gfanting civilian personnel security clearances and with
developing more objective, uniform, and valid adiudication standards. For example, PEBSEREc was to clarity relationships between risk and various personal characteristics, including sexual orientation'
ln December 1988, PERsERc completed a draft repo entitled Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Slitability. Although it did not address the results of the 1957 Crittenden report' it echoed the security obsenations of that report,
The PERSERE draft report revealed no evidence that homosexualiff is related to security risk violations or tha sexual orientation affects an individual's suitability for military service, In fact, the report stated that the development of eininotogl a1s an area of study has made possible more precse examination of the influence of biological factors on the formation of sekual orientation. In addition to including dat supporting a biological cause for'homosexuality, the authors stated it ut they had examined recent and contemporary studies that ted to the inference that homosexual men and women as a group are not different from heterosexual men and women in regard to fheir a{ustment or job performance. The teport also made the following comments regarding non's policy on homosexuals in the
military:
The intensity of prejudice against homosexuals may be of the same order as the preiudice against blacks in 1948, when the militry was ordered to integrate.r
i
Page
8l
Chrpter
Ho66rs[nllty
The order to integrate blacks was fst met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military estblishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving mititry organizaiional goals, None of these predictons of doom has iome true.
Alttrough the draft report did not specificaUy address the integration of wornen in the military, it stated that it wotld be possble to set out as a hypothesis and test directly and indirectly the question of whether the presence of men or women identifed a.s nonconforming in sexual orientation actua[y influences such featues of military lfe as discipline, group morale, and integrity.2 Direct testing would involve integrating men who identiff themselves as holding nonconforming sexual attitudes with men who do not so identify themselves, The same design could be used for women.
The report also stted that:
Social science specialists helped develop programs for combating racial discrimination, so that now the military services are leaders in providing equal opportunity for black men and women. It would be wise to consider applyrng the experience of the past 40 years to the integration of homosexuals.
Although the
PERSREc
DoD because it went beyond the requested scope, which was to determine
security risk implications, and, instead, addressed the suitability of homosexuals serving in the military. The study was not finalized urtil September 199 1 , and the report was revised at least three times at DoD's direction in order to focus on its assigned task.
The following quotes were extracted from PERSEREo's draft f 988 report:
During the period 1981-1987, 4,914 men were separated from the A.rmy and 0he Ai Force on the grounds of homosexuality, Of these, 40 percent of the Army sample and 50 percent of the i Force sample held Secret or Top Secret security clearances. [t is reasonable to suppose that background irvestigations had yielded no irformation that would indicate that the subjects were security risks , , , .
[Text omitted.
The argument goes l,hat they would be candidates for llckmail if a foreign agent learned tlat they were homosexuals. This argument is somewhat blunted when we remind ouselves
i-
r,
zln 1948 Congress acknowledged the quality and value of lhe contribution women made ln World of ] 948, War II and passed the lVomen'e Armed ServiceE In[egaton ^ct
Pa,e
32
Chapter
thst btackrnail is aso an option for foreign agents who acquire }nowledge about heterosexual men and women secretly engagd ln adrltery, Also' decriminallng
homosdxual behavlor has done much to decrease the danger of blacknrail.
al Studies of homosexual veterans make clear that having a same gender or an opposite-gender orientetion is unrelatd to Job performance ln the sarne vay as is
belr left-
or right-handed.
In its concluions and recommendations, the 1988 drafr report stated that the time was ripe for DoD to engage in empiical research to test the hypothesis that men and women of atypical sexual orientation can function with heterose>nals appropriately in mitry urils. T'he report further suggested that DoD use a general framework for developing research prograrns and that the findings of such reseaxch could be employed by DoD po[cymakers as they continue their efforts to improve the effectiveness of recruitrnent, selection, and training progranut.
Although the scope ofthe fnalized version ofthe PEBSREc report, dated September 1991, was narrower than ealier versions (that is, it addressed on the civilian personnel securiW issue), it contined much of the same ba.sic information included in the 1988 version. For example, the l99l report stated:
Few data have been put forward to support the belief ttrat being homosexual predisposes a person to uffeliability,'disloyalty, or untrustworthiness. Scoree of studies have made clear that large individual differences in moral beliefs axe to be found among heterosexuals and homosexuals. It ig irivatid to generalize from sexual orientation to trustworthinese, Life styles of homoseiuals are as varied as the ltfe styles of heterosexuals,
The conclusions and recommendations of the 199 i report were considerably nurower than those included in the 1988 version, For xample, the I991 report concluded and recornmended the following:
Homosexuas have been targets of discriminatory policies, The residues of earller construcions of homosexuality (sln, crime, or illness) may itlluence personnel security specialis to treat homosexuals as a morally suspect class. Given that homosexuals (like heteroseruals) are a diverse gfoup, fairness and pereorurel efliciency require a case-by-case policy. The current ca.e-by-case policy is appropriate to the t.sk of determining eligibiliby for security clearance. However, the implementation of the policy needs to be examined in Iight of the fact that lnvestlgators, a{Judicators, and other personnel securtty speclalists are drawn from the general populatlon, and large segments of the popultton continue to view homosexualiby as sin, crirne, or illness, conetnctions tlut might bias egibility decisloru. The work of lnveetlgators and adJudicatore ehould be monltored to ensure that practice follow policy,
Page 83
ChrptsrS
EsDport for
According to the Deputy Director for Personnel Security, the recommendation is irot for DOD to take any new actions but reinforces what DoD is already doing-which is looking at each situation on a case'by-case basis, poo has several initiatives ongoing that address the report's recommendations. For example, DoD has had a Z-week a{udication counrc in place since 1988 to teach and encourage adudicators to put their own personal prejudices and biases aside when making adiudication decisions not only for homosexuals but for anyone involved in trying to obtain a security clearance, DoD has also devised a 2-week advanced course for a$udicators that will focus on promoting uniformity and consistency in the application of DoD's adiudication standards. ccording to the Deputy Di.rector:of Personnel Secuiry, this course wa,s to be offered to the adiudicators sometime in May 1992. In addition, on the ba-sis of PERSEREC'E review of DoD's audication standards, DoD i9 revising its standards to improve theii specificity and clarity.
In commenting on a dra.ft of this report, DoD disagreed with our observation that the Crittenden and the PERSEREc reporLs did not support DoD's policy. ooo explained that, as c,{o had stated, the Critenden study Iooked at the Navy's procedures and standards in separating homosexuals. According to DoD, its premise that homosexuality is incompatible with militry service was the foundation for the study, and the report did not question that premise.
We do not disagree \vith DoD regarding the purpose and objective of the Crittenden report and did not suggest that this effort questioned the underlying premise to DoD's policy, However, we did nd that the study contained considerable information and dat that raise questions about the policy. For example, with regard to security risk, the report stated, "A third concept which persists without sound basis in fact is the idea that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk." In addition, the report made the foltowing summary statements: (l) homosexual behavior is much more frequent than has been generally believed; (2) mary exclusively homosexual pe.rqons,have served honorably in all branches of the military service withput detection; (3) homosexual behavior cannot be correlated with any other chafapteristic or group of characteristics of the personality; and (4) the concept of homosexuality as a clinical diagnosis has been discarded.
further conmented that the PERSEREC draft report was misdirected' with studying the correlation, if any, behveen homosexuality and security risks for DoD civilian employees and
DoD
PERsEREC was tasked
Po 8{
Eomoerullty
government contractors. The purpose of the study was to help the Department assess homosexuality as a factor in a{iudicating security clearances for civilian and contractor employees. fire study was never commissioned to address the homosexual exclusion policy-an entirely separate and broader issue based on uniquely military concerns' DoD also commented that the draft report's authoro had not discrs,sed the draft with knowledgeable pop officials, and as a result, they had misunderstood the policy and its ba^sis (that is, DoD's belief concerning the effects on morale, discipline, and so on of allowing homosexuals to seve in the military). ooo said that therefore the subsequent analysis was flawed. F\rrther, loD emphasized that the opinions expressed in the report did not reflect those of the Department and, thw, should not be considered as authoritative.
\Me recognize that the PERsEREc study went beyond its directed task. However, we believe that DoD shorId not discount the information obtined and presented because such data was not authorized as part
of
the originat task. The PERSEREo draft did, in fact, address homosexuality in the context of its effects on morale and discipline in the seryices.
In testimogy delived on Ju-ty 31, 1991, the Secretary of Defense, in defending DoD's policy, made ihe following remarks:
I have lrerited a policy that has been in the department now for msny yars that doe focus specificaLly upon the military and mititry service and is baed upon the proposition that a gay lifesfyle ts incompatible rvith military service. that is the policy. I think there have been tinee in the pasc when it has been generated on the notlon that somehow there was a securty risk involved, although I must sry I think that is a bit of an old chestnut' The questlon turns more upon the need of the department to maintain the combat-effectiveness of our nrilitary units and that our sole mission in life is to be prepared to flght and to win wars. nd that based upon that, the depertment over the years, specifically the military services, have pursued a policy that said tlnt certain kinds of individuals ln our eociety are not, do not sewe ln thoe combat units.
In a statement before the House Budget Commitee in February 1992, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Stff said that he agteed with the Secretary of Defense. He said that the ban on homosexuals sewing in the military is not ba.sed on a securiff argument but on his judgment and the judgment of the service chiefs that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with maintaining good order and discipline. He stated that it is difcult in a mitary setting, where there is no privacy and where you do not get a choice of where you live, to introduce a Soup of individuals-who are proud, brave, ioyal, good Americans but favor a homosexual life-style-and put them in with a group of heterosexuals who would prefer not to have a
Plo 8
Chrgtot
Support
peron of the same sbx find them sexually attractive, put them in close
proximiff, and ask them to share the most private of their faciJities together-the bedroom in the barracks, the latrines, and the showers.
Scientific and medical studies disagtree with the military's long-standing policy holding that homosexuatity is incompatible with militry service' During the course of our review, we met with representatives from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, as well as other mental health professionals, and were told that these organizations do not support DOD's exclusion of homosexuals. These organizations, through various steps' are trnng to convince DoD to change its policy to improve the mental health and functioning of its members and to help end the discrimination that they believe car lead to psychologfcal distress and psychiatric disorder, These stps include (l) dialogues between gay and lesbian Sroups and the military; (2) the banning of miitry advertising and recruiting eiher at association meetings or in association publications; and (3) the protesting of miLitary training programs, such as Reserve Officer Trainingl Corps programs, on university and college campuses.
The concept of homosexual orientation as a mental disorder was formally rejected by the psychiatric profession about 20 years ago' In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexualiff from the list of mental illnesses after psychiatric, psyeholo$cal, medical, and scientific evidence showed that it cotld not be considered a mental illness or a personaliW or psychopathologieal disorder. The Associ;ation's 1973 position on homosexuality and homosexuals in the military was that
"homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." F\u"thermore, rqiecting the conception of homosexual orientation as a patholog has been supported by psychologl and social work.
i..:',
The America.r Psyholqgical Association's resolution of January 1975 supported the.positioi taken in 1973 by the American Psychiatric
Association by also opposing the exclusion and dismissal of persons from the armed services on the basis of sexual orientation. F\:rther, the American Psychological Association asserted that (l) no burden of proof of judgment, capacity, or reliability should be placed on homosexuals that is greater than that imposed on any other persons within the armed services and (2) homosexuals shor.ld be granted the same protection from discrimination as other minorities are granted, According to DQD officials,
PEge s6
Chptr
they aglee with the conclusions of these organizations in stating that homoeexualiff is no longer to be considered indicative of any mental or physical disorder. According to those we interviewed and position papen provided by the organizations we visited, current research supports the idea that homosexuality canno longer be viewed as "abnormal" if a significant minoty of the poptlation engage in it at some time in their adult lives'3 Instead, homosexuality is now considered by many social scientists and researchers (1) to be a normal variation in the spectrum of human sexual behavior and (2) not pathological or indicative of any mental illness or impairment in functioning. Many social scientists and researchers now believe that discrimination against homosexuals leads to unhealthy behavior and attitudes on both sides. Further, many experts believe that the military's policy is unsupported, unfair, and counterproductive; has no validity according to current scientific research and opinions; and appears to be based on the same type of prejudicial suppositions that were used to discriminate against blacks and women before these policies were :I changed. ,
Over the years, many studies have documented homosexuals' mental health and their level of functioning. Some experts have looked at homosexuals. in the military and found that many performed well despite the nonaccedting attitue of the senices. Experts believe that when homosexuals experience a higher incidence of depression or drug abuse, they may do so in part because they are unable to intgrate lheir sexuality because of homophobia,a both internal and external. Many experts believe that DoD's exclusion policy perpetuates this homophobia and leads to further discriminatjon against homosexuals, which in turn leads to an atmosphere not coirducive to their mental health or that of those prejudiced against them. These experts believe that attitudes can be altered by allowing open communication and the sharing of ideas between the two groups. If a more tolerant attitude were enforced, it would lead to the better functioning of all.
ssurueye
of humn sexullty conducted by the Klnsey Institute in the 1940e und t 90s, though thetr oampleo of patients were flawed, demonstBtd thet homosexual behavior w8s much more prerlent than expcted. Theue eurveys euggeBted.tlrat 6 to l0 percent of tlre general adult populatlon could be coneideied prdorninant[y homsxual and thBt spproxlInstty one-third had engaged ln Euch bhavlor Bometime in adulthood.
4.
Page 87
pter
partially agreed with our statement that scientific and medical studies disagree with the long-standing militry policy that holds that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. DoD stated that the American Psychological Association and the American Psycilatric Association have written to DoD expressing their disagreement with its exclusion policy, butrneither has addregsed the issue of overall combat effectiveness; ccording to DoD, these groups focus on homosexuals in the general population and the relationship between homosexuality and the mental health of the individual.
DoD
As discussed in this report, many individuals dischaxged under ooo's exclusion policy have exemplary records and have held important positions within their units. Additionally, the research cited by groups that disaglee with DoD's policy includes studies looking at veterans of military service who have served honorably.
Pge 3E
We obtired information about the general U.S, popdation's attitudes toward homosexuality through nationwide polls; we also contacted representatives of other nations to determine how their policies were similar to or different from DoD's. Finally, we contacted police and fire departments in several mqjor U.S. cities where policies of nondiscrimination against sexual preference have been established.
Information from three national polls shows a shft in society's thinking on homosexuality. National polls conducted in the mid-1980s showed an increasing intolerance of homosexuality at a time when the fear of contracting Acquired Immune Deflciency Syndrome (ruos) was at its highest point among the general public. But new suweys show that this trend is reversing. In October 1989, a Gallup poll found that the tolerance of homoseguqlitywar on the rise among the public. The results of the poll show that fiom 'a sainple of 1,227 adults, aged l8 and older, almost half (47 percent) believed that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, up from one-third (33 percent) who felt that way in 1987' Seven in l0 (71 percent) felt that homosexuals should have equal job opportunties, compared to 6 in l0 (59 percent) in 1982. In 1989, just over one-third (36 percent) believed that homosexual relations should not be legal, whereas more than half opposed legalization in 1987 (55 percent). The results of another Gallup poll conducted in March 1991, shown in table 4,1, show a change in the trend of public opinion on the hiring of
homosexuals in various job categories.
Tble 4.1: Porcntago of the Publlc Who Eollved That llomoexualr Should Ee Hlrcd lor Vrloul Job
[! gu99 t pgrcglase_s
.lgb carggery
Salesperson_
1977 51
e_r
1982
1991
52
55
41
55 42
33 a
42 47---
52 60
The poll dld nol address.this calegory betwoen 1 977 and 1987, Source: Nationai Gllup Poll, Mar. 25-27, 1991.
A national poll conducted in April 1991 by Penn and Schoen Associates, Inc,, for the Human Rights Campaign F\rnd on "PublicAttitudes Towards Homosexuals and Their Place in the Military" further supports the fac that
Page 89
Othor Vlew
the public's attitude towards homosexuals' serving in the military has changed. According to this poll, 8l percent of Americans believed that homosexuaJs should not be discharged from military service solely because of their.sexual orientation, Fourteen percent believed homosexuals should
bedischarged.,'
,,
In the counle of our work, we obtained nformation on the policies of 17 other nations, predominantly U'S, allies and North Atlantic Tleaty Organization countries, on homoseruals' serving in their armed forces' (See app. I[ for a isting of these countries.) These nations had various' sometimes diametrically opposed approaches to and legislation affecting the presence of homosexuals in their armed forces. The attitudes ranged from the view held by the United States to less strict ones in other countries. Some, in fact, do not view homosexuality as a legal or a military issue. Four of the 17, or 24 percent, had policies that specifically exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. Four of the remaining 13 restricted homosexuals' duties or relieved them from duty for disruptive behavior. Seven of the 17, or 4l percent, had no written policy addressing homosexuality, T\vo of the 17, or I 2 percent, stated that during the recruiting process, the question regarding the individual's sexual orientation wa"s not asked.
The Canadian Forces has also had a long-standing policy of exeluding homosexuals. The Canadian policy on homosexualiffwas reviewed in detal in 1998 pqrt of p wider revielv by a special task force of a number of personnel policies. The task force's recommendation was to maintain the policy 0f not accepting declared homosexuals into the Canadian Forces. That recommendation was accepted in early 1987. However, the policy on homosexuality has been under review almost continuously since
that time,r
Over the past few years, the Canadian Forces' policy has changed in that its focus has changed from targeting "homosexual propensity" to targeting "homosexual activity." On an interim basis, pending the completion of the present policy review, members who engage in homosexual acts are offered the opportl'tlliW to be discharged. If they refuse, they may complete their terms of sersie under career restrictions, including no promotions, no postings elsewhere, and no futher career training. Discharged
ii
lCurrently, there ae five court challenge8 !o the Canadlan Forces' policy on homosxuality, None of trial by March l, I992'
Page 40
member are givqn the equivalent of what is an honorable discharge in the United States.
The British Defense Force, tike the U.S. military, is an all-volunteer force and is opposed to having homosexuals serve in the military. British Defense Force officials recently told us that the British Defense Force does not knowin$y accept homosexuals. However, for homosexuals identified while in service, Britain provides a system of warnings, meaning that an individual who admits to his or her homosexuality need not be automatica discharged, but rather can be reminded of the military's disapproval of homosexual activity, warned against any misconduct, and perhaps counseled. A British embassy official told us that the issue of homosexuals' serving in the British military had been raised in Parliament, but there was ho mntion of changing the policy, The policies of Denmark, France, Belgium, Italy, and Finland specifically state that individuals whose homosexualiy interferes with their ability to effectively perform required duties are to be discharged, They are discharged ory a,fter medical diagnoses have been provided and medical decisions of fitness have been rendered by physicians.
Alt but one of the-eight potice and fire departments we visited in four cities had written poucis"oiciatiog nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual frur"r"r,"" or atlowing the employment of homosexuals, Many of these policies dated as far back as the mid-1970s. None of the officials we interviewed from these departments viewed homosexuality as an issue; most believed that the key element in their hiring practices was to hire based on previous job performance-not on an individual's sexual orientation. Several of the department ofcials saw the inclusion of homosexuals as having a positive impact on management-persorurel relations. Both police 3n{ fiSe.{epartment officials stated that the elements of unifltdam, cohesivenss, discipline and good order, morale, trust and confidence, and.a system of command rank and respect are important to their overall mission.
Potice and fire department officials who have admitted homosexuals into their depart{nents stated that homosexuals and heterosexuals appear to have acceptable working relationships. This may be due partly to the fact that all of the departments we visited had developed and put in place
Page
4l
sensitivity, diversity, and/or crItural awareness training programs' While most department officialsldid not identify m4ior problems involving homosexuatV, a ferq pinpointed isolated cases indlrectly involving homosexual. In bhes'e'cases, the issues focused not on the person's homosexualiff, but on his or her religiow beliefs and/or job performance. In terms of security breaches, most police and fire department officials stted that, while some assignments are considered confidential or secret in nature, most department officials believed that homosexuals, whether "closeted or admitted,n were no more subject to breaches of security o blackrnail than heterosexuals. Most of the police and fire departments with policies endorsed by the ciy mayors and departmnt chiefs target their recruiting to gay and lesbia communities as well as to the communities of blacks, Hispanics, and Asiars. In fact, some departments have gay and lesbian liaisons, councils, task forces, and/or a gay officers' action league to assist the department n its recruiting efforts and in maintaining or bringing about equality and balance throughout the departrnent, Additionally, some fire and police department officials stated that the public seems to view their open policies as positive moves in that they break down barriers in society. These officials cited the advances made in race relations as evidence that attitudes can be changed. Some other officials stated that they believe exclusio4ary policies:based on gexual ofientation are counterproductive and only crepte furthe stress.
Pagel? .
Chapter 5
ll
COnCtttSiOnS
For more than 50 years, poo and its predecessors have excluded homosexuals from military service. This policy is based on the belief that the presence of homosexuals seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. Because this policy is based on military judgment, it is difficutt to challenge. The courts have routine accepted oou's judgnent on the policy in cases brought by discharged homosexuals. noD has stated that its policy is not based on scientific or sociological analysis. Studies of the security r.isk'issue have refuted DoD's position, but there are other bases for the policy that may not lend themselves to conclusive analysis.
On May 19, 1992, H,R. 5208, a bill to prohibit discrimination by the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation was introduced. While we are ma-king no recommendations in this report, we believe this repor shotrld assist the Congress in deliberating egislative initiatives relative to changingipop's policy, which excludes homosexua-ls from servin$ in the U.S. armed forces. In deliberations, Congress could consider the following
factors:
. . .
' .
Since non last rev,ised the policy in 1982, public attitudes toward homosexuals have been changing, and its o\ryn PERSREo draft report disclosed considerable information that raised questions about the policy. Several allied countries allow homosexuals into the military or are reassessing their policies on homosexuals; many U.S. police and fue departments have also accepted homosexuals into their ranks and have generally not reported adverse impacts. Recent congressional testimonies by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicate that the concern over homosexuals' being security risks, which was once a significant basis for the policy, is no longer a m4ior concern. There are many avehu'eq for dischargipg militaw personnel, including homosxugls, who have behavior problems; changing the policy to permit homosexuis t remin in the mitirywould not entail condoning inappropriate behavior. A careful look at the policy may reveal a middle ground similar to what some other countries have taken, discouraging homosexuals from joining the military bt not automaticUy discharging those who are already in it.
Pege 43
Chrytr
Agency Comments
In commenting on a draft of this report, non agleed or partially agleed with some findings and did not agree with others,
DoD said that its homosexual exclusion policy is not based on any belief that homosexualiy is a mental disorder, nor is it based solely on securiby concerns. pop said that we correctly note that the pop policy is based on military judgment and that scientific or sociological anases are unlikely to affect its policy of excluding homosexuals from the military. DoD said that the courts consistently have found that the military interests undering the policy-good order, discipline, and morale-were substantial and that military concern about homosexualiby has a basis in fact.
oop said that we erred in statinglthat the two cited reports did not support DoD's policy. DoD said that the Crittenden Report clearly supported the policy and that the PERSEREc draft misstated the policy, That is, poo said that the PERsEREc draft did not addess the issues of morale, discipline, and so on, and, therefore, its "analysis" was flawed.
DoD correctly states that the Crittendenrreport did not question the premise of DgD's exclusionary policy - - that homosexuality is incompatible
with military'sen'ice : - and our report points this out. However, the report that was issued in 1957 stted that (1) many homosexuals have served honorab in all branches of the military and (2) the concept that homosexuals pose a security risk is unsupported. It also noted that, while there were not accurate figures concerning the frequency of homosexual behavior in the Navy, indications were that the number of homosexuals disclosed represented only a very small proportion of those in the Navy' With regard to the PERSEREc draft, we recognize that this study went beyond its directed tesk. However, we believe that the information presented should notbe discounted by oon solely for that reason. In a draft of this report, we suggested that individual Members of Congress may wish to direct the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the basis for DoD's prohibition. Because legislation has since been introduced on this matter, we have deleted this suggestion.
P8{.e14
'
Page 45
Aooendix I
Secora v. Fox
Former Technical Sergeant Claude E. Secora was a 16-year active duty veteran in the United States Air Force serving a.s a computer operator. He was the recipient of the Air Force Commendation medal and the National Defens.e medal, Secora was administrative processed for separation in 1978 under an honorable discharge on the grounds that he had violated the same Air Force regulation challenged in theMatlovich case. Secora filed suit in the United States District Court for tne Southern District of Ohio on the grounds that the Air Force regdation was uncoruttitutional and that it had denied him equal protection.
A federal magistrate, upon declining to addess the constitutional issues, relied on the Matloyich decision in finding that the Air Force had not
l,
Page 40
complied with its own regulations in discharging Secora because it had failed to put forth its reasons for not retaining him under the "unusual circumstances" exception to the general policy of dischargng officers who engage in hornosexual activity. The District Court agreed with the magistrate and rulbd that Secora was entitled to a reasoned explanation with respect to the regulation as to why he did not come within the "unusual circumstnces" exception (747 F. Supp. 406 (S,D. Ohio 1989))' The court held that such an explanation required a fact-sensitive inquiry into Secorqis particular circumstances, especially since he was facing discharge notwithstanding a l6-year, unblemished service record. The court nled that the Air Force must show cause why Secora did not meet the Air Force's rule of exception to its policy if there was no current pattern of homosexuality and Secora's ability to perform military service had not been compromised. Both parties have moved for summary judgment in the istriet Court, where the case is currently pending,
Former Staff Sergeant Perry \Matkins was a l4-year active duty veteran in the United Sttes Army, who had served tours in Vienam and Korea' He had been completely candid about his homosexuality from the strt of his Army career and had been allowed to reenlist on three occasions (in 1971' 1974, and 1979), with the Army's full knowledge of his homosexual. The record indicates that in all respects Watkins \ilrui an outstanding soldier' He became, in the words of his commanding officer, "one of our most respected and trustef, soldiers." This official stted that "from daily persnal ontaqt I can attest to the utstanding professional attitude, integriff, and s,uitqbility for assignment within the Personnel Reliability Progani, of SPb Watkins." While Watkins' cane was making its way through eventual appeals in the federal courts, the Army rated his performance and professionalism. He received 85 out of 85 possible points, including perfect scores for the categories "eams respect," " inte grity, "'"loya, " "mo ral courage, " "self-discipline, " "military appearance," "demonstrates initiative," "performs under pressure,"
"attajrs results, n "displays s ound judgment, " " communicates effectively, " "develops subordinates," "demonstrates technical skills," and "physical fitness."
I
In 1982, Watkins filed suit in the United States District Court for the lMestern District of Washington challenging revocation of his security clearance and seeking to prevent his discharge from the Army under an
Army regrrlation that mandated the discharge of all homosexuals regardless of merit, The District Court eqioined the rmy from discharging
?rge 47
"I,t,t
Appendl
Watkins based on his admission of homosexualiW, Afrer the Army subseguent denied Watkins' reenlistment under a regulation making homosexuality a nonwaivable disqualification for reenlistment, the court held that the Army was estopped from relying on this regulation. After certain procedural maneuvers by the parties between the United States ourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (721F.2d 687 (gth Cir. 1983)) and the District Court, a panel of the appeals court held that the reenlistment regulations violated the cons[itutional guarantee of equal protection because they discriminated against persons of homosexual oentation and were not necessary to promote a legitimate compelling governmental interest (847 F.Zdl32g,1352-1353, (gth Ch. 1988)).
Ttre ftll appeals court, declining to rule on the constitutional issue, held the Army to be estopped from barring Watkins' reenlistment solely on the basis of his aclcrowledged homosexuality (875 F.zd 699 (9th Cir. 1989)). The appeals court rea,sond that Watkins had been completely candid about his homosexuality from the start of his career, and the Army' vith full knowledge of this fact, had continued to reenlist him despite its long-standing policy to the contrary, In weighing the i4justice to Watkins against the possible damage to the public interest, the court noted that Watkins, after having relied on the Army's 14-year approval of his service, had been iqiued by the loss of his career, whereas harm to the public interest from his reenlistment wa.s nonexistent since he had demonstrated he wa.s an excellent soldier. In 1990, the United States Supreme Cour denied the.A.rmy's petition to review the case (875 F.zd 699 (9th Cir. 1989) cert. denied, -U.S.-, 111 S, Ct.384, 112L. Ed. 2d 395 (1990)), and Wafkins and the Army subsequent agreed to settle. Watkins was promoted to the rank pf sergeant first class effective June l, 1992, and voluntarily retired. He received back pay and allowances with offsets from civilian pay earned for the period between his 1984 discharge and his retirement date.
Pruitt v, Cheney
Former Captain Dusby Pruitt was a l5-year active and reserve veteran in the United States Army who was separated from the Army Reserve under an honorable discharge fo homosexuality on July 19, 1986. Pruitt served in the.A,rmy between 1,971 and 1975. After leaving active service to seek ordination as a methodisf minister, Pruit,t remained an officer in the U,S. Army Resrv., On May 25, Ig},Pruitt was notified of her selection for promotion to;the rank f m4jor effective February 6, 1983. Pruitt's outstanding record in both active and reserve service is undisputed.
Page 48
Appendtx
Pruifu; who had no record of allegations of prohibited homosexual conduct, openly admitted in an interview published in thelosAngeles Times on January'?T , 1982, that she was a homosexual. The Army, as a result of the article, suspended her promotion to mqior pending an investigation that ultimateLy resulted in her being discharged from the reseves based on an Army regulation providing for the discharge of a person who "desires to engage in, br intends to engage in, homosexual acts'" On the basis of her written admission of homosexuality to her commanding officer, an administrative board concluded that separation of Pruitt was warranted, and she was discharged from the reserve effective July 9, 1986' Pruitt filed suit in 1987 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (See Rruitt v. Weinberger, 659 F. Supp. 625 (C.D' Cal. 1987)) alteging thatArmy regulations had violated her fust amendment rights because they called for punishment solely on the basis of her assertion of her status rather than any conduct in which she had engaged. The District Court dismissed Pruitt's action for failure to state a lust amendment claim, reasoning that acknowledgment of her homosexuality was sirnply an admission that she fell within a class of people whose presence the Army deemed incompatible with its expressed goals, and it was not for the court to question the wisdom of the Army's policy. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (943 F.zd 989 (gth Cir. 1991)) agreed with the District Court that Pruitt had failed to state a firstpmendment blaim. The appeals court further held that Pruitt's case sttdd a.gual pr,gtption claim-that she had been discharged based on her mer status as a'homosexual without evidence that she had engaged in homosexual conduct while on duty or had performed poorly as an officer-which shorld have been heard by the District Court' The appeals court held that Pruitt should have been allowed to present evidence to support her equal protection allegations and that the Army shotld have been required to establish on the record that its regulation had a rational basis. Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the dismissal of Pruitt's action and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the Army's discrimination against Pruitt was rationally related to a permissible governmental purpose.
The Army has ased for reeonsideration of the decision by the full appeals
court, contending that Pruitt had not properly raised the equal protection claim in the District Court. The Army's request is currently pending before the appeals court, and the decision on rehearing is pending before the District Court,
rege,ig
.1
Appendl I
Steffan v, Cheney
Former midshipman Joseph C. Steffan was a 4-year student at the United States Naval Academy who was administratively processed for separation 6 weeks prior to graduating at the top of his class and after admiting he was homosexual. Although he was not charged with any homosexual conduct, he resigned on April l, 1987, and was honorably discharged' On December 22,1987, he filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging ooo's policy of excluding homosexuals from active service, alleging that his separation violated his constitutional rights offree speech and association, due process, and equal protection. He sought'rei{rstatement, a bachelor of science degree, and a commission
as an ensign.
During the discovery phase of his case, Steffan refused to answer a deposition question asking whether he had engaged in homosexual activities while at the Academy or since departing on the grounds that the question was irreevant and violated his fifth amendment privilege against
self-incrimination,
In November 1989, the District Court (733 F. Supp. l2l (D.D.C. 1989)) dismissed Steffan's sllit as a sanction for failure to cooperate in discovery regarding his homosexual activities. The court reaioned that Steffan could no refuse to answer on the grounds of irrelevance since the Navy had the right to refuse his reinstatement for homosexual conduct, and his request for reinstatement raised the issue of whether he was qualified for such relief. Moreover, the court stated that the Navy was entitled to information necessary to defend itself against Steffan's claims to such relief' In addition, the court reasoned that since Steffan had ased the issue of homosexual conduct by seeking reinstatement, he could not use the fifth amendment as a shield to frustrate the Navy's right to prepare a defense'
The United States Court of ppeals for thp District of Columbia (920 F.zd 74 (D,. Cir. 1990)) reversed and remanded to the District Court, holding that the discovery sanction was improper because Steffan's discharge was based solely on the grounds of his admission that he was homosexual; his request for relief on those grounds did not put into issue the question of whether he had engaged in homosexual conduct, unless such conduct was a ba^qis for his sep4ration, On December 9, 1991 , the District Court (Cir, No. B8-3669-OG, D.D.C.) upheld the right of the Navy to expel Steffan from the Naval Academy, holding that the military's ban on homosexuals was justifiable on military grounds as well as a reasonable step toward protection against the spread of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Page 0
Appendl I
Syndror$e in,the armed forces. Steffan's attorneys have indicated that they wil appeal the District Court's decision in the near futue'
D'"n'"b,r's
".
z-"h
" top secret clearance. He had maintined an unblemished service record and earned many citations praising his job performance. During a NaW investigation and an administrative discharge hearing concerning allegations of homosexual conduct, Dronenburg acknowledged that he was a homosexual and that he had repeatedly engaged in homosexual conduct with a 19-year-old seaman recnrit in the NaW barracks. On April 2l , 198 i , Dronenburg was honorably discharged for violating regulations implementing a Navy policy of mandatory discharge for homosexual conduct.
On April 20, 1981, Dronenburg filed suit in federal district court chaltenging the Navy's policy as unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated his right of privacy and right of equal protection of the laws. The district cour0 granted summary judgment for the Navy, and Dronenburg appealed to the United Sttes Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel of the Appeals Court (741 F, 2d 1388 (D.C. Cir, 198+)), concluding that it found no constitutional right to engage in homsexual condct, applied the rational basis standard in reviewing
1""#;iiYT::y#Tiii;ili'Siif",,i"';'.'ffili;il:fu*
Dronenburg's constitutional challenges to the Navy's regulation. In applying that standard, the court held that the Navy's policy did not violate Dronenburg's rights of pvacy or equal protection because the policy is a . rational means of achieving legitimate state interests such as discipline, good order, and morale. In so holding, the court noted the following:
The effect of homosexual conduct within a naval or militry unit are alrnost certain to be harmfrl to morale and discipline. The Navy is not required to produce social science data or the results of controlled experiment to prove what conmon sense and cornrnon experienge demonstrate,,, 74I l'1.2d at 1398' IUnderscoring supplied.]
A rehearing on the case before a full panel of the appeals court was denied (746F.Zd 1579 (D.C. Cir. t98a)).
Page
Ben-Shalom v. Marsh
Former Army Beserve Sergeant Miriam Ben-Shalom originaUy enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1974 for a 3-year period, serving as a dill instructor. She apparently was the only woman in her drill sergeant training school course and was acknowledged to be a fine candidate for drill sergeant school, a capable soldier, and an excellent instructor. Ben-Shalom public acknowledged her homosexuality at various times dwing her enlistment: in conversations wjth fellow eservists, in an interview with her division newspaper, and while teaching drill sergeant candidate class. During an investigation of the matter and at an administrative discharge hearing, there was never any evidence that she had engaged in homosexual conduct. On December I , I I76, she was honorably discharged under an Army regulation that permitted discharge for any solder who "evidenced homosexual tendencies, desire or interest, but is without homosexual acts." Ben-Shalom filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin seeking reinstatement on the basis that her discharge under the regrrlation had violated her constitutional rights of free speech and privacy and equal protection of the laws. The District Court (489 F, Supp. 964 (E.D, Wisc. 1989)) held the regulation to be constitutionally overboard and a violation of Ben-Shalom's right of privacy, The equal protection claim was denied because the cout found she could uliberty" not establish either a constitutionally protected "properby" or The court ordered her to be reinstated interest under the fifth amendment.
for the remainder of her enlistment term. Following additional court actions concerning enforcement of the reinstatement order, the Army eventually reinstated Ben-Shalom for her original enlistment term, which was extended by court order due to the protracted litigation.
,'-.1
While servingher original enlistment term, Ben-Shalom, again admitting her homosexuality, sought and was denied reenlistment for another 6-year term. She was denied reenlistment on April 7, 1988, under a new, reworded Army regulation making the status of homosexuality a "nonreviewable morale and administrative" disqualification. On May 3, 1988, Ben-Shalom filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 'Wisconsin, claiming that the new regulation violated the first amendment because it chilled her right to freedom of speech since she world no longer be able to make statements regarding her sexual orientation, She also claimed the regulation violated her fifth amendment right to equal protection of the laws because the regulation was not necessary to achieving a compellin state interest or, alternatively, failed to rationally further a legitimate, articulated state purpose. The district court (702 F.
PEE9 2
I,l'
Appendlx
Supf . tAf Z (E.U. Wisc. 1989)) agreed with Ben-Shalom, holding that the regulation unreasonably chilled her right to freedom of speech and did not further a compelling state interest in violation of equal protection principles. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed (881 F. 2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989)). The Appeals Court ruled that the regulation did not prohibit speech per se, but prohibited the homosexuality that Ben-Shalom's speech merely identified. The court reasoned that when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct, limitations on speech are permissible when there is a sufficiently important govermental interest in regulating the nonspeech element. Regarding the due process claim, the court ruled that the deferential rational basis standard of review was applicable and that the regulation met this standard because it promoted a legitimate government iterest. In 1990, the United States Supreme Court denied Ben-Shalom's petition to review the case (881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989), cerl' denied, - U'S. -, I l0 s, cr, 1296, 108 L. Ed.2d473 (1990)).
Page 63
4pperldlxu
gardin$ Homosexuals
in the Military
Spscflcaly coynty_
Austria
arsuimd
erclude
Allow
X
Canada Denmark
I.
X
rntno-
rinr"
Germanyu Italy
Japan
Luxemb-ourg.
Netherlands
New Zeal_and
i'{ory"y
?ort_ug3l
Spain
Sweden
sAlthough these countries allow homosexuals to servs in their armed forces. they place certain restric[ins on homosexuals. Those rostrictions include (1) limiting their qccoss lo confidential documents; (2) excluding them from certain tasks, such as officer and recruiting kaining; (3) excluding lhem from ledersnip roles; and (4) relieving them from duty lf the behavior becomes disturbing to other service members.
1hese
countries specilically ask during the recruiting prooess il tho individual has hqmosexual tendenciss in an effort to prevenl homosexuals from entering.
PaEe 64
Aonendix III
International Association of Chiefs of Police 110 North Glebe Road, Suite 200 Arlington, Virginia 22201 International Association of Fire Chiefs 1329 18th Street, N.W. Washing[on, D.C. 20036
District of Columbia Police Department Room 5080 300 Indiana Avenue, N,W. lVashington, D.C. 2000I District of Columbia Fire Department
Suitq 201 1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
New York City Police Department 1 Police Plaza New York City, New York 10038 New York CiW Fie Department
Pa.ge
GAO/J
Note GAO comments supplementing those in the report lext appear at lhe end of this appendix.
't
AFR
ITR
Mr. Frank c. Conahan ssisant comptroller General Naional Securlty and Internatinalffairs Dlvislon
U.S. General nccouncing office
washingE,on,
D,c.
20548
This is the DePartment of Defense (DoD) response to the c'eneral ccounting office (@o) daft rePort entitf,ed--"DEFENSE FORCE MANAGEMENT: DoD's Polcy on Horiosexuals in the Milltary"' dated March 9, 1992 (GAo code 391137/osD case 8983) ' the draft report addresses the basis for lhe DoD Poficyr describes the procedures, analyzes separation and cost statistlcs, and revlews various studies, public opinions pol.Is' and policies of other
natlons.
Mernbers
The rport makes no recornendatons, but does suggest that of he Cqndress,nay wish to urge the DoD to reexanine the basls for the pflcy and determine whether the policy could be revlsed t.o better sierve Milltary needs, The DePartment agrees or parcially agrees wllh som findings/ does not agree wih other flndings. and dlsagrees with the matt.er for congres*
sional consideration,
The GAO correctly notes that lhe DoD policy is bsed upon Milt.ary Judqment. In fact, the DoD policy is based uPon a series of carefully considered, professional Military judgments and almost 50 years of experience by a succession of civilian and Mllltary teadels. The G0 also appropriately e$phasfzes that Mllltary Judgments about overall comba effectiveness are inherently subjective in naturer and that scientlfic or socioIoglca analyses are unlikely to ever be dlsposltlve.
broader social policy guestion of homosexualit,y in nerlcan Society, Many citizens view homosexuaLiE.y as a rellgious or moral lssue; others see it as one of clvI right.s, There are
many aspects
n lmportant fssue not addressed by the ctraft. report is Ehe DoD homosexual excl.uson Policy and the
to
whaE
Page
Appendl IV
Commento Frorf te Deperrnent of Defene
The DoD homosexual:exclusion pollcy ls however, ]ike other Military personne olictes, based on wha! conribuEes to overall coTbat effectveness. The GAO addressea botb uhe social polcy nd the comba effectiveness lssues without clistlnguish-
ng bet$een them,
The
draf! reporE nay also be nisleadlng tn another resPect.. policy is noE based on any belief that homosexuality is a mental dlsorder, nor ls lt based solely on security concerns. Rther, the DoD policy is based on concerns about the effecEs t.hac homosexualityr that is sexual desire or behavior dlrected to!ard a member of one's oHn serr has in the Millary environment. t continues to be he Deprlment of Defense policy that the presence in the Mifitary environment of pelsons who engage in homosexuaL conduct or who, by their satements, demonstrate a propenqity !o engage in honosexua conducE, serlously impairs the acomplishment.of the Military mission.
The DoD
Fina]Iy, the draft reporE minlruizes the lmporcance of years of litigatioD before the Federal courts, Numerous dectsions have establshed a virtuIly unanlmous body of law afflrming the const.ituE.ionality of the Mtlitary honosexual excluslon policy, Those cases 11 regutred a deterlnination by the judiclal branch that he DoD policy is rafonIly rel-ated to Legitlmate Governmenta interests. The courtg consistently have found that he Milltary lnt.erests underlying the policy--good order, discpline and morale--were subst,antial and that the Milj.tary concern about homosexuallty has a basis in fact, The GAo, however, devoes less than a page t.o that. slgnlficant, body of lav,
The detalled DoD connents on the report findings and macte! for congressona} pnslderatsion aEe provided ln the enclosure. Thank you for providlng the opportuni.ly t.o comnent on the d.raft
report
SlncereIy,
Encl-osure:
s stat,ed
Page 7
Appcndl tV
OO
DnA REPORT - DTED .RCE 9, 1992 (oo coDE 391137) OAD CISE 89S3 ItlEOEHEIf,I DOD'8 POT.ICY ON
EOtdoSEXUALg
trDEFEDS! TbNC
If lEE
UIIJITARYTT
laaaa
PIHDIS8
FTNDINC
ori.ttiop. The GO reported pol-tcy on hoBoeexual orlentatlon is a direct descendent of the pollcy adopted durlng the noblllzation for World war Ir. The o eiplalned tht, at that tle, Servlce pollcies were grounded both on prevalllng aodony statute and on the psyhfatrlc bellef that honosexuaLlty waa mentar dfsorder' Th co rported that, ccording to the DoD, the followlng def,lnition of hnosxuallty ls usd by the Mllltary Servicea today: tr honoaexual Eeans a Person, regardLess of sex, vho engages 1n, desirea to engage in, or intends to engage in honosexual acts.,. honosexuaL act nenE bodlly contact, ctlve1y undertaken or pasBivIy pennittedf betwBen nebera of the eane eex fr he purpos of EatiEfying Eexual deslres'" The GO speculatd that if the cornpoeltion of the Mllitary Services nirrorB the generaf U,s. population, the nunber of homosexuals in the ltilitary is between 5 percent and 10 percent--or r00r000 to 200,000 personnel. The GAO obaerved that, under current DoD guidancer homosexuallty haE been detemlned to be fncorpatlIe vrith Milltary servlce. The Go noted that the DoD polcy was revised ln 1982 and ln 1986 (1) to e6tabllsh uniform policles and procedurea for alL th llllitary serviceE, and (?) to provlde etronger baels for defnding the polloies and procedure in the courte, The Go reportd that the DoD dlrective precludes retention of an fndividual deternined to be homosexuaf, except in very limlted xtenuating cLrcurn6tancs, The Go al6o noted that the directive aIEo affords th rlght to appeal al eparatlons due to honoeexuallty. In addltion, the Go observed that, under the 1982 dlrectlve, honosexuala are no longer Procesaed for spartion by reaBon of unsuitabillty or
Page
6t
Appn.llr IV
i,
Now on p.10.
nisconduct--lnstead, hey are processed under the ctegory I'honosexualltytr and, therefore, rnay receive an honorable or a general dlscharge. The GAo al6o reported that service rebber. eeparated from Servlce under DoD pollcy nray seek revfew by a FederaL court as to lrhether the dlgchrg was proper, (pp. l7-22/GO Draft Report) DoD cotntEHngr nartlally concur. whlle It le true that the DoD hB hd n exclusionry pollcy on honoaexuals eervlng in the Milltry.slnce'lorLd War II, the co never clearly Ettes ht th DoD no fonger baaes itE policy on any belief that honosexuallty ls a nental dfBorder. stating that the current policy is a dlrect degcendent of th world i.ar II pollcy--which the cAO 6tate6 vas baeed, in part,, on the belief tttat honosexuality naB a nentl disorder--could niglead readers lnto concludlng that the current DoD policy la based on slmlLar concernB. The co enphasls (later in the rport) on studls by the merlcan PEychiatrlc asoclatlon and the nerlcan Psychologlcal ssoclation relnforce uch a mleconceptlon; It is inportant that it be made clear that th current DoD policy lE not based upon any conalderations of nental disorders among honosexua8, The DoD poJ-lcy is based solely upon concerns about is, Eexual deslre or behavlor honoeexuallty ltself--that directed toward a nenber of one's own ex. The policy stems fron the unlgue require-rnents of the Hllltary envlronnent and the effct of Buch conduct on the ten separate conernE tht underle the policy. Thos underlylng concern6 led ta the prfesalonal Mtlitary Judgenent that the excf,usionary policy pronotes ovralI cornbat effectiveneas, Sotne of those concerns, ruch as dlscipline, good order, and moraLe are so inportant they justlfy the polfcy by thenselves, Other concernsf such a eecurity, are of relatlvel,y Jeeeer slgnIflcance. Thele are three crltical factors underlylng the DoD exclusionary policy on hooosexuals that need to be recognized. Flrst, the DoD policy le the result of the coneldered professional Hilitary Judgenent based on years of experience, of clviflan and Military leaders of the Departnent of Defense. Second, the policy 1 a natter of professional filltary Judgernent, not scientlfic or socfological anafysis. Thlrd, the DoD potisV,is ba8ed solely on what contribute6 to overqll conrba$, etfectlveness (,e., accornplishrent of the Mllltary nleion). Based on e,irvey,s of ine adult population of the unlted sttB by te Klnsey Intltut,e in the 19408 and I950a, the GO Bpeculateg that 5 to l-o prcnt or uilj.tsary personnef
Pege 0
;i
However, are honosexua.r'64IrpIes at the saroe tirne, the Go sserts of patient6 were flavied.rr It is that, the Kinsey not clear rhat-predictive value o! relevance Eurveys of he general publlc O or SO years ato have to tody's Hllltary. te co Ieo cltee unnand reeercherg for the proposltion tht the conposltion of the MiIitary Iikely mlrrors merlcan eoclety rlth- reePect to the nunber of honoeexuale In tbe The Go falls to polnt out, however, the obvlous t'ttlltaiy. differelcee--(1) the lnltial ecreenlng out of homoaexua]5 durlng the eniietoent/appointnent procees, (2) the Ilniting effect of the exclus'lon po1lcy lteelf' and (3) the lack of acceptance of hornosexuallty In the Hilltary eDvironnent' In addftion, the Go does not put the discharges due to honoeexuality ln perspective' Such discharges nake up Iess thn one-th1id of 1 per cen ef all' diechargos ln any year, wlth fewer thn one out of every I,5OO lfil'itary pereonnI dfschargd because of honosexuallty. Concernlng Mllitary adninlstraive diacharges, it needs to be recognized that the process is a conplex one' For example, Service Henber sray eeek Judiciat review of Pendlng adnl;i6-tratlve dlscharge actions while stlIl on actfve duty. Ieo, admlnltrat,ive boarde do not uake Itinnocenttr or "gulltyt' dtermfnationE--they are not crfininaL courts. In addltlon, enlisted Service l'temberE :nay be separated even though a Board reconmend retentfon. on the other hand, Service nenbers. rnay be retained even if a board reconnends eepara-tlon, lf. the dlscharge uthority m(es certain f indings. leo, Seirvice ltenber6 do not appeal adninistratlve separtion decisions to Boards for the correctlon of,rilitary./ NavaI Records or Discharge Review BordB. InEteadr thy petltion those boards for relief-vhich 1s a Eeparate adminlstrative process.
GO reported the DoD Policy states categorlcally that homoeexuality ls inconpatlble wlth Mllitary Service because the preeence of persons who engage In, or denonetrate a propensity to engage in, honosexual conduct eeriously lnpalrs the accopl.ishnent of the Military ssglon. The Go explalned, therefore, ldentlfication as a honosexual ia the only crlterion that needs to be met to diacharge a person under that separatlon category--nq specific detrnlnatLon of'an lndlvidual'E negatlve inpact on the Mllitary nlseion ls ieeCled prior to separatlon. The Go found, for example, that 1n eorne caBes Service members have been expelled for homosexuality despite their exenplary service records.
bv .CtsgorY). fh
FTNDINC B
Page 60
Appendl IY
Commente From the Departrnent ofDefene
Nowon p. 16,
tested thoee declslons, diechargeg for honoeexuality have ben upheld both ln the nrlLltary adnlnletrtlve review proceEs and in th6 cfvilln court EyEtn. The GO found hat to e eo even l-n cases lnvolving, pereonnel wlh exemplary Servlce recorda. The GO found that, between FY 1980 and 1990, 16,919 U.S. servlcenen and wonen were dlecharged under the separation category of honoBexuaflty--n average of about 1r500 annuaIIy. The co reported tht (1) nost lrere enlisted, (2) nost were :nen, nd (3) Dost nere whfte, The Go noted that the clted statietics nay bE understated because they do not include eeparatlona under catgories euch as nisconduct. personallty,/ehavlor dleorder, and unf LtlunEuttable--wh1ch al60 coul.d include honosexual6, (pp. 26-28/co Draft
Report)
a concept that is vita] to the uanagenent of the r'tilltary servlcea--1.e., nanageBent by category. That concept is not, however, d1cu6sed nd, thus, the 6t.aternent6 ln the report could be fnterpreted to inply that the GAo is guestioning the proriety of the hanagement of l.ltlltary personnel by category. Of necesslty, the DoD createE categoriee to guide accessfon and retentlon decslons. Categorles lnclude those mandated by aw, Euch aa age and citlzenehlp (for offlcers), as ve]] as th6e nandated by regulatlon--Euch as helght and r,efght limits, physical and nental Btandardsr and slngLe parenthood. Each regul.tory ctegory ls predlcated on the professional Hllitary judgeDent of DoD Ieaders that creating the category contributeg to overall com.bat ef,fctlvenesE. The DoD exclusion policy on honoeexuals serving ln the Milltary clearly states that, becauEe honoaexual conduct ln the Hllltary envlronnent adveraIy affecte overall conbat effectlveness, hoiros'exuallty Ie incornpatlble rlth !{flitary Service.l Thusl'the DoD'ctischrges horosexuale regardleB of their individual prior[ance records. The co ls, therefore, corret in tating that, in soue caseE. Service Dfembers have been seprated for hoqoeexuallty deEpite havlng exeDplary performance records. The tat.lstlcs clted by the GO accurtely reflect the nunber of Hilitary personnef dlecharged under the DoD separation code of hornoeexualfty, The figures are not, however, undertated. ny Etatenent that the DoD considers
PBge 61
Appendh[V
.l
then to be understated Is inaccurate. Rath6r, it is the DoD poltion that the Eeparation code of houoaexuality doe not incl,ude all:hono6exuala \,rho are sePrated from the HlIitary. Hollo6exual MlIitary perEonnl ihoge Eexuallty Is not known rnay be eeparated adnlnletratively for varloue reasons, like any other Service Henber. For exanplef if they have a nedlcal problen, they nay be eeparated for nedlcal reaeonsi lf thelr lllcary Perforance ls bad thy Dy be Beparated for ungatlBfactory/subtanClard perforEancet and If they complete thelr obligted aervlce, they Eay be Eeparated or retlred for that reson,
The GO found that the FItDTNO Cr Dlroblgor By B.rvlo.. Nvy, representing 27 percent of th ctlv force during he period fron FY 1980 through FY 1990, accounted for 5r percen! of the total'nuber of discharges (8,638 cees). The Go bbeerved that, whlle the Army rpreEented 37 percen of the actlve'force,. it accountecl for 25 percent of all, hoDoger(ual dfschargeE (4r230 cseB), and ths Alr Force, repreeentlng 27 percent gf the actlve force, ccounted fo l8 percent (2,997 caes). llhe Go reported tht the farlne corp. however, represented 9 percnt of the actlve force and only 6 percent of the totaL nunber of dlecharges
(I,053 caseE),
The Go Epeculated that, rghlle the tatl nunber of reported hohosexual dlscharges ooo-rside dropped 4? percent between Fy 19S0 nd FY 1990, th trnd iE probably not n accurate honosexual actlvlty,
Now on p.
.18.
representaton of the level of dlecherge ssociated wlth Tbe co explained that looal couuranders have the fJ.exiblllty to handle sltuatlone lnvolvlng honoeexuality adnlnletratively (wfthout bringlng in an inveetigative agency) and to eelect an afernatlve eeparatlon category to honoextrallty for dlecharging personne),. The cO aleo pointed'out that few ofticera re seprated under the hooeexuallty catggory, becu8e offlcerB are nore Il)<ely to be glven the optlon of reelgning--whlch eIlnfnates the investlgatlve procese and the honoeexual categorization. (PP. 28-3o,/co Draf,t RePort) are DOD COHXENES: Concur. The GO discharge statistlcs correc!. Concernfng the Navy, due to the Navy lfe at sea during extended depfoFnent8, Identlffcatlon of honosexuals may well- occur more often han in the other Services. The DoD, therefore, drawe no conclugions,
Pege 62
stateE there hae been a 47 Percent The co also corret]ll 'of dlachargee.under the homoeexuality decllne. In the nuner
probbly not n accurat rPresenttfon of the lvef of rt is lechargee aseofated wlth honogxual actlvlty' enphaelzed that the alternatlve eeparatlon categories gane aa they have been for 10 years avallable today are the
eeparadlon cod.e, .but then speculate that the decllne is
or service policy In elther area Elnce 1981.' Further' the 47 percent decllne ln aduinietrative eeparatlons by raon of honoEexuality reflect onl,y caEes !here there wE no crlolnal actlv1ty, or where the connand decided that whateve crlminal actlvlty was present dld not varrant court-martiaI. It shouLd b noted that th Go aIBo reviewed statisticE fror the Servfc crlnlnal investlgt1ve agencles (see Finding I). Those statleticE reflect cage vhere there of interest, were allegatione f gerious crlninal actlvlty. th cO reported that there aleo waE a slnllar decline in caees involvlng horroeexuallty invetlgated by the crlninaL investigatlve agenclee--a 48 percent decreage in only five yearr (1986-1990). D! DiBohrqoa Bv Bao., The GO rePorted that' in each branch of the MlLitry, thltes were dlscharged for honoeexuaf,ity at a rate consistently highr than thei'r rate of reprecenttlon, The GO found that DoD-wide, for the perlod fron FY 1980 through FY 1990, whltB flen and nonen constltuted 83 percent (L4,]-25 caBes) of atl pgrsonnel dfEcharged for hoBoEexualty, shlle only naking up about ?2 prcent of aII pergonnel Eerving. trhe GO observed that, convereely, lack uren and wgnen accounted for only 13 percent (2.;2o4 ageq) of al.l. dtechargee versus 2O Percent of the total 'serving ln the MtLitary. (p. 31./Go Draft Report) : , :, DOD gol,llfBNIg Conour.
FfHDING
and the optlon of offlcer reignation is the 6ame now lt haE been for ]O yearg--ther h been no change ln
aE
DoD
Nowon p.
19.
than thelr rate of repreeentatlon. The GAo found that DOD-wide, from FY 1980 through fY 1990' l{onen constltuted 23 percent of homoEexual discharges (3,900 ca8eg)r as contrsted nlth thelr repreeentatl.on as iut 10 percent of alL MlJ,ltary personnel. The eo observed tlrat, whlle wornen ln
FfHDfo Er Dl.Bobarqoe 8y onder. The Go rePorted that, in each branch of the Hllitary en'ices, roaen nere discharged for \onosexuallty at a rate consiEtently higher
Pege 68
Now on p. 20
1I the Servicea I're discharged for horuosexuality at a rate coneletently ranging tvro t,o three tlnes higher than their rate of representtlonr that pttern was nost noticeable !n the Harlne Corpe, hEre the dlecharge rate for rvonen r.laa altost slx tlnee thelr rate of representation. The GAo found that wonen consftuted 28 pgrcent of all honoeexual dlschargs (3o3 ccBes) ln the I'larlne Corpa, but only 5 peEcent of aII perFonnef, senring, The cO noted that, convetreely, on a DoD-wlde basle, nen rpresented 77 percent of dlechargea for honosexuallty nd 90 prcent of aLl l{illtary pereonnel. (p. 3zrlGo Draft Report) DoD co}lirEN concur. The GAo etatletlce arg correct, but could b nlalntrpreted. In a force as sall aE the I'larine corpa, where vronen nke up an even sI0aller percentage of the fore, changa of even fsw dlEcharge mor or lese wl,ll gretly rffec! h prcntages. In addition, the sample elze uged (1.e., Wonen HarlneB diecharged due to homosexualtfy) Is o ehall that'any conclusions baeed on such a srnal). eanplo slze lroul.cl be quastlonable, For exanp1e, in FY 1990, the Nrrfne CorPB dlschrgsd only ten lronen due to hooeexuallty.
Frl{DINo Ft pLBohqrg.E By Baoe ap osndr. The cO repored that, ln each t{llttary servlce, uhite vonen were discharged
Now on p. 21.
fo! horossxuallty at rat conslstently hlgher than their rate of repreBentatlon. The co found that DoD-vldef for the period fron FY 1980 thtough FY 1990, whlte women constituted 20 percent of those dlscharged for homogexuallty 13,42l. casee), rhIle they represented Just 6 percent of aII pereonnel eervfng, The co obara'ed that the diEproportionate dlecharge rate of whlte wonen was evident in all of the Servlces, but tvs noet notlceable in the t'tarine corpa, Tte Go noted that lrlarine corps wonen constituted 24 prcent of euqh dlecharges, whlle they represented Just 3 percent of the perEonne] eervlng, The GO found, convereely, whlte nen repre8ehtd 63 percent (10,704 cqses) of euch dischargee and 66 percnt of all eervlng, (p. 33/ GO Draft Report) DQD COHI.IENTBs Concur. See DoD response to Findng E. G DlBohargcs Fy Rrpk. The Go reported that enlfEtd personnef hve been dlscharged for honosexuaJ.ity at a rate consitently hlgher than thefr rate of representatlon. The co notedf houevr, that their overall rate of The Go discharge ls also hlgher than that of officers. found that DoD-wIde, for the perfod fron FY 1980 through
FINDING
ir:
Page 4
dlscharged for hono8exulity, whlle D<ing up 86 percent of aII peraonnel serving in the Hllltary--a dlfference of
repreeented only I Percsnt of euch aepartlon and L4 percent of all thoge eerving in the Hilltary Servlces,
Now on p. 22
DOD
13 percent,
Now on p. 23,
Ef[p.!.HfL-E Dl.robars. Ey ooouatl.onal Co.. The GO reported tht DOD-wlde, about 50 percent of I1 enlisted personnel, $rho Eerved durlng the ll-year perfod lt reviewed, were enployed ln the three Job categorfes of (r,) Electrical,/ .lechanlcl Equlpnent Repairer, (2) Infantry, GunorewE, Seaanahlp, and Function] Support, and (3) Adninl6tratlon, The cAo found that thoee three Job categorle accounted for approxinately 36 peroent of the homogexual dlecharges durj.ng the pertod. The co afBo found, however, that almoBt 24 percent of the homoeexual dlscharges cBe fron the rrNonoccupatlonaln category (whlch lncLudee patients, prleonere, and students). whlle only bout 9 percent of the overall I'lilltary perBonnel. belongd to that category. The Go concludgd that thoge pereonnel rnay have been re-categorlzed fron other cat,egorleo prlor to their dlscharge or had been ldentltLed as honoEexuaLE whlle lncar-
(p. 35,/co Draft Report) I}oD cOt{}{ENTa: PartlaLly Concur. Lthough the statltlcs are correct, the DoD concluelon regarding the nonoccupatfona ctetoy is speculatlon,
cerated or In tralnlng,
FIilDINc I! InvestlqFtions of Eoroaxulltv. he Go reported that tere're three HfIltary crlnlnaf lnvestlgative agenclee wlthln the DoD--(1) the ArEy crinlnal Investigatlon Dlvision, (2) the ir Force Office of Special Invstlgationa, nd (3) the Navaf Investigatlve Service, The cO noeed that, vhen requeEted, those agenclee Investlgate allegatione of honosexul.lty and any a8oclated charges of crtu1nal actlvity involvfng force, aEau1t, and battery. The GAo found that consletent and reliabl.e inforuation on fnvetlgatlon6 of honosexuaIlty was not avallable fro the hree lnveetlgatlve agenciea before 1986, and ost did not uaintaln data by the cat.egoriee of race, gender, rank, or occupatlonal cod. the Go reported that, sfnce Fy 1986r the DoD fnvestigatlve agencJ.es experlenced a total lnvestlgative caeeload of about 186,000, of e/hich 3,663 (an...verage of approxfnately 730 per year)
Poge 6
', i .'.r/
AppendkW
were investlgattone retated to honoeexuallty. The GO explalned. however, that the flqrure nay be undergtated beauee each DoD investigatlve gency has lts own pollcles ancl proceduree governing lnvestigatlona of honoBexuallty
Now on p. 24
that Navy lnvestlgatlone of hoaoeexuall"y are categorlzed under th sane offenge code as eodony and lndecent aaEault, and lnvetfgatlons of houosexuality that are handled adminigtratlvely at the local couand level nay not be reported or recorded 1n the syster ae euch. Th Go reported tha, for FY 1986 through FY 1990r the Navy conducted 68 percen of all DoD-rtlde lnveetigatlone of hoIlosexuallty, the ir Force conducted 26 percent' and the_ rmy conductd e percnt. ?he Go found that, whl}e overall inveetlgatlv budget appear to be lncreasing, the nunber or lnvettgatlons-of hornosexuallty appears to be decreasing. The Go explatned;that the nunber of investigatLone of homoexuIlty throughut the Servlces dropped fron 907 to 472-a declln of 4g-p6roent. The Go reported that DoD offfcials epeculated the drop could, ln part, be due (1) to the ehift 1 responelblllty for homoeexualfty caeee fron lnvestlgatlve agenceE to th l{llitary police or the provoEt nrarahall, (2) tC the advent of higher caLlber all-volunleer forer and (3) to a new focus. (PP' 35-38/G0 Draft
_
Report)
DOD
ColxEffllar Partlally concur' There are no crlmlnal lnvsEtlgatione of rrhonosexuallty,'r per se. The Milltary crlqln lnveetlgatlve agencies only Investlgate epeclflc Certaln Eex-related alfegatlons of criurinaf actlvlty' crines, Euch E Eodoflyr ay enconpaEg either homosexual or heteroeexual behaior. In addltlon, the, Btatlstics provided by the three service crininaI inveetlgatlve agnci (ahd tabulatEd at Ppendix Iv of the report) are not conparable. The nunbera for the Alr Force office of Speclal Inveotigations reflect eex crlrues lnvolving horosexuaL behavlor. The Arny CrImInaI Investlgationa conmand nunbers reflect only thoae crin|nal lnveetigationB involvfng hoDoaexual behavlor on flle ln the centrI-izd crine Rcorclg center lndex, not all fnveetfgatlone fnvolving honogxua behavl-or' Howeverr the NavaI InveEtl-gaive sei\rfce nuhberg reflect both heterosexual and hono-gexual eodoury/ldecent sexual' acts aaes. Th NvaL lnvestigatlve Servlces etatietics in appendix fv are, therefor, lnaccurately labeled 6 rrhonoaexua]. r ,
t
lr
Pae ff6
the GO statenent that there were 3r663 (L986-1990) lnveetlgatlons related to honogexuallty by the three crlnlnal inveetlgatlve agenciee 1 not valid (s6 rePort flguro 2.? nd the related analyel), In addltlon' the sttsnt that the Naval Investigatlve Servlce conducted 68 percent of ths lnveatlgatlons algo ie not valld. The report noteE that the nunber of crllnaL lnvestigaLions lnvolvlng hooEexual behavior cleclfned by 48 prcent during the 1986-1990 period. E noted above, thle flgure fncludes het8rosexuI behavlor reported by the Naval Investlgative Sorvieg. However, ]ookfng oIeLy at the offlce of Special Inve8tfgtlong and the Crlninal fnvestigationa counand gtatistlce, a slnIlar drop ls apparent,
rcanB
Now on p. 25
E&EDjfgjr cost of Exulalon. The cO reported that the coets of adnlnlstering the DoD excluslon pollcy iere not avallaIe becauae the DoD doe no naintaln recorda on such costE on a routln basls, The Go noted tht the only costs that rrer readfly ldentiflable were the costs of replaclng lroops dlecharged for homosexuatlty, The co estinated that, durlng FY 1990, thoae costs totaled about $27 nillon. The GO reported that other cost6 wer not <nown--6uch aE (1) the coet of origlnal tralnlng and conpensatlon, (2) the coBt of out-proceaElng, (3) the coEt of court actfonE, and (4) the co6t6 of dlenleslng cadetB frour training prograns . (p, 3S,/GO Draft RePort) DoD COI'lllENl Nonconcur. Each year the Departnent of Dafnse separateE aout 30o,000 Servloe menbero, approxfBlete].y lOO,oO0 of whon are Eeparated for force nanagenent reBons, Homosexuafs Dal(e up ess than one-thlrd of I percent of hat total, In estlnating.the cost, the Go pparentfy assumed that through nornal attrition or for force nnagenent reason. Thre lso waa no reaognition that approxlmately one-half the enlleted force doee not eerve beyond the lnitlI enlletnent. The co coet estiuate ls, therefore, rce1l n exceEs of Hht reagonably could be projected under nortna
nons of those'seprated for honosexuallty would be lost clrcurnetances.
Morgover, for the pat 4 yeare the DoD has been requlred to reduce the {illtary force fron 2.17 nllllon in 1987 to r.64 rllllon by the end of FY 1995. Theref,ore, lf the 1,000 personnel discharged annuaIy during that Perlod by rBason of homosexuallty had not been diecharged, the DoD
Pge 07
Appcndtx fV
Conrmnt3 Frotn tlre Dep8rtment of DefeDe
to elther dscharge 1,O0O other pereonnel or reduce acceggfons by 1f000. ThuE, there rva no replacecoEt durlng that perlod and there wlll be none for Ent eone tlne In the future.
wouLd have had
FTHDING E'
Now on p, 27
pointed out tht the professLonal pBychlatric, pychologlcal, and eoclologlcal assoclatlonE and other experts faiLlar with the reeerch conducted on honosexuallty in the general population tend to disagree with the basic rtlonaIE underlying the DOD poJ-Icy. Th cO concluded that the DoD polfcy is not baed on scientific or enpirical. data, but rather on the considered Judgment of Ull.ltary,,profesgionals, who knorg wha lt takes to fleLd an effectlv fight,ing force to protect the vflaI interests of the natlon. The GO obeerved. hoHever, that euch judgrrnent ie prlnarlly anecdotal ln nature and based on the opfnlone and experlences of indlvlduaLs ln various Ieaderahlp positionE throughout, the DoD and the Services. The eo found that the poIlcy is based on the convlction that honosexuaL behavior 1s IncorpatlIe $rith Mltitary Servlce ln that ft fnterf,erE vith nalntaining good ordr, dlecipllne, and moral.e. The GO obEerved that the DoD and the Services understand the el.enents critical to ensuring the proper enotional bondfng of personnel In Mil.ftary units. The GO reported that, accordlng to DoD officials, honosexuallty ls not an aceptable behavior ln he eye of socfety, and t{I}it.ary polcy Ehould reflect lht standard, The GO reported that the c.ourts .,have .oneistently upheld the DoD positon on honose)iuality. The GO'concluded tht the Departnent hae no lntention of changlng lts exieting pollcy. (Pp. 3e-4Ll GAO Daft Report) DOD CollHElflll Partially concur. The respon6ee to Findings and O addrees the DoD studies and other exper! oplnion nentioned by the co,
DOD haE conclucted or coumissloned only llnlted reBearch to develop emplrical evldence Bupport,fng th valldlty of the prernieee and rational,e for lts current pollcy on honoaexuallty. The cO noted the DoD effortE to examine the securlty rlsk lseue have concluded that there iE no factual dt to EubBtantl.ate that speclflc prernJ.se. The cAO attro
PBge
Et
t'
tfilitary
It i6 not a valld baele for r'fllltary peronne). pollcies' 1rportant to enPhasfze the DoD dependa uPon the professional varlous Jugernent of covernnnt officlala to uake Bny.and iurprtant declelons that are not oaPable of belng determtned authoritatlvely by eclenttflc neana or proven by studies. Th ullitry hnoaexual excluelon pollcy la one of thoee typs of decielone, Judloil ConEldeEtion of DoD Polloy. The GAo ieport that the courtg consistently have upheld the DoD poiicy aE constltutional under a ratlonal asis standard r reilew. The GAo explalned that, under the Btndard, the covernnent Is only requlred to eetabllsh that regulations lnplenentlng the ollcy are ratlonally related to legftlnate coernmenta lntereete. The Go obaerved that the courte' in givfng epecial defrenc to Hllitary JudgiDents, hve accpted-ae- legitirnate Govrhnentl fntereete Euch t{llitary obJellves ae gqod order, norIe, and dieclpllne--wfthout requiring the Governnent to produce oclentiflc evfden to support the pollcy. (pp. 42,2Go Draft Report) DOD CO.IUEN,B: Concur. Federl courts have uphId the lrlliEt-ono"exuaf exeluslon policy and aeceptd lts ratlonar reLtlonshlp,.to legltlrnate Mflftary purPoes. In fact' slnce the ctrent DoDipolicy on honoBexuafity becane effective n 1982; every court tht has ruled finalfy on the iesue has upheld the holoeexual excfusfon pollcy' rn consleLently uPholding the DoD policy, the court have not required scientlfic evldence to eupport the DoD Policy becausd the HlLitary conetltutes a epecialized conrnunity' governed y a earte dlecipline fron that of the clvilian onmunltv. The courts consider the cooplex, subtle, and profeeelnaI decisiong as to the corupoeltJ.on, training, quippinq, and control of a Irlilltary force to be a natters of professional Hilltary Judgenent.
&LEDINS--
Judgernent underlying the excluElonary pollcy. on homosexaj-e ie 'rprirnarlly anecdotalrt ln nture couLd be lnterpreted to iiuply proeeeional HlIltary Judgenent 1s.
Now on p, 28,
rINprNc U Btudios. Inltirtcd EY tbo DoD pd te EefvIo?t o xt gupport te o+lov. The Go reported that the DoD an-d th ltrftary servlcee could ldentlfy onLy two rnajor abou honostudies inltiated by the DoD and the Servfcesrrcrlttenden sexuality ln the I'fiIltary--(1) the Navy 1957 Reportrt and (2) the Personnel Securlty Research and Edcatlon center efforts, which were lnltiated in L986.
Psge 89
ApDndtr
fv
...
uncover ny statigtlcal
honoeexuai re'nore. of a securlty rlk thn those engaged The GO noed that ln otherunsocial or lnmoral activlty.
of past fnveatlgatlons, trhlch were clted to th Board, negllgibl. Th Go obaerved the Clttendn Report, dEtErmlned that a hoosexual le not neceeearlly uore of a eeeurity ri.ek, per ee, than other trtnegreasors of Doral and criulal codee. The Go noted that the report further deterulned that the propeneitlea and vulnerabllltles assoctated wlth honoeexual actlvlty, aB in the cEe o! ProDlscuoua heteroEexual act1vlty, do provlde aerlous eecurlty lrupl lcatione, The GO further rported that nore recent eftorts involvlng the examlnatlon of-the correlation between honoaexuality and eecurity rlek vlolations were undert<en by the Defense Personnel Security ReEearch and Educatlon center at th dlrection of the Deputy Under secretary of Defenge for security PoJ.lcy. trhe. GAo reported tht the Initlal product fro th centei, entitled, Noncontorrlng Sexuat orientalion and t'tltitarv Sultabllftv, wa co[PIEed ln DcEEber 1988r and echoed the flndfnge of the Crlbtenden roPort' EhG o sttecl that the report revealed no evl'dence that hoooeexu* allty ls reLatect to eecurity rigk vlolatLona or that aexual orieirtatlon affected the Eultablllty of an lndlvldual for rfllltary srvlc, The GAo noted that the rePort concluded that th devefopnent of ethnology an area of study has rnade poeefble nore preclee xaninatlon of the lnfluence of blololcI factorB on the fornation of sexual orlEntatlon. the co reported that, although conpleted 1n late L988' the report wa6 not finallzed until Septe0ber 1991--becaug of delays ageociated wlth the extenElve revier and revlglon It undenrent; The GAQ found that, Lthough the scope of the flnIiued verelon"of'the report, dted septenber 1991, wE nore \arr.ow (tht is lt only addrgsed the aecurity leeue), lt contained tte eame baE1c lnfornatlon included ln the rsgg vrsln. 'the co obarved that the 1991. report stted:' rrFeH data have een put forr,ttrcr to suPport the belief that elng hoosexuaf predlspooes dialoyalty' or a peraon to unreliablllty,
untrustrrorthl,ness.
tl
'I
Now on p. 29
The co noted that the conclusions and recoDmendatlona of the 1991 report vere conEfderably narrower than those lncluded in the 1988 veraion. (pp. 43-53,/GO Drft Report)
Page 70
Nonconcur, The co erre ln t'atlng that the two clted reportg do not Bupport the DoD pollcy, The Crlttenden report clearly EupportE the policy. The Personnel Securfty ReEerch nd Educatlon center rrreportrr (a 1988 draft of a etudy tht nE never conpled) bisBtted the DoD pollcy, thue, lts rranalyeierr vas flawed. The coripleted PraonneL Security'ReBearch and Eduction Center report,, publlghgd ln 1991, ddreEaed only clvllian eecurlty clearanc pollcy and had nothfng to do lrith the ltititary honosexual excLusion po}lcy.
DOD COIiXENTS
a atated, the Crlttenden Etudy wa to look at the Navy procedures and standrde In separatlng honoeexual, The prenlee th hono6exuallty ie lnconpatlble vith Hllltary Servlce eag th foundatlon for the Etudy, and the report did not gueBtlon that premlee.
1,Ja5 adclresged in the Go report relates to a nledirected draft prpared y regearcher for the Peraonnel Securlty Reeearch and Educatlon Cener, The center vaa .tasked wlth atudylng the nexus, lf any, between homoeexuallty ancl Becurfty clearncea for DoD clvlllan enployqs nd covernnent contractors. The purpoee of the study va to help the Deprt!ent aaEees horosexuallty as a factor ln adJudictfng eecurlty clearances for cfvlLlan and contracto! sDployees. It cas never coumiseloned to address he hohosexuL exclualon policy--an entlrely eeparate and broarder lssue baeed on unlquely t{i1ltary concernE. NotnlthEtndlng lts chrge, in 1988, ths PersonnI Securfty Research and Education center eubitted a draft entltled-Nonconformino sexual orientatlon and l{l-lltary Sultabllity. That draft doiunent repreented an abandonment of tlre tasking that had een glven to t.he Center--fnsteadr focusing on the ltllS-tary hoooeexual exclueion policy. The authorE of the draft dfd not dlscus their reeearctr with those ln the DoD rost knovledgeable bout the pollcy, s a result, they mlgunderetood the policy and itE basis, and thelr rubequent I'analyslsn was flarred, The opinione expreeeed ln the draft document were eolely thoEe of the authorsr nd dld not and do not reflect thodg of the Depart&ent of Defenge. It le, therefore, not accuiate to refr to the Peraonnel Security Research nd Eductfon Center 1988 draf,t aE a DoD report, or to coneider Is tenttlv flndinge, as they relate to the l,t11ttry homoeexuaL exclurion polloy, to be authorltative,
FINDINC
tlr R.ont
DoD
Pege 7L
.{ppendlx W
Comment6 From tbe Depaftrnent of Ilefenee
Now on p. 35
by the seeretr of,Defene lndlcoted that thore have been Inconpatlbillty of the gay tinee 1n tne pat vlien eervlce was Bed on a eecurlty Ilfotylo wfth MillEry"the -eported tht the scrBtary lndlcted rlsk ntIon. Th Go It non Ig rnore a natter of lhe need of the eParteent to nalntaln the conbat-effectlveneEe of the Hllftry unlts-ncl, for tht reaaon, the DoD hae contlnued to pureue a pollcy that atatee cerlaln kinds of indlviduals in our eoclety do not e-er:ve ln thoee conbat unlts. Th co further reported chat the Chalrnan of the Jolnt chief8 of stff. ln February 1992 sttBnent before the HouBe Budget coEnfttee. exFrEsed agreeroent wlth the Scr6ary of Defnge. The Go obaervd th chalrman Indfcated that th ban is not Justlfled by the onetlme DoD contentlon that honosxuaL PoBe a greater aecurlty rlek--but, Instead, s based on the preuiee hat honosexual ehavlor fe lnconelent with naintalning good order nd dlaclpllne. The GAO noted tht the Chai:ran indlcated that ln a Mllltary eetting nhere thre is no It le dlfffcult, prlvacy, to lntroduce a group of lndlvidualg--who are proud, brave, Ioyal, good rerlcanE but favor a honosexual llfeetyle--to a group of heterogexual, r.rho woul.d Prefer not to have psrson of he saDE 6x find the sexuIly (pp. 53-54/GO Draft Report) attractlve. DoD cororr Partlal,Iy concur, Both the seretary of Defens and the chirtflan, Jolnt chlefs of staff, have stated that the Htlltary honoeexual axclusion policy ie not based olely on eecurlty conEfderations. In th case of ltllltary peronnel other factora, euch aE good order and dieclplfne, unlt cohaelon, and uorale are nuch rnore iurpornt factorg. For DoD civlLlan ernployees, ouosexuallty, per se, io not grounde for denlal of eploynent or securlty clearances' It lE, hgHever, relevnt factor ln a deterEination of lthether a person ehould be entrusted wlth claesified nfornation. Ite signiflcarrc r,nuet be determlned on a caee-by-case basls, ln Ilght of the partlcular circunstances involved. that eclentlfic and nedicI Etudles tend to dlagre wlth th long'standlng Hllltary Pollcy, vhlch holald that honosexuara are Incornpatlble with lrllj'tary servlce. Th GAo noted that the A$erlcan Peychiatrlc eeociatlon and the Amerlcan Psychological esoclatlon, as vreLl aB other nentI health profeesionale, do not supPort the DoD excluslon. The co hoted that those organizations are trylng o convince lhe UlIitary to change the DoD pollcy to lnprove the nental health and functioning of ls nenbers
cAO reported 'IDIG
The
Appondlx tVr
Comnrent Four the Departrnont ofDta
and to hEIp end the dlgcrlnlnatlon tht they believe can Ied to peychological dfstrseE and paychlatrlc dieorder. The cAo obarved that those organizationa have takn atePB includlng (1) eupporting dfal.ogrue between gay and leeblan groupg and tte trfllltary, (2) bnning of ifllltary advertle-
Ing and recrulting elther at aEoo1atlon neetinge or fn aeaoclatfon publlcatlona, and (3) protsting MlJ,ltary trainlng prograng on universlty rnd col]g caDpuEeB, euch as the Reserve offlcsr Tralnlng corps prograrE.
The co reported that currnt reearh tendE to support the
Eone
Now on p. 36
uneupported, unfalr, and counterproductlve, (2) hae no valldlty according.to,currEnt eclentlflc reeearch and oplnlona, and. (3) ppara to be baeod on the eame type of prJudlclaL euppoeltfong thtt vrare uasd to dlEcrirninte agalnst blacks and wonen bof,ore thoEe potlcleE lrers changed. The GAO explalned'nany oxprts aleo bIfeve ths DoD excluelon pollcy perpetuatee diecrfroinatlon agalnst hoDooexuals, which leade to an atnogphere that Ig not conduclve to the rnntI ha1th of both the honosexual indivldual and thoge prejudicd agalnet. then. (pp. 54-57,/Go Draft Report) DoD coilxENTr .Parla).Iy concur. the roerlcan Peychologlcal 8ioclation and th nerlcan Psychiatrlc ssoclatlon have .written to the DoD expreBBlng thelr dlsagreenent !/lth th DoD pollcy, but nelther addresaed the lsEue of overall conbat eff6c1veness. a the GO notedr inetead, both groups foou8ed on those, arguEents wlth whlch the DoD sfmply takes no poaftlon bocause they are not the baeis f,or the excluelonary pollcy--l.e., that houoeexuallty ls not a nental dleorder an/or that honosxualfty, per Be, Inpllee no lmpahnrent ln Jrldgeuent, atablllty, reJ-iablllty, or general soelal or vgctlonaJ. capablllty.
idea that houoexual1ty can no Longer e vlewed ae abnoroal, if a slgnlffcant Dfnorlty of the Foputlon ngage ln ft at tlne fn thelr adult llveB. The Go furthr raported that Eany experte befleve that th l{flltary pollcy (1) le
In ehort, both groupe, ae we),I E Eany other BocIaI ecience expBrta, Iook t he l{l).ltary honoeexuaL exluelon polloy fron a eoclal policy perepectlva. They focus on homosexuale ln the genr} populatlon and the relatlonshlps betwen honoeexuallty ud the nental health of the fndfvidual. The DoD, on the other hand, looke at the policy eoleJ.y fron a 1lltary, overall coobt effectlveneee etandpoint, and draws no concluelon about the broder soclal iesue,
rrlIDrNo Ps nrbllo tttltu.
rp otb.r vlors.
The
Go
Page 78
Arpondl IV
Gom.mant From tho Deprtment of Dofenro
Now on p, 39
See commenl
1,
See comment 2.
See comment 3.
but new Eurveys ehon that the trcnd 1e reverElng. trhe co reportel that one natlonal poII shows thdt the publlc attltude tosard honogexuale eervlng ln the l,lllltry haE chngd, ThE GO observed that 81 percent of, nericana beliave tha hoEoaexuIa ahould not be dlecharged from t{lIltary anfce bscuae of thelr aexuaf orlenttion. rhI]e 14 percnt bsllevd th8y Bhould. (pp. 58-6o,/GAo Draft Report) , DOD COllliEHT Part1ally oncur. The GO sunmsrlzes three publlc oplnlon poflc, brt doee not Include the ln the raport. Therefore, It 1 difflcult to nake epeciflc connents. Hoever, other lnforoatlon fron the publ.fc, and fron sitlln th DoD, algo le of lntere8t. Ths DoD recolvee nany lettere concernl-ng lte oxcluelon pollcy on honosexualg. In tte past, the DoD heard uralnly fron those oppoged to the policy. tlore recentfy, however, that has not been th caBe. IilII froD the publlc now ls runnlng Eore than 2 to 1 fn eupport of the policy, Horover, rscnt Navy Etudy concluded that, deeplte the apprent lncrsage ln eoclety'e accoptance of houoeexuals, there wa vlrtuIly no suPport anong Navy ronen and nen a! all levelgr and at every Ite vlelted, to change the current Nav)r honoEexual excluslon policy. The Etudy noted that, lthough nrany youhg peopLe entering the Navy today vlew h honosexul'L'lfe atyle as a legltlate cholce, experlence slth the excBptfonally cloEo llvlng and vrorkng envlronent ln the Navy tendo to convlnce qany of the junior eronnel honogexual-lty cannot be tolerated arnong Navy rnernbere.
ELND,LNg_er
eocfety thlnkfng on honoEexuality. The GAo noted that prevloua national pollEr conductgd In the uld-1980e, ahowed an Increasing lntolerance of hgBoaexuIlty at a tme when the lea of contrcting cquircd IDmun Doflclency syndrone (lDs) ns at l.tB hlgheat polnt anong the general publIc,
dlfferent natlons have varlous, soEetime6 dianetrfcalty oppoaad, approaches to (and leglelation affecting the preaence of) honoaexuale In thelr arned forcee--and eome do not vler honosxuallty E a tegal or a lfllltary iesue. Th cAO fouhd, for exaupl8, that anong 18 country pollcies ft reviewed, flve hd policlea BpecficLIy excluding honooexuale froE Eenvfng fD th a]r!0ed force6, while seveD had no rsritten pollcy addreeeing honosexuaJlty, The GAo not6d tht aoloe countrlee, euch ae AuEtraIIa, canada, and Britin, have very strlc polfclea and procedures. Tbe
co notect, horrevsr, thdt the current Australlan policy ie
Go
reported that
Page't1
Now on p. 40
!1ao ha hd a long standlng polfcy of not acceptlng dcclared honoeexuals lnto ths Cndtn DfBnae Forcss. The GO reported that thE Brltiah Defense Force, Itke the is n all-volunteer force and 1g oppoaed to U.S. tlllitary, havtng hoooaexuale gerve ln tb H!I1try. The co noted tht th Brltlsh Defense Force doEe not knowlngly accept hooasxuale. (pp. 59-63/Go Draft Report) Unlted Statee are, however, baEsd upon the unique factors n our natlon lhat go lno the overall conbat effectlveness equatlon. ThuE, r{hile pollciee in other nationE may be of lntereEt, they cn never be dleposltive. The U.S. nuEt
nake t6 own pollciee based upon vhat Ie best for
DoD
regulrernente agalnst hunran rights prlvacy, freedoru, and o on). The Go reported that the canadian Defense Force
natlonaL eecurfty,
he
FINDINO B Polls./tl?. DoDrt[cpt Poll.ol68. The co roportd that aLl ut one of the eight polic and flre deprtnents (ln four cltlee) it vleited had written pollcles dlctatlng nondlecrlmlnatlon on the baeie of sexual prefer-
ence or Ilo\rlng th Enployrent of honosexuals. The GO noted that Dany of, the policies dated as tar back as the
Now on p. 41,
out thst noat of the police and fire departrnentB with poli' clee endorged by the clty nayore and departDent chiefs trget their rcruiting to gay and LeEbian conmunitles, as wel.I ac to the conunitles of blacks, Hlspanlca and eiane. .i (pp. 63'6srzcO Draft Report) whlle not disputlng the DOD CoHIiENT PartlalIy'corr.ur. pollce and fIEe departiuents, tne ooo G?ffiffi;:relaiing.t l"e concerned bout poelble cornparieone wlth the tilitary ServlceE, l-though there are aorne organlzational siniIarltiee between police or fire departnents and the armed forcss, there are aleo Eoroe very fundaental dfferences. The nleeion and related trainng, dep).oynente, work environ' nent, authorlty of the conander over ubordinates, llvlng conditions, and lack of peraonl privacy conbine to nake any Euch conparieon nlsleadlng.
intervlewed viewed honosexuallty ae an issue. The co reported that, ln ternB of security breache, nost pol.lce and flr departnnt offlcials stated that, ihlle aone aeelgnmente are consldered conffdential o Eecret j.n nature, noat departrent of,flclale belleved that hoosoxuafs, erhether rrcloaetedrr or acl$1ttd, were no Dore Eubject to breaches of eecurlty or blackmail than heterosexuala. The GAo pointed
it
Psge 7
Appodl IV
Gommcut From the Deprtmont of Defene
. Eh GO leported that, for Dor than 50 yara, th DoD and ita predeceeeors have had a policy of excfudlng honoaexuIB fron tlflitry Servlce, bsEad on the bellef tht th pregence of honogxuafs eerl' ouely frnpaire the acconp).lshnnt of the Hllltary ufselon, The co fotCl that, becauee the pollcy le aed largely on to chal}enge--and the t{f Iftary.Judgment, lt le dlfflcult court,a hav6 toutlnely accepted th DoD Judgnent. fhe cAo concluded, horeve!, that the DoD pollcy le not based on Bclentlf,lc or, aoclologlcal analyale, The co furthr concludEd lt ls unll(e1y tht ny Euch analyele could prove cono).uelvely the pollcy ls rlght or wrong. The co pofnted out that, although atudlsa of the eeeurlty rlsk !6gue have tnded to r6fut th6 DoD poltIon, there are othr bageB for th pollcy that do not lend therEelves to concluaive analyele. RecoEnlzlng that Dore study aLone cannot solve ths probleB, the co nontheLea concluded that lt rnay be approprlate for th DoD to take ne/ ]'oo< at lt8 pollcy.
TIHDITO B
follovlng factora: slnce th DOD laet exanlned th6 pollcy ln 1982, publlc attltudea tosard houoeexuale hve bsn changlng, and DoD EtudLe have ralged questfone bout the policy aevral Natlonal Atlntlc Treaty organizatlon countries aIlos honoBexuale lnto the Hi1ltary or are reaeeeselng thelr pollclee on hoosexuals; nany U,8 pollce and fl.re departDents have accepted hoooeexuale Into their ranks and have not reFortd
any adveree funpactgi
recent congreeefonal testlnony by the Secretary of Defonse and the ChalrDan of the ,Joint Chifs of Staff lndlcate that thg concern over honoaexuala belng aecurity rlaks, whlch wae once a slgniffcant baele fo lhe pollcyr is no longer a eerlous lssue; : thre r nany. avenues for dfscharging llllltary pereonnef, fncluding honoeexual.e, who have behvior proble0d nd changlng the policy to pernlt honoBExuaIa to renain in the fl}itary would not entall condonlng lnappropriate behaviori and
Pege 76
Appendk fV
Comnent From the Departmont of Def,eno
ground EiD1lr to what ao!e othr countrle have aken--for xaEtPIer dlecouraging hoEoscxuI froE
Now on p. 43. DoD
RePort)
cox{ENrs Nonconcur. Each of the factorg appearlng ln the ovEraJI concLuelon action has bsn ddrc8sd Eepartely ln other flndfnga, Thor 18 no nn lnfontfon Prseented that nould lead the DoD to conglder changlng th Hllitry houosexual exclulon pollcy.
artra
ITEER 8OR COCRESAIOIIJ CO8rDEnTIOll
EgggEEjIIgN Because (1) 1t haa been ten yeara slnce the DgD laet exaroined i.t6 policy and regultlon, (2) public
attitudee towrd hoDogexuallty are changlng, (3) fornl DoD atudlee of the leoue have challenged the [eecurlty] baala for ita po1lcy, nd (t) DoD offlclale havo atated tht the Departnent rvlLL not change ite pollcy unlees lt le nandated to do Eo by the congrsa--th co Euggstsd tht Mnbrs of the'. congrEg conglder dfrectlng th DoD to reexaml.ne the bale for the pol,lcy and detemine rrhther th pollcy could b rovLaed to better eerrre Hl1ltary neede. (p, 68lco Draft Report)
CoHqNTr Nonconcur. The DoD contlnuafly revfwe aII HlIltary peraonnel pollclee as the sltuatlon warrants, and the Mllltary homosexua] exclueion polcy ls no exceptlon, There ls no nev lnfornatlon ln the Go report related to overall combat effectlveneEe that would aauee the DoD to chanqre that pollcy.
DOD
araaa
BBCOI.I}IE}IDATTONE TO ITEE DIPRITXENIT
NONE.
O' DE'CHSE
Page 77
Appendlx IV
Coment From
te Deparfinent of Defense
The following are co's colrlments on DoD's letter dated April 17, 1992.
GAO Comments
1. We believe that we have included sufficient evidence in the report to establish a clear trend toward increasing support for permitting homosexuals in the work place. Table 4.1 shows an increasing more positive attitude on an identically worded opinion question that was admiistered six different times over 14 years to the same population by the same survey organization.
stronger evidence is available in the form of more technically sound, public opinion poll evidence.
3, The informaiion that DoD provides about its own "recent Navy study" is not sufficient to determine the value of the study, For example, DoD does not provide information about the sample design, the reliability of the opinion measurement process, the actual questions asked of personnel, or steps, if any, that were taken to ensue confidentiality for those who were critical of existing policies.
PsE 78
Appendix V
(srr87)
Pege79
)rrk,ri rrg
In
f'rlrrrrl,iot
'l'lrr. first. <'ory of eat'lt (AO rex)rl, is f'ret'. Arldil.irlnal copi('s rt'$2 r.a<'h. Orrlcrs shorrlrl be sell, l,t l.he foll<twing addrtlss, acc(rlnpalie(l lly a chr'<.k or n()n(y ()r(l(r nr(le rrt to t,he Superil[ertrlertl tlf l)o<'t nr('nl,s, when rte<'essary. C)r<lers f<rr 100 ()r n()r('('()p('s o be ntailetl t.o l sinle rd(lress Are tliscotttetl 2l- p('r(:ettt.. [].S. (eneral ccount,ing Office I',O. llox (0ll- (irif hersburg, Ml) 20t177
()rrlers nrry
lso be
I ll il crl Sl I cs (ir't''t I A<'t'ott rt I.i tg ( )l'l'i<'r' Wrshi rgl (xt, I).( l. !}()l'r lli
(
l)osl.:rgtr
Itr,lt
(iAo
I
.tl
n Afl \IIAL/
Jue 1993
rs
,7 7
t -7 Y
"-;
TTOUOSEXTIALSIN
THB
Policies and Fractices of Foreign Countries
lrilililillililliltffitiltillil
149440
C'':T i?_,1
ltlqtlo
GAO
Unltd Sttes
General Accoundng Offlce l?ahln gton, D.C. 2048
MethOdOIOgy
i."Hffi:i:ffi'"Ji#tr:Jff
::fr ;ffi'ffi,i,iiiilii'
selectJd a sumpte of 29 cuntries which had active duty force levels over 50,000 in 1991. Fou of the 29 cowrtries did not wish to be included in this review or considered the issue too serrsitive to address. For the remaining 2 countries, we obtained an official position on thei laws, policies, and regulations concerning-homosexuals in the armed services either through the U,S. emba.ssies and foreign govemment officials in the respective countries or from the countries'embassies in Wa^shington, D,C, We also held discussions with some of te coturtries'embassy ofEcials to clarify their laws, policies, and reguiations.
For our detaed review, we selected Canada, Germany, Israel, ard Sweden because these countries allowed homosexuals to serve in the mi-litry and met certain criteria regarding their crltual heritage, the size of their
Page
B.tEt90
amed forces, and thel recent combt or deployment oerience. In addidon, we attempted to lnclude countrles whtch represented arange of atfl hdes concernlng homosenrallty Ou work in the fou countries included discrssions with mid- and senior-lex/el rnftry and government ocials, former acve duty rtilitry personnel, members of the legerve forcea, re,presentaflves of veterarp and homosetnral advocacV EFoups, and academic experts. These groups provided a broad range of rdews concernlng the trea,tilient of homosexuals in the mitv. We elso lntended to tlk to ardve duty ofcers and enUsted personnel at rnilitry headquarters and eld urlts. However, of the fou cowttries, only Sweden permitted us to lnterview ac{ive duty tutit personnel. Neverttreless, otu discusslou with numerous other lmowledgeable eivtlians and military personnel, represenng a wide Bpectrum of oplnloru, Save u no lndica,on that r:nit persoruel would have provided a different perspective. Appendix I dlsctsses orr scope and methodology in more detafl. Appendlx II describes the military policies conceming homosexuals for 21 of the 26 counffies ln orrr sample, lncluding related irformdon on the pracdces of some of the counties. Appendixes Itr tluough VI disctlss the results of orr lndep review for the remainfng fot countries{anad4
Germany, Israe! and Sweden,
.
-
Congress ts currently debating the Resident's proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. s pat of this debate, Congress ha.s
:fi::i:fff,H::T#liHs"ffies'm'*vpor*iesand
i
I
"
Germany, foru counfies seleeled Israel, and Sweden*generally ref,ect Westrn cultural values yet sll provide range of ethnic diversity. Germany and Sweden have ethnically homogeneous populaorn. Israel's populaffon ls diverse, with lrnmigrants from all over the world. Ttre largest etlrric groups in Canada are people with Brish or Fench backgrounds, or some combinadon of the two. one'third orthe popula$on has other er.lutic
ii:gfl1ost
Pa.sc 2
MiIItry
Pl-B{tt90
Each of the four cornt1es reviewed tn detail has acve armed forces that exceed 60,000 mli{ary personnel and has been lnvolved recentJy in reglonal contct'Untd Naoru pecekeeplng mlssloru, or both. Of the countrles eelected, onty Canada has an al}-vohnteer rnllitary force' Germany'e nrttary corulsts of 67 percent voltnteer forces, and the remafning 49 percent are conscrlpted.r Isral's and Sweden's forces prnartly coruist of conscripted mitry peruorutel, although they do maintin A emll volunteer Cqrps. .{ll fow counHes allow women to serie in some capactff. Canada ls the least restricve in this regard, atlowing women to serve in combat and non'combat roles; Germany is the most resrlcve, allowing \ryomen to sene in oly the medical and mwic corps. Policies permitting homosentals to serve in the rntlitry ir these counEies hve been in place for a period of time rangng from 8 monttts ir Cauda to 46 years in lsrael.
Results in Brief
Wtrile many countries have no speeific law or mitry reguladon on homosexuals servlng in the milltary, of the 26 coundes in our sample, 11 have polfclesrtlgt db not,permlt homosexuals to serve in the military, and 11 have policies that d; Thee of the counEies do not lve any laws, regulations, or policies that address ttis issue and did not provide tnformdon regarding homosexuals serving in the mility. Other varibles may affect the serviee of homosenals in the militry. For example, most countries set stndalds of conduct applicable t atl miitry personnel. A.Lso, some countries place restriCtions On lnown homosexuals who serve.
Sweden have policies of not discrimtrati:ng against homosexualg in the military. Germany imposes restricdos on homosexua volunteers. In all foru cor.rtries, milltarypolicies concerning homose:nals developed over time, reflecting changes in civilian law and societl attitudes toward homosenrals. Most militry offrcials and advocacy Soup representves said that the countries' practices towad homosenals ln the armed
Mitry ofcials in atl fotu countries sid that the presence of homosenals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the funcdoning of military units. A key factor, they said' was that homosexuals ae reluctnt to openly admit their sexual orientaon for a variety ofrr,easors. For example, (1) sexUality is considered to be a private
I Conrcrlptlon ls ',:
!
tJre reiirJrement
Pagc
M[tty
D8!EO
matter, (2) homosexuals fer dlscrlrnlnsdon ornegave reacdons om thelr peers or supertors lf they reveal tttelr E:rual orientaffon, and (g) homosexuas do not see 8ny advantage to openly ldendfylng thetr homosexuallty. Mtlttary ofclals from Cansd& Israel, and Sweden eald tlraf, on tfie bsls of thelr experlence, the lnclusion of homosexuals ln the nrtlltary lr not mbleln:and has not averely atrected rult readineas, eecveneas, cohedo or morale. In Germany, rdftary ofEclals told w thatpmblema assoclated with homosenal mllltarypereormel are dealt wlth on a case-by*ase bads and thetr serrdce ls rctd lf necessary. Table I showg whlch cotes do not permit homosexrals to seve gnd wttch do permlt homose:nals to sene. Ttre tble also pmvides lrformadon on whether the countrl/s mtlitary force corulst8 of all volunteera, mostly corucrlpts, orsgme other comblnadon of volunteers and corscripts. Vo\mteer forcee generally ae the source of career rnilitary
personnel,
li
i.
'I
,r
Prge
cAfy1rI8fAD.08-216 EomotcxtrJ,t
tc Mllttry
&t5890
Counlry
AuBtralle
Countrlr _ Slrc ol Prlmrry tourcc homorxuall to Appllcablc lrwr, rrgulrtlonr, ac'tlva lgroa of porronncl aarylr rrtrlc'tlon
Pollcy llowr
pollchr, lnd/or
Colombia
France
Germany
Greece
All-voluntesr
Both
Mllltary policy changed ln Nw. 1992, Yes Yes No Yes No No No speclflc law/military reg, No specific Prohibltlon llfted ln October 1992.
Conscrlpt
Volunteer
Hungary
lsrael
159,000 Conscript 87,000 Both 141,000 Conscript 361,000 Conscript 246,000 Alvolunteer 105,000 Conscrlpt 305,000 62,000 600,000 201,000 72,000 257,000 53,000 92,000
579,000 300,000
75,000
Yes No
llaly Japan
Peru
:. No
Yes
Conscrlpt
Both
Portug{l
Bepubli of Korea Romanla
Conscript Conscrlpt
Both Both Yes Yes Yes No No
No
South,Africa
Spain Sweden
Clvlllan law apPlies, No specific law/milltary reg. Clvillan laws revlsed in 1985, Clvllian law/military policy, No speclflc laWmllltary reg, Military policy revised in 1974.
Mifltary law applles, lew Mllltrv law
Conscript
Both
The Nelherlands
Turkeyj Unitd
Conscript All-voluntser
Both
Notei
No
cas'by{as
baElg.
OtficlBls dld not provlde detslled infOrmalion to nBble us to make thls dstBrmination.
Pge
tt!00
Military Policies
Concerning Homosexuals Have Evolved
In all foru counee, milltary policies concerning homosernals hve dweloped orr time..Trese policy ctranges were usually preceded by changeo in civtlian lawe, reflecting ttre atdhdes of the society at large. As eociety ehowed lncreased acceptance of homosexuals, the military tended to follow.
CarLad has modlffed tts mitry pocy orer the past 7 years to remove all rescons on homoserns. In 1986, the Canadian Forces began to reevalua,te tto policy of excluding homosexuls from the military. The revlew was prompted by the adopon of the equal rights provislon of the countX/s new constron. tuing thls revlew, the military ltsdhted an lntrim policy ln 1988 tt allowed homosenls to sele, but with reshicdons. 1994 a court ruled that the military's pocy concerning homosexuals was uncorsdtrdonal, and the military revoked fts policy and removed all resfifcons on homosernsls,
Germany's military policy has been modied over the past 24 yea$, although lt does,not grant homosenrale total equal rlghts.The Germn armed forces began permitting homose:nals to serve ir 1969, when the penal code was revised to decrimiraUze homossnal acts2 for males ages 2t and over. In 1987, Germany's Federal Administave Corrt ruled that homosenul orlentadon alone was not sufficient gtorurds for revoking secwlty clealances, and the mi[try has since changed its poUcy accordingly. In 1990, this same German court fowtd that the German rtitry is jrx.ed ln not allowtng homosexuals to serve in leadersNp or
educa,flonal posioru.
Isral has no consdtution or bill of rights; however, a number of basic laws, together, sen'e that purpose. The Israeli militry has allowed homosexuals to eerve slnce the cowrtry was founded in 1948. Under a 1983 mitry regula,on, however, homosenals were prohibited from serving in intelligence posidons requiring top security cleaances, The reguladon also required ldentified homosena.ls to undergo a psycholo$cat exanlne.on to determlne thei ability to serve. However, we were told'that ln pracdce these policies were never formally implemented: Recentlf, Israell society has become more ceeptlng of homosexuality and has increasingly recognlzed homosextral rlghts, Homose>nal acts were decriminalized ln 1988, and discrimination agairst homose)ilals in the worIace was outlawed in 1992. ln May 1993, the militry adopted arpolicy that no restricons will be placed on the
?Homosexusl afs are dened dlfferently dependlng on between cme gender parrerl,
tle
Prgo 7
GAOSIAD.98.2| Homoceru!r
te MltltV
Ftr8100
removed homosexulity fum its Classif,cdon of Illnesses Handboo the rtitry stopped coruidering homosenrality as an illness. The military, however, continued to anrotte the flle records of homossnal ldlvlfl'ts. Ttris pracce waa hattd ln 1984 when a Pa,rllamentary commission concluded that homoseruality must not disquafify an tndtvidual from servirg tn the armed forces. In 1987, Sweden passed its law protribitlng dtscriminadon agalnst homosexuls. lhe law also applies to the armed forcee.
No Appaxent Inconsistency Between Military Policies and Actual Pratices Toward Horhosexuals
Dlscrssioru with numerous goverrtment officials, private Foups, and idivldrrnls indicated that litryprac'lices in Canada" Germany, Israel, and Sweden were consistent with rnitry policies concerning homosexuals. In Canada and Sweden, militsry officials and others said the armed forces complrwih their policies. Homossnral rights groups in Carada Were batibffeti wittr the tnilitaryrs policies and pracdces. While one homosexual rights oup in Sweden believed that despite the military's anddiscrimination policy, homosexual ofces may be denied career opportqnities, the goup could provide no suppordng evidence. Ttre other m.qlor Swedish homosenal rlghts goup we interviewed did not believe homosenrals wpre discriminated agairut in the mitary. ,J German mility officials said they deal with homosexuals on a caseby+ase basis, tn accordance with the flexibility provided under the policles. How each case is handled, they said, hlnges on such factors as whether the individual is a conscript or volunteer, the individual's rank and time tn service, nd whether the individual exibits homosexual orientadon or engagds in homose)Rral behavior. Dependfng on the 'clcumstnces, a homosexual soldler my not be punished at all, mey be restricted from certaln assignments, or maybe disciplined in some other way. In practice, according to German rnitry officials,
PaSe B
&tE!00
profeosional reput,on and gatred the respect of coworkers, the person may feel more comforable ln reveallng his or her eexul oienta'on them, In Israel, for exarnple, we talked to s nurnber of reserve mitry personnel who aid ttrat on acdve duty they served openly as homosernrals, sdll received promodoru, and vere not resEicted ir their
isdgnments,
Mttary officials in Carada, German lsrael, rrd Sweden said tltt the presence of homoseXuaE hs not created problems in the military because homosenrality ls not an lssue fn the nrilitary or fn society et large. We were told that a key reason the presence of homosenrals is not an issue in these cotntries'mftles is tht few homosexual mitity personnel openly identis their sexual orientadorq as disct.$sed earlier. For example, a 1984 report on homosenrality by Sweden's Paxliament stated that the silenee surroundlng homosexuals and homosexuaity is vtually total'n Swedish mititary personnel at all levels agreed tlrt this silence is peasive in the
nUtry.
Foreign Militaries Report No Adverse Effect Because Presence of Homosexuals Is Not an Issue
Mititry gfficia om each country said tlnq on the basis of their experienbe, thd inclusion of homosexuirls in their mities has not adversety asectd unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale' For example, Isreli officials said that homosexuals have performed as well as heterosenrale and have seffed successfully in all branChes of the mifitry since 1948. In Canads, where problems in these areas were predicted, mllitry ocinle said none . *iqllzed since the revocadon of the policy banning homosenals. They atdbuted the lack of problems to the mitary leadershfp's support of the new policy and the militry's ability to keep alow proflle on the issue, German mi[try officials said that their policies prevent problems becate they allow for flexibiliy in dealing with homosenal lndividuals, and thei service is restrictd lf necessary.
';{
'' Pc IO
&tE8E00
We ae sending copies of ttri:s reportto the Chairmen of the Sente and HOtue Commites on Armed Services, to the Secretary of Deferwe, and to the Secretary of Stte. We wlll also truke copies available to others on
requegt
Ttris report wa prepared under the direcdon of Mak F, Gebicke, Utrectol, nruitary Operaons and Capabilies Issues, who maybe reached on (202) 612-6140 lf yot or your stffhave any quesdons. Other m4ior conElbutors to tlld report ae llstd !n appendfur VII. Sincerely yolrrs,
i;r.r
:
'
,,
Pge
ll
GAO/'I\8IAD-98-21
Contents
Letter Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodolory
t4
l9
Military
Appendix Itr
Canada
27
38
Figtues
Canada
Pgc
l2
GAO/I{SIAD-8'ZIE Eomoexub
the Mltry
Cott
3,9
38
Abbrevlatlons
Mllttrry
At the requeat of Sentor John W. Wamer, we performed a review of the poltdes concernlng homosexuals In the mtlttrles of 26 foreign countrles, and more lndepth rwiew of the poUcies and pracdcea in four of these corntrles to obtain a perspecilve of their erperiences.
To obtatn lrforma,on on a broad range of foreign countries'tawa, policies, and reguladons goveming the milttry servlce of homosexuls, we initially selected a sample of 29 counfties wtrlch had acve dutyforce levels over 60,000 ln 1991, Fou of the 29 contries dld not $'lsh to be included in this review or consideredthe issue too sensiHve to address. Forthe remaining 26 corurfiies, we obtajned official lnformon on thei laws, pollcies, and regula,oru concernlng homoseru|s in the armed forces elthertluough the U.S. embassles in the counffies or from the corurtrles'embassies ln lVastrington, D,C; We also held dlscr:ssions with eome of the countries' embassy ofBstals tA ctgnry their laws, polfcfes, and regulaoru. In seleetlng the couttrles for a more detailed review of policies and pmcdces, we attempted to captue a range of attudes toward homosexuality, Other criterl we tsed included: (1) predomtnance of Western cultural values; (2) militry forces exceeding 60'000; and (3) recen mflitry combat and/or deployment e:rperience (for example, pardcipation tn the Persian Gutf Wa, re$onal conflicts, or United Nations peacekeepfng mis'sions). On the basis of these criteria' we selectd Canadq Germany, Israel, Sweden, and Flarce. During the tnitial phases of our rview, French government ofclals informed us that they did not wlsh to provide us lnformaon on this topic. .{.s a result we excluded Flarce from the ldepth phase of thls review.
We gathered detfled irformadon on the military policies of Canad4
Germany, Israel, and Sweden, includi:ng the evoluon of these policies; compaed the military policies to civilia laws; and detrmined whether the practices of te armed senices are consistent with thei policies. However, we did not attempt to describe the clcumstnces surOunding the development of these liaws and policies. In addiflorq we disclssed the e:iperiences each.country has had conceming homosexuals in the militry '\trith miti,try personnel, tetraru and homosexual advocacy 8troup representadies, aca{e,mics, and U.S. embassy personnel.
Canada" Germany, and Israel did not permlt rs to lnterview acve duty
PrSr
l{
ADDGrdfs
dted the recent change lt policV td their intent to keep a low proflle on'the issue. Ttrey bellered that the rnitry leadenhip world hdve moie fle$biliff tn implementing this policy if the issue remalred low-key. *an official visit to units would sewe Germany's ctrief of protocol said tht no purpose.n Israelt ofclalg satd oru presence could be a dlsrupon and preferred to malnttn a low proflle on tlds issue, Israeli ofEcials felt that homosexuals were not ar lsse ln the nitary and wanted it to remtn that way.
Caradiar ofciale
To obtir a list of credible government and rnllitry officials, homosexual And vetrans advocacy Sroups, and academic sources to interview ln each forelgn country, we contc'ted
a a
the cowtFies' Auditoip General; U.S. government agencies, professional societies, and individual erperts in a varlety of elds, tncludtng the Congfessional Reseach Senice; the Army Beseach Insnr; Walter Reed Army Hospital; the American Psychiatric Associadon; the American Sociologlcal Society; the American Psychoto$cal .dssociaon; the Americar Ethnolo$cal Association; the American fuitluopological ssociadon; lwrence Korb, a military analyst at the BrooHngs Instute; Chales Moskos, a military Eociologist at Northwestem Universfty; and Ueutenant General (Ret.) Bemad Tlainor, Diector 9f the Naona} Securlty hogam at Hasad University; public opinion olling xferts, including World Association for hrblic Opinion Resarch, the Gallup Organizadon, and Roper Institute; U.S. veterarsassociiadoru, including the American l$on, Verans of Foretgn Was, Assoclaton of the United States Army, Noncommlssioned Ofcers Associatlon, Retired Offlcers Associadon, the Military Coalition, and the Air Forpe Assocition; and U.S. homosenral a.dvocacy groups, tncluding the Human Rights Campaign F\nd, Campatgn for Milttary Service, Militry Fleedom Inidatve, Internaonal Gay and Isbian Humar Rights Commission, International lsbian and Gay Associadon, Nadonal Gay and Lesbiar Task Force, the Gay and Isbian Foreign Service Associadon, and Federal Gay, Lesbian,
'and
Blsenal Emploiees.
After we obtained a list of contacts for each country' we supplied the list to the respecve U.S. embassy to verify the contacts' credibility within the counEy.
Specicatly, we interviewed the following sorrces in each counbry:
Pso
CAO/NSID.93.21 Eonoexut
,irl tl
tle Mllltsrv
, i,,
,,
,:
Auodl I
OQf
ce'tfuur, 8copc,
ud llrtodoloV
anada
In Canada, we intervlewed ofclnln from the U.S. embassy; the Deparnent of Nadonal Defence'e Personnel Policy Divlsion; the Depa,rtnrent of Jrsce's Human RiShts Iw Secon; Canadian Human nghts Commisslon; the only open homosexual memberof Parllament; a member of PalJament who belongs to the hogressive Coruewative Party and ls opposed to the new pollcy; the Gandian Auditor General; Stastics Candao wtrich t,brlates government data; the Conference of Defence Assocldons, a vetrans unrbrella Eroup, consisting of 22 organizadons; Pink Ttiange Services, a local homosexual advocacy goup; and Equaliff for Gays and Isblans Everywhere, the on na,onal homosenal advocacy goup. We also interviewed a culhral anthropologistfrom Crtterion'Researctr Oorpora,on; Michelle Douglas, former mtlitry officer whose cout case forced the military to change its policy; a political scientlst ftom the University of Toronto who speciallzes in homosexual rights; apoliflcal scientist from the Universtty of Toronto who specializes lr polling data; a representatve from Gallup Canad, Inc.; and a military sociologist under conmctto the U.S, Army Research Insdtut to analyze the impact of Canad's new policy on homosenls. In Washington, D.C,, we interviewed the former Canadian Chief of the Defence Sta^ff, the key nrilitary offlcial responsible for implementing the court's decision to alo\/ homosexuas to serve in the military'
t
;.
'sociolo$cal hend^s.
In Germany, we interviewed represenatives from the U'S. embassy; the Mlnstry of Deferue's personnel, health, and legal divlslors; the DeparEnent of the Navy;the Bundestag (the German Parllament);the Ministry of Jusdce; the Deutscher Bundeswehr Verband e.V., an associaon representing the views of active duty and reded members of the armed forces; the Catholic and Protestant churches; and the Schwulenverband ln Deutsclad and the Brndewerband Homosexualitt, two homosexual advocacy Sroups in Germany. We also interviewed a professor conductingreseach forthe U.S. Army Research Institute on German/s militafypolicy regarding homosenals and a Universlty of Franldrrt sexologist who is an e:(pert on German sexuality and
Israel
In Israel, we interviewed officials from the U.S. embassy and the Israeli Defense Forces, including the CNef of Security, who was responsible for drafdng the militay's new regulation on homosexuals, and the head of the Mentl Health Departnrent; a member of the Israell l(nesset (equivalent to
Page
l0
ri:!' ': ti. t : x.\;.:i'
GAO{SIAD-09.216 Eomoexual
tle MIIItT
Ohctlyor' ^fDGrd
Scopc' rnrl
tctlodolot
the U,S. ConeEs) who;has held public heings on homosenality in Isral; ofBctals fth tlie Society for the hotecdon of Pergonal Rlghts' the leadiltg homosexual rtghts Sroup ln Israel; an ttrney of the Assocddon for Clvtt Rights ln Israel, the counffs primary civil rights goup; the Dlector of the Israeli Insdilt for Milttry Shdies, who was a former Chief Psychologist of the Israli Defense Forces and ts a speclalist on coheslon and battlefleld sbess; the President of the Israel Psychological sEocianon, the only body of professtonal psychologists in Israel; a poltster freqrently tued by the u.s. ewrbassy; and a soclologist at the Jensalem-based Ieral Instut of Applted Socisl Research. Several IErasUs we Epoke with were elther retied rtilitsry officers or sdll ln the resenes. In addldon, we condentiallyintervtewed 11 homosexual and heterosenal reserve corps and retled Israeli Defense Forces rnitary personnel to obtair flrshand lnformdon on their experience.
We atmpted to
identiff organizaons that oppose homosenals in the Israell miftry, but were told by several sources, tncluding U.S. embassy ofBcials, tht there wene none.
!n Sweden, we interyiewed officiels from the U.S. embassy and the Swedishefense Persorurel Division of the Joint Defense Stffand the Nadonal Setryices /idrpinistradon Euollment Office and Medical Boad; eenior miUtry ofcerb, 1 acdve duty unit-level ofeers and ZZ conscripts at Air Force, ;\nny, and Nary facilides; a member of Parli,ament ftom the Uberal Party who chairs the Parli,amentary Commission on Registered Patnershios and is the former Dlrector of the National Boad of Health and Welfari; a lnember of Paliament from the Moderatp Party who is the VlceQhair of the Humar Resource Councll of the Swedish Deferue;a member of Pallament from the Chrlsttan Democrat Party who opposes passage of legisladon permitting reglstered patnerships; and an official bom ttt" OfEe of the Ombudsmar Ageinst Ethnic Discriminadon. We also intervlewed the Pre$ident and other representaves of the Swedish Federadon for Gay and Isblan Rights, the mostpromlnent advocacy group for gays, lesblans, and bisexuats; the heeldent of Gay Moderarn4 an independent gay conservave organizstion tht works both domestically *d ltt*onally to achleve equat rights for homosexuals; a socla reseacher wtth the Insht for Social Policy and the Depatnent of sociat work of the university of Gothenbrug; the Director of the Swedish Institut for Senal Research;the Chairman and the Prolect OfEcer of the Central Councll of Conscripts, whose members ae elected by their peers to represent the corucripts before the Swedish Defense
Sweden
:t Page
l?
lFdtrl
Force; ard the hcddent of Noah's Ark-ned Cross Fotmdaon, fotutded to work wtttt the prevenon of HIv dlsease and to support those who are HIv-hfected. Qflcdels from the homosenral advocacy Sloups and the U.S. embassy were rnable to tdentls any organlzadoru that were opposed to the admlssion of homosenas tnto the rnilitry. In addion, the homosexul dvocacy groups were unable to locat retired or acve duty homosexual mitltary qersonnetwho were wllling to meet with ts.
lVe conduc'te ou review tom Mach to May 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing stndrds. We disctssed the results of otu review vitt U.S. officials at the epartrnents of Stte and Defense.
Pago
lE
ppendlr4
_.
--.
A,,n#nnti n a4
I||:
Although the Arsbalian Defence Force did not hve an ocial ban on admittance of homosenals fnto the nritary (rpon entry, recnits were not quesdoned a,bout their sexr.l orlentaflon), a 1986 rni[try policy provided guidance to comnandlrg officera in trandUng csses where a member of the armed forces was ldentiffed as homosexual. Under tlrls policy, when a goldler dectared hls or her homosenulity or was forurd to be homosejrul, the eoldier was discreetty asked to resiglt and usually complied. Othenrise, the service word lntste acOru to terminate the individual's mtlttry caeer.
ln November 1992, the Australi,an govemnent ended ttris policy of prohiblting homosenals from sewing in the ntilitry. The new niutry pocy on rnacceptable sorual behavior applies to all sewice members regardless of se)nel orlentation. The policy sttes that the passage of human rtghts legsladon, in pardcular the sex Dlscriminadon.Act and the Human Rights and E$a Opportrrniry Commisslon Acf necessitted the development of a policy on unacceptable selnal behevior'
An embassy offreial told us that Arshalia does not hve lws prohtbiting sodomy that would'hve confllcted with implemenng the new pollcy' Implementaflon of the new policy fs the responsibility of individuaJ commanders.'We were told that command brieflrUs were held tluoughout the chalr of command to implement the new policy. Implementadon is monitored routkrely ttuough the chain of command.
fur ArsEalian ofcial stated that although it is too early to assess the resrlts of the revised olicy, no reported changes have occurred in the number of persoru declaring his or her sonal preference or the number of recrults being inducted. Effects on rrit cohesiveness have not yet been frtly determied. However, early tndications are that the new policy has had ttle or no adverse lmPact. Belglum has no laws or regUladons regarding the eervice of homosexuals lnto the mititfy, Embassy effislal sttd tlt in pracflce homosexuality . does not consdtut grounds for excltuion or dlsmissal ftom the Belgian armed forces rnless there fs evidence of a psychopathic disorder such as senal perversion. During recninent, the military does not ask an individual's senral orlentdon. If homosexuality is discovered after enllstment, however, commanders may restrct the indlvidual's duty assignments..Fgr inst-ce, lirnitadorf rnay be placed on the person's access to classifled iormation, or the penon may be excluded from
Belgium
Pac l
GAO/NSIAD-98-21 Homoexud ln
tle Mtty
ApUcdb tr
oB
EoEolcl[L
cefisn tasks or units. In addidon, we were told improper sex1al conduct alnong member8 of the armed forces ls not tolerafed. Although Bradlian law does not contain any speclflc reference to homosexuatlty, Bradllan embassy otEctals lrformed rs that homose:nals who exhibit betuivior 'tlieh degrades the appropriate mitry deconrm and nritiy hrror dre bared from military senice. Moreover, ttre sttr of the MtlitIlft goern'apattern of behaviorto be adhered to by all personnel wtrile they ae on and off duty. fut tndividual found suilty of enggrng ln libidtrous acts, includlng homosemal ac't^s, while on duty or on base ls considered to be in violation of the penal code and subJect to prurlshment, lncluding possible discharge'
Detiled irformadon on Canadian policies and pracdces regarding homosenals servlng ln the rnilitxy is presend ln appendix ltr'
Ttre Chilean corsdhtion does not specifically refer to sexual conduct or
Brazil
Canada
Chile
acdvides contrary to moral principles. However, acle 366 of the civilian penal code declares sodomy a crime agairut fanrily order and public morality punishable by imprisonment, Because sodomy is a erime under the civijian penal code, neither the code of militaryJustice nor the intrnal regUlations of the varlous armed services deal with this subject. Nonetheless, there e:dsts a long-standing rniutry policy that persons .some ldnd of abnormal conduct or deviance, sueh as found to have homosexuality, alcohollsm, drug addicdon . . .,n ae rejected for military service.
Colombia
Known homosexuats ae excluded from serving in the Colombian military. Ardcle 1&4 of Colombia s Code of Disciplirary Acon for the Mititary Forces describes offenses agairut militry honor, which is understood to be a comblnation of moral and professional qualides. Among the offenses ldenttfled ln the disciplinay code ls 'to associate oneself with or maintain obviors relations with persons tftt have a previorrs crlminal record or ae corgidered criminals of whatever catgory or are antisocial like d1g addicts, homosexuaJs, prostitutes, or plmps.n Engsging in homosexual acts is coruidered to be an offense against militsry honor'
P4c2O
Mjlttrv
DDrlrlll
II
h t trtlttry '
F,'dJCe -
|--
Ttre French govemment informed us that there ale no specific laws, reguladoru, orwrtttn podes whlch deat spectflcally wtth homosexuls servtng ln the Flench mitary. Octals did not provlde addional frforma,on on homdseruals servlng fn their military. However, in 1992, we reported thatalthough homosexuals serve in the Ftench armed forces, certln restricdons may app to an individual's duty aqsl8nments'l
Dettled lnformaon on German polieies and pracdces regarding homoeenalg eerving ln the military is preeented in appendix IV.
Greece
According to rt[try regrrlador }nown homose:nals ae bared from servirg ln the Greek armed forces. Upon lnial screenlng, potential recnits ae asked a Beries of quesdons to determine thelr suitbility for service ir the mlUtry, If an lndividual ls found to trave "psychosenral dlsordelg,n the term sed for homosexuality, the recndt is considered unfit for service. ltnr Zyears, the individuat must return to the lnducdon center for another evaluation. At tltst time, following a ral screenfng, if an tndividual ls slt considered to be homose:ntal, the individuat's military obligadon is complete. Militry peraonnel, lcluding both ocers gnd ensted personnel, found to be engagtng in homosexual acts while on *psycholo$cal acve duty are diseharged from the senice on gounds of a
disorder.n
Hungary
.Although Hungary has no speclflc liaws on the acceptance of homosexuals into the armed forces, the Hungarian Minisbry of Defense provided informon tht stted mifltry personnel dlscovered to be homosexual may be dlscharged from the Hungaian efense Forces, A conscript who clatms to be ahomosenal during the inducdon screenlng process is refered for a psyctriatric evaluadon If t}re medical personnel declare an individual to be homose:nral, that person is not conidered quslified and receives an exempdon.
'If conscrtpts, w-ho serve py I year, do,not aclcrowledge their homosenaliw:drring the induction screening process but are lafpr dlscovered tp bera homosenral, no effort ls made to remove them from the rrifltry rnlss some other law is viotated. In contrast, offlcers who ae discovered to be homosexual are subJect to dismissal. At least one officer was dismissed under this PolicY.
rDefene Force Managemens DOD'g Pollc,y
Pase2l.
GAO/NSIAD-93-216 Eomoexul
tlro Mttry
l t! lllllty
r I T^-^^l ;t l&
":l
homosexuals seryE ln
Dettled lnforma,on on Iseli podes and pracdces regading th: nrftry ls presented in appendlx V.
'.'
T+^1,, rLrty
Current law prolrfblts homosexuls from serving ln the ltisn armed eervtces. tndivlduql who declae their homoseruallty duing the dafr eruollment process, or whose pre-lnducdon psycholo$cal lntMew lndlctes homosexrelly, whether aclicrowledged by the corucript or not, are bared frorn nterirg militry service. If a soldler'e homosexuallty is discoveed afrer eruollment, the soldier iE admlnistravely declared tnflt for sereice and dlscharged.
--T------T
Japan
No written reguladons or policies exist regarding service of homosexuals ln the Japanese Deferue Force, However, Japanese embassy ofc'tals said the lack of any wrltten regUlaoru or policies does not necessarily condute acceptnce of homosexgality in the militry. On the conb?y' E'tthtn the overall Japanese soclety, homosexuallty fs a eubJect which is not openly disctssed. Known homosexuals mightnot be selectedto entr the military, according to Japanese government officials, and persors found engaging fn homosexual acdvides wrile in the military could be
reiusigned. AlthoughlPeru's military irde do*" not specically proffbit homosexuals ftomJoining tre arrneO Eeices, nrititary rycruiters routinely rqiect those they irspect, of bing homosexual. In addidon, under article 269 of the Mititry Code of Jr:stice, ocers fourd to have committed homosenal acts are to be discharged, while enlisted personnel are subject to discharge and a prison term. If the officer's offense lncludes violence, tlueats, or abuse of authority, or involves any other tpe of coercion, then the offlcer is sso subiect to a prison term.
Potand does not have any special laws, regUlatioru, or policies regarding homosexuals in the armed senices.
Peru
I
Poland
i
Porttugat
Following the revision of mitity sert/ice laws in 1989, there no longer edsts any regulation that prohtblts homosexuals from servin8 lr the Portuguese armed eervices, As a result, homosexuas ae theoredcally permltted to serve without any caeer restrictons or dfscrimination.
Page 22
.t ,:
gom
teruls l te llllty
f! r Ulfut
However, homosexrals who show sigrrs of mental illness during the lnducdon acreenirng process may be excluded, accordlng to Portuguese
iilltsy
odsls.
Repubucof
Korea
Korean
CrlmlnJ
sexual
acvlry between soldlers, regardless of consent and regardless of whether the seru acviy is between two men, two womerq or a man and a wonan. If found ln violaon, persorut are e:rpelled from military servlce and ae subject to a prison term. [n contrasq clvilian laws (ardcles 298, 299, and 246) which govern indecent sexual acts by force, sexual exploitadon, and sexual acts in public p\y only if no consensual ageement elistg'beheen the two people involved. Recntts ae not asked abouttheir senal orlenton upon enry into service. An embassy otcial said it is a corlsdtudonal obligadon for all henlthy, ablebodied men to serve thelr coutry for aperlod of 2-Ll2 yern. Corucr{pts who declae their homoseruality ae sti required to serve, However, a commanding ofcer who lsrows of a conscript's sexual orlentaon my limitthe soldier's duy assignments'
Romania
Under Romania's civtl penal code, the pracdce of homosexuaJif is illegal. Homosexual acts in the militry are pwrishable with a l-to year prison terrn F\rttret, if 4 member of the armed services declaes that he is a pracdcing homosexual or ls accwed of engagfng in homosexual acts, a Hal ls held to determine whether the civilian penal code had been violated. U.S. Departrnent of State ofcials sttd that because of the legal hudles and complicadons, homosexrality ls considered anon-issue in
Romanfa's ntilitry.
South Africa
According to the;SouthAfrican Defence Force, there ae no written laws, regulaoru, orpolicies regarding the service of homosemals in the rnilitry. 'i ,' , r i
Spain
h'ior to the 1985 revlsion of civilian Lw to decrimlna]l"e homosexual activiHes, persons who committed lmproper setilal behavior world have been subject to a maximum penaly of a Syear prison term. fire Spanish
Pgo 28
Mltrv
Aggcudlr
fI
govemment no longer considerB being homo8exual a crlme' but certaln sernal behavtor are SUtl Bubiect to prosecuon, accordlng to current c't\i[an liws, Send behavior wtich ls subject to pmsecudon includes lndecent e:cpos, engaSlng in sexual acdvides wtth mlnors or with mentlly incapacitated persoru, or any trpe of non<onsensuI se:ill acdvtes. Ctvtlln laws apply to the behavior of both homosexuals and
herosexuals.
Detstted irformadon on Swedish policies and practices regarding homosenrals servtng tr the riutrJ' is presented in pendix VI.
Ardcle I of the Constudon of the Netherlands prohtbits discrimination on the basis of religlon, convicdons about life, pollcal fltfle, race' sex' or on any other grounds, According to embassy officials, tftis includes senal orientdon, Other Dutch leglslaon elaborates on this principle' s a result, Sovernent pollcy, including miftsry Policy, explicitly prohibits unequal treatment based on the knowledge of an individual's sexual orientdon. Individuats ae to beiudged on the basis of performance and conduct, Only when improper senal behavior, heterosexual or homosexual, lnterferes with the proper performance of dudes and discipllne is acon to be taken on the basis of Dutch mfltry criminal and
Upon entering mititry'service, an lrdividual is not asked questions relating o sexual orientation. If the individual discloses a homosexual orlentaon, this informatlon is not recorded in the individual's les. Dutch officials told rs that they do not consider it relevant to a soldier's ability to carry out his or'her dues. For this reason, the number of homosenrals in the Dutch armed forces ls not recorded. However, a September 1992 study by the Netherland.s h6ht for Social and Sexolo$cal Reseaxch showed tt 0.9 percent of male mitxy personnel and 3. percent of female rnitsy personnel regard themselves as homosexual. A goal of the Duh ltlii"tty of efence's pollcy is to actively create such condltlons wftttn the armed forces that every employee is able to frtctfon optimally. Wth regard to homosexuals, this involves errancing their acceptance and integradon in ttre armed forces. In lggl, the Mintstry of Defence (l) tnidad a policy that made a\axeness of homose:naliff a subject of inial training and educaon pro6aru for new recruits, (2) eanded the elerdse of social workers in dealing with
Pa8a24
GAO/{SIAD-09-216 Homoerulr
t tlrc lIlltrv
ADcrdlr tr
to
lllllta
homosenraltty-related problems, and (3) expanded general lnformtion proBrams withlnthe aned forces on the subJec't of the nondiscrntaon pocy of the ltflnlstry of Defence. F\hermore, the Advisory and Coordlron Committee on Homogetilds ln the Armed Forces advises the Mristr of Defence on subjects pertaining to homosenality. Paticipating on thls commltte ae representdves of the armed forces and the DbectoratgGeneral of Pesonnel.
Despite these efrorts, the Ministry of Defence aclstowledges that the goal of fill tntegraon hasnot'been reached. Wtrile explicit dlscriminaon has become rare, hetefosexuals sdU tnd to keep homosexusl colleagues at a dlstance, thereby excluding them from the atnosphere of comrudeship
that lE of importance for cohesion within mititary ufiits, Homosenrals contlnue to keep thelr se:nal orienttion private to avoid adverse recflons ftom colleagues.
Dutch mi$try official" have emphasized that acceptance of homosexuals wlthir the military, while not complet, has reached a point that thei presence rarely becomes an issue. Naval commanders have noted that homoseraul3 and heterose:nrals on board strip are subject to the same etandsrd of conduct, name, that se:nsl contact of any Hnd is not permitted, Where tlrls stndard ls not upheld, disciplinary action, r.rually a tansfer of one or both individuals' is tken.
T\ukey
Ttre T\tdsh armed forces protribits lnown homosexuals from serving. Homosenrality is regarded as immoral behavior, and militry personnel dlscovered to be homosexuals are discharged from duty on charges of indecency, according to an arcle of the militry penal code. The individual does not face furttrer prosecution once this hss occgld.
Tradidonal moal values governing Turldsh social llfe do nottolerate homosexualify.,Ttre arned services vtew homosexuallty as indecent behavlor ttrt degads,the honor, di$ity, and credibility of the military,
United Kingdom
Under section
I of the Senral Offenses Act of 1967' an act of buggery or gfosg indeCency between tIryo, but no more, consenting males over a$e 2l in private ceased to be a criminal offense in the civil sector. However, such an act remalu an offense rnder ttre service discipllne acts-the Naval Disciptine Act 1967, the Army Act 19, and the Air Force Act 196. Homosenals commitng such offenses a.re therefore excluded from
PrSe 26
on
Eonucrud
.]
servlce in the United lfingdom's armed forces. (l,esbians are sirnilarly excluded, although lesblanism ls not' and nwer has been, I criminal ofrerue in the Unitd Kingdorn) The eervlce disclpline a are reviewed every 6 yeals. Duing the last review ln 1991, the House of Commorrs Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill recommended, and the [4inistry of Defence accepted, that homoserual acts wtrlch are legal ln civilian law shorld not consdhte an oense under rnilttry law. fierefore, amember of the armed forces found to elgage in alegal honoserua act will not be prosecutd tuder militry law, but will be admirjshativety dischaged" However, a service member corld sdll be prosecuted rurder military law lf tt is found that the act disgaced or discreditd miitary decorurn Upon entry into the British armed forces, the lndivldual is provided a pamptrlet endtled 'Ttre Armed Forces, Yoru Rights and Resporsbilides.' Ttre pamphlet clearly states that homosexuality and homosexual behvior ae not compadble with service life. F\rther, it stats that if a person engages ln homosexual acts, he or she may not be prosecuted under service lr"', depending upon the circrurwtnces, but the peson will be
dismissed. .
Flom appro:dmately 1986 to 1991, g seryicemen were cllsmissed from the Naly, 22 from the Army, ard I from the Royal Air Force following convicdon for an oerue involving homosexual acdvity. Another 296 serviceme4 wee discharged as a result of admtnistrative action-no formal disciptinary charges were brought againstthem.
Regading service of homosexuale in the miftry, Venezuelan offieials responded, "The Military lSirstation of the Venezuelan A.rmed Forces is clear and ft does not.admit homosexuals ln the militry''
Venezuela
Page 20
Canada
Cand has on\y recently revoked its policy prohibiting homosenrals from serving in the nrilitary. Wlile tt ls too earty to predlct the long-term conseguences of lifffrg the bar, the rnilitary did not erperience any problems ir ttre rst 6 months slnce the new pollcy took effec't in -Octobet
1992, accordfng to Canadtan ofEdals and others we interviewed. Depatnent of Nadonal Defence (owo) ofcials believe the Canadisn Foices hap made e Bmooth tansidon in implementlng the new pollcy becrue of the Inifltsry leailershlp's ardve support and enforcement of the policy and becarge of steps taken to keeg tt a low-prole lssue. In Uiot\ the Canadiar people had atready actrnowledged the rfghts of homose)ruals tr civtlian lw and perceived the change as bringing mitsry poucy in ltne with civllian l,aws. Figure ltr.l swnlnazes the development and militry policies concerning homosenals' f
"PUan
Sc{on 15 ol tho
Charlsr of Rlghls and Freedoms onacted guBrBntelng equBllly rlghta
DevelomsntofMllltaryPollclo8: j '.,
'
Courtruledthal
PollcY 'tromsexuals
sxcludlng
Fresdoms
DND lmplmonted nw Pollcy llowlng homoeexuals lo rewe ln mllltarY
dlsconllnued
Ptse27
GAO\SID-O8.?
l Bomoeulc tn tc lrfllltry
ADDGU{
Ord
III
Background
Accordlng to the l99l censr, Canada has a populadon of approdmtely 27 rnitlion. Ttre largest ethnic gtroupg are people with British or French baclcgorurds, or some combindon of the two. However, almost one'thid of the populaflon hs other ethnlc backgrorrds. The mqiority of Canadfans ae either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Vfhile most Canadlsns rport a reli$ous afllaon, a much smaller proporflon regularly attends chrclu
Ttre Canadiar Forces, an all-voluntper military force, consists of approdmatIy 77,800 acve forces and 33,?00 reserves, Men constitute 86 percent of the force and women 14 percent. Women are permitted to eerve ln combat and noncombat positions. Militry personnel can be asEigned to one of the many militay basee throughout the couttry and therefore do not necessarily sene close to theirhomes'
Accordlng to a Departrnent of National Defence document, Canadian Forces ae conrmtted to 16 peacekeeping operadons and 4 related operadons. These operadors lnvolve the deployment of Canadian Forces personnel to a wide variety of coundes, such as Camborlta, Cypn:s, El Salvador, lndia" Jordan, Korea" Ibanon, Somalf, and the former Yugoslavla
Canadiaru believe that equafiff is one of their basic values, and this belief is reflected in their constitution and legislation. Canada's laws provide protecdon of equality rights and protribit discriminaon on the basis of eerual orlentaon, Homosexual rfghts have developed over time, marked by the following keYievents:
Caradian Law
In Augirut 1969, the Canadian govemmentrevised the criminal code to decriminalize sodomy. In Au8st 19?7, Parliament psssed the Canadlan Human Rights Act, which *race, naonal or ethnlc orig)rl, coloru, reli$on, age' sex' etats that maritl status, fanrily sttus, disabllity and conviction for which a pardon proNbited grounds of discrimination.n The act does . has been Slantd are not speciflcally address sexual orientdon' In December L77, Quebec's provirncial legislahue added sexual orientadon o i1g li$.of IgA gound.s for dlscrimiradon in its Charter of Human Rights. Qrlebea thus became the first Canadtan jr.uisdicdoni-feQeral, provincial, or municipal-to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on se:nal orientdon'
Psgc 28
Mltv
AyDcDdrm
Cd
In Aprlt 1982, Canda adopted the Chter of Rights and Freedolns a part of the countrys consdhdon. Secon 16, the equtil rlghts provlsion of the Char, went lnto effect ln 1986.t The provision stats: 'Every tndivtduat ts equal before and rnder the lw and hs the ri8ht to the equal protecdort ard benefltof the law rrithou discriminon and, in particular' wlthout dtscriminafion..based on race, national or ethnlc origin, colour' reltglon, ser, a$e or mental or physical disabiliw.' Like the Canadian Human Rtghts Ac secdon 16 does not speciflclly address sexual
orientadon. In February 1989, the Supreme Corrt of Canda nled that section 16 was to be lnterpreted broadly, and that analogots grounds or other chaacterffics thst form the basls for dlscrlminating against a goup or individual wfll be entled to protecdon under the provision. In the few cases tht hve dealt with the issue, most coruts have nled that sexual orientaon is an illegal basis for discriminaon' In May 1990, the Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged in a cout case lat "it iS the posion of the Attomey General of canada that sexual orlentadon is a gmqnd covered by section 1 of the harter lof Rights and Freedomsl." In August 1992, the Corrt of Appeat for Ontio dermined ttrat the Canadtan Human Bights Act shorId be interpreted to include sexual orientadon as an tllegal basis of dtscrlmlnaon. As of D,fay 1993, the Departnrent of Jrsdce wa sponsorirg a bill tlat woqld amend the act to lnclude sexual orientdon a8 an illesal basis of discriminon.
Although senral orientaon is an illegal basis for discrimination, Canada does nt fncialy fecorrite holnosexual marriages and adoptiors, and does not lecryride airer benets for homosenral couples. However, as a result of thd Ontrio Court of Appeal decision, eparnent of JusHce ocials said t}tst new court cases have been brougt forwad which challenge the government'g stance on partrler benefiLs.
Undl recently, the Canadian Forces protribited homosexuals from serving uservlce policy does not allow in the militry. Its former policy stted: 'homose:nal members or members with a senral abnormality to be retslned in the Canadian Forces." Ttre poticy also required rnitry personnel to report tb their superiors other soldiers whom they suspected r discovered were homosexual. oI.to began to reevaluate its policy in 1986' and the poltcy was anended ln 1988. tn 1992, the Federal Corrt of Canada
lpallament autorlzed tlre &year delay to allow goveunents time to brlg the lawe in line with the
ChBtter,
?4e29
, .:.
', ' 'j
I
GAO/!{8IAD-98-21 HomoeruI tn tc
Mtllty
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
ilDDoDl
Cld
lU
rsulq the Canadian Forces revoked lts policles and removed all resdcdons on homsenrals. Civian anddiscrimindon laws now apply to the rnftsry. DD ofncil,e said they ae also revising relted policies, lncludlng tlroee concerning inappropriate sexral conduet, personal
rela,onslrtps, and haassmenL Accordin! to these officials, the stndads of conduct for homosenal members wlll be ldendcal to those for heterosernal members.
Accordtng to DND ofEcials, the Canadian Forces does not recognize homosexual marlages or extend parher beneffts to homosexual couples. DND otEclas plan to make no changes to this policy undl the civilian govemment resolveg these issues.
the
HOmSeXUalS
Soon after eecdon 1 of the Charter of Rtghts and Fteedoms went into that a {""A pNo ofcial ss.idagatnst number of service members led began to the Canadian Forces. In 1986, nNo dlscrlmindon lawsuits lts exchslonary policy on homosexuals, initla,Sng a series of ree)rarnte steps tht led to the revocaon of the policy.
In February 1986, the Canadian Forces removed the requirement that rnttry personnel report a suspected or Imown homosexual member of the Canadiarr Forces to their commanding ofEcer. n January 1988, as nxp continued to review its ban on homosenrals, it created an interim policy' The interim policy stited that
administrave acdon might be tken to reloas a member of the Caradian Forces who ac}nowledgea tht he or ghe is a homosexual and the member concerned does not obJect to being reliased, If the member did not agree to be released he or she would be with career restrictjoru which, . . . wotld have megnt [he or] she was inellgible for ppmoon, for converefon of lhls orl hr erdEting term of gervice, for postlng outside the geograptrtc aea? for trensfer to the reeen e force or for any firer quali$cation courees or tralnlng except tlrat required to carry out resdcted employment
retaired
In thelr po[cy review; po ofcials corfronted a number of concems that had been'raised about homosexuals sewing in the mitry. These conce16 fell'nto the following aeas: security, health, unit cohesion and morale, privacy, recruitrnent, and discipline, The of8cials said that they were unable to jusfify continuing the ban on the basls of any of these concenu, For example:
Pac 80
t the MItv
encl
Ord
Concerne had been'raised that homosexuals presentd asecurityrisk ecause they could be btilcnailed on the basls of thel se)rul orlentation. DND detrmid ttrst homosexuals ae not considered to be a gfeater eecurity rtsk than heteroseruals. A oto ocilsaid tht secudty clasllcsoru are now made on a caseby-case basfs and ttrat no assumporu ae made about an individual's security risk based on sexual
orlenton,
Arottrer arument for the ban was tht the presence of homosenale wonld dlsnrpt rnit cohesion and morale. DND sffitnls said that they could not f,rd compelllng stadsdcal evidence or reseach data to support this vtew, which they feltwas needed becatse the courts do not defer to
In acCordance wittr the new policy, the Canadiar Forces does not take any acdon when a soldier declaree his or her setnral orienteon, pup officials said. Ttrey also satd no restricdons, such as limitdons in assignments and promoon opportunides, re placed on the individual
We dlser:ssed the new pollcy with the ory open homose)ilal member of Parllanent; a member of the Progressive Conservdve Party who disagrees with the new polic$ two homose:nal advocacy goups, one of wtrich is the ory nadonal organizaon for homoselnals; s vetran's umbrell group corsisting of 22 lndividual veterans organizadons; the Canadtan Human Righ Commission; the Departnent of Jtsce; as well as DND. All but the hogFessive Coruervadve Party member favor the new pollcy, and alt satd they had received no reports of problems assoclated sith it. Mass resignadoru, lower recnritrnent, morale and cohesiveness
i';
Pae
8l
Mttry
Amodb
Cd
III
problems, gay basing incidents, and more open dleplsys of homosexual behavtor-tlre mqlor problems that had been predicted-have not materialtzed, DND offlcials said. In addldon, DND and the Canadian Human Rtghts Commlsdon stetd that no acdve duty members have brought the Canadtan Forces to cott for dlscrimintion based on senral orienton eince the pocy changed. pyp effislnte told rs that they considered implementing the new policV in tluee ptrases. frgt, DND ls obtning compfiance with the new policy' afid Eecond, DND is promotlng acceptance of the pocy. DND has not yet attmpted ttre ttrird phase, which is to change the attitudes of military pertonneltowrd homosexuals. Homosexual advocacy grcups stted tht trairtrg was heeded to"change atdhdes.
ocials and representadves of homosexual advocacy goups said the geatest advantage o the new pollcy is that homosenals no longer have fea being discovered and forced out of the military. Ttrey also believe, however, that many homoselrual.s will not openly express thei sexual orientadon becawe they will eee no advantage gajned in doing so. A representave of a homosexual advocacy g.oup ssJd thst becarse the mtUtry is a consewative organizaon, it attracts conservative homosenrals who world be less tlkely to be open about their sexual orientdon, pr.rp ofdals said tttat the new poucy has not earsed homosehral mifitry ersonnel to "come out of the closetn in mass
DND
numbers.
nu officials said the miftry leadership's public support for the new policy and tts wried front were signicnt factors in maldng a smooth trarsiUon to the new policy. DND slso has been a,ble to keep a low profile on the issue. The press corp3, for example, has been reqtired to submit all policy to DND's public affails ofce' quesorui relattng *
Tte cultrlal anit legal asects of the issue also ptayed a pivotal role in Canada Candiarsr be[ve that equality i one of thei basic values, and
it
.{s reflected tn trelr laws. Igislatlon and coul't rulings concerning discrimlnadon on the basis of sexus orlentaon provided a legal inpetus for lifdng the ban.
Prgc82
M[tt ry
Aooendlx IV
Germany
Germnfs pocy'trae'permitted homosenals to sen'e in the military as corucrlpts slrice 1969; however, homossnal volunteers are subject to restrtedons durtrig thetr mllltary ceert. While these policies 8e opposed by homosnnl rights gloups as discrlmineolY, they hve been upheld by German corrts.'Milttry offlcials ac&nowledged ttrat homosenal soldierg ae dlscrlritnated aglnst, but ssid the policies are effecdve because they allow for fle:dbillty and dea with homosenal individuals on a caseby-case basls. Tle ocials lgo said there have been fewproblems lrvolvtrg homosenal soldlers and characterized the issue of homosexuals tn the mllttary as B'non-l,Bsue.n Flgrrre IV.l suntnarizes the development of clvillan ard nrllitry pollcies concerning homose:<uls.
rolBrnco to soxul
Lrygrr/
' ' ' i '
--,ezg - cods -.
German pgnl con6entlng males ag and ov9l
1E
-,
,'-, '
-"
-.
,, -
1loltatlon
ffi
ovr
accpilng age
Courls ruld thal mllltary ls luslllled ln not allowlng homogexuals lo serve ln leadershlp or educsllonal Pqsltlons
Pagc 88
Mllty
ADcrdlv
Oonrry
Background
Germany has apopula,on of appromate 80 miilion,srith ettmic Gerrnans coruhrtlng 93 percenL Most Germalu 8e either Catholic or Proteetant, and the Churches play an important role ln German society'
Ttre German armed forces have about 476,300 service members on active duff and I million lr the reserveg. Women ae allowed to serve only in the
m"Acal and mrslc corps. tlfty-seven percent of the forces are voltmteer, and the rematnfing 4t percent are corucripts, Corucripts are called up at age 19 and are tuq,ti.a{ to sewe 12 months. An individual's military service obgadori may be deferred for educaonal reasons. In addion, consclendousobJectors my frlll their obligaon in alternadve civilin eervlce. Mt[try ofcials sald they y to accommodate corpcripts by howing them ln areas close to their homes'
The German mi[tfy ls a home.based defense force wlttr no recent combat e:rperlence. Militry deployment overseas ls limitd becarse operaflons ouistde of Nortt AtlanUc Treaty Organiza.flon coutbies are restricted by the Corudtuon; however, celtlrt noncombat activities ae allowed. As of March 1993, Germany has supported ve noncombt mlssioru outside Germany, includinS & recent peacekeeping mission to Bomia
Ttre German constitution provides for basic civil rights and equality of all people, and Germany hasielred its resffictiors on homosexuals over the -ta"t or Zl y"as. However, homose:ruals have no e:ressed rights the civilian penal code was procon under German law. Il 1969, anended to no longer coruider homoserual relations among males over the age 20 as crimiral behavior. In 1973, the law was morified to reduce ate of consent to lB. The law is e:rpected to be changed ir 1993 tp
eliminte speclfll refgrences t homosexuality' The chan'leslin;the,penal code appear to reflect a slow change in German attudes IoWad homdsexuals, Studies have shown that Germars have become gadually more accepting of homosexuality, although a pordon of the population sdll does not aceept homoselRrals. Older and more reli$ons Germns living tn rural aeas tend to be less tolerant of horosetruals than yognger, Iess religioru Germans living in uban areasi' accordlng to these studies.
Pao 8{
GAO/NSIAD-98.21
EonocerusL ln te Mtlltrry
AgDodl fV
Conry
Military Policies
Tjoward Homose)ruals
Are Restrictive
Gemany began to permit homose:nrals to selve ln the military afrer homoeexual behvior was decrlmlrallzed tn 1969. Military policy, however, makes a dietincon between eervice as a volunteer and service as a conEcrlpt If a volunteer ls dlEcovered to be homoserual dtrlng the lnducdon proce$, he will not be lnducted into the mitary. MiUtry octals ssld homoEenLg are not accepted as volunteers because lt ls asEumed volunteers wtll errentua\y rlse to leadership posioru. According to these ocials, homosexus in leaderstttp posidons world underrnine mtlitry order and dlscipllne.
Slrnilarly, lf volunteers ae ldentifled as homosexual dnring their militry aerrdce, they are rxuallyremoved from ssdgnrnents involving leadership, tralnlng, and educadonal tasks, according to rnititJy officinls. If a volurteer has served for only a short period of time (rvlttttt the fist 4 years of aervlce), he may be diseharged ftom service. Addionl dlsclpllnary acdons may include demodon, ban om promodons, and a reducdon in salary. Ttrese meffures ate taken, an official said, to prevent nega,flve acts agiajnst the homosexual eoldier, such as rqiecdon, provocaon, or ridicule,, and to pre\tent brekdowns in discipline. Homosexualg may ilerye as corUcripts as long as their eexual orlentation does not prevent them'om living and worHng tn the mllitry environment" Durirg the medlcal lnducon examina'orq examining phydcians do not routlnely ask corscripts about thei senal orientaon, but they may do so if they suspect the corucript is homosexual on the basis of hts drelis, mannerisms, or Etatementa he mkes a,bout trls social
and senal acdviy, Once a corucrpt is fdentifled as homoserna!, he may be required to undergo e sepaat psycholo$cal waluaon. Ttre phystclans make tftis decision on a case'by+ase basis, and the decision usually urns on the ftequency of homosenral conduct.
If the psycholo$cal evatuaUon indicates tht the homosexual wotld have problems integrating himself into antilitary environment, the individual will be released from his rnilitry obligadon The results of the exam and the reasoru for disrnlssal are kept confldenal.
'Germar
rnilttry policies tend to treat homosexual behavlor more hasNy ttran homosenal orientafion Under the military code of conduct soldfers may be discharged for engaging irn homosexual acdvity, such as acts conducted while on duty and acts involvlng superiors and their . I tl
,i
Pge 8
ADDodl v
Otrny
Eubotdinats.t Tte code of conduct sttes that a discharge for such acts is
Jwtlled when they indicate the indtvidual lacks suitablllty for service in
the mtlitry or hls presence would imperil militry order or harm the reputaon of the armed services'
A senior rriititary offic,ial said that rurfll 1987, the armed forces had a policy of withdrawirg secgrity'cleaances from individuals found to have a homosenl orientadon becase these lndividuals were believed to be rnlrerable to compromise by foreign intelligence agents. However, Germary's Federal Administreve Corrt ruled in 1987 thet a homose:nal orientdon alone was not a suffcient reason to remove ar individual's aecrity cleannce, The armed forces changed its pollcy to reflect thig declslon. In November 1990, the Federal Administradve Court found that the German miitry isiwttffed in not allowtng homosexuale to serve in leadership or educaflonal posldons'
Mititry offlcials said their practices concerning homosexuals generally ae consistent with existins policies and that acdons taken against homosenal soldiers vary depending on the individual involved and the ctrcumstnces surounding each case. Military gffisinls also said that discipflnry acdons are also lnfluenced bythe rank of the soldier and his nme tn service. Since Germr militry policies allow flexibi[ty uith regard to homosexuals, thetr caseg tend to be dealt with on a case'by'case basis, accordlng to ociala,
German homOge:nal advocacy Sroups believe the nrilitary's policies and practices are tliscililiinbtory because they sancdon disclplinary acons gaut a hombsenal soldier regardless of the soldier's gualtfications or sldls. As a result of these policies, homosenal rights advocates stte that the percentage of homosenals in the militry is lower than that in the gentA populaon, The military does notmaintin its own statistics' ln aOUot, these homosexual rights advocates said thatprofessional soldlers ae reluctant to aclorowledge thek homosenrality because doing so world effecdvely end thei creer. Germany's Federal Admlnistrative Court has upheld the milttary's policles regardtng homosexuals. Nevertheless, if the currentpolicy is not changed V th" miUtry or the German parliament h 1993, homosexual advocacy groups plan to present their case before the German supreme court.
tHeteroaexust mlt8ry penonlel engagg in aexual act whlle on dury wtlJ be eublect to diEcipliray proceeding.
Prgc 86
fOoU esory
f,
Offlciats Reported Few Problems Involving Homosexuals Significant Factors in the German Experience
I'tttry officials, characterltg the lssue of homosentals in the armed forCes as a lnon-lgsue,'881d there have been few lncidents involving homexuals. OfEcial documents lndicate thst 63 disciplinary court proceedlngs chagtng soldlers with homosenal behavior were convened between 1981 and 1992.
German ml[try officials aclcrowledge tht homosexual soldiers are dlscrtnriated agteq but believe that thei policles and pracflces towad homosexusls hve been effecve for several reasolu. Frgt, tle policies llow for flexibility, and inddents tnvolving homosexuals are dealt with on a case'by<ase basis. A' variety of discipltnary acdons may be talen, ransng from no response to immediate removal from service.
second, the Gernian militry focr.ses on behavior, not orientadon. Indtvtduals who ae disrupdve are separatd from the military.
FTnally, the regUladons conholling the conduct of German eoldiers are sbrlct and clear.r.
Prl.c87
GAO/NSLD-98.218 Eomoexul ln
tle lrfllltry
Aooendlx V
IsraeI
Homosexusls hve been permitted to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces slnce the stat was fotded tn 1948' Ttree are no reshcors or llnitadoru concerning the promoon potential of homosexuals, and no sDdl eort fs made to identi$ homose:ilals wNle in the service. Govemment offlciab ard others we intersiewed said homosxuals have gerved wlthout problems, and their presence has never been an issue. Generally, homenal soldiers tpnd to keep their sexual orientation to themslves rnl they are well estbltshed in ttetr units' Figue V.l summrlzes the development of civilian and miltary policies concerning homosexuls.
hsld to revlw
ffi'
i
1
state ol
c8tsbilshect
lsraol
decdmlalled
sodomY
Homqsoxuals
llowccl to 89Ns
ln mllllary
Barckground
Israel has a populon of approximately 6.2 million.l Nthough 82 percent are Jewish, the society ls diverse, with immigrants comi:ng from all over the world. lsraelis vary widely in ther culttual, economic, and educational
tTlrh gure lcludec Jenn llvtng in the occupled t.rrltorles of the West Bank, East Jerutalem, the Gaza goups uvfng ln thes O U, U|t-giOt". me estlnated Z,l milllon Ara,bg ard otlrer etJurlc ae83 are not rncluded litlrg ngre becaure tlrey are not conddeed lsrapli dtjuens.
S-ri,
Page 8E
Mllltv
Atnadlr V
It
bckgfoude, a we as thei views toward religion and senrality, but most reman bonded by their mutual region (Judaism), their pride in the state, and the percepdon that the stte provides the only means of ensuring thelr safety.
Ttre Isra Defense Forces has an estimatd 141,000 people on active duty and 604,000|n the reserves. Service ls based on universal conscription of men and women, who become eli$ble for service at age 18. Arabs and Bedouiu are not reqljed to serve but may voltmteer. Also exempted from mandatory service are maried and pregrrant women and people with severe physicsl orpsychologicl handicps. lJlbarttrodox Jews generally do not serve, Males are required to sewe on
acve duty fgr 3 yeas, wlth resewe obligadoru of 30 to 60 days a year wrfrl they reach thelr mid-0s, Women must serve on active duty for 2 yea:s, with reserve obligaoru trndl age 24. Generally' Israeli soldiers spend minimal emount of tfme away from thei homes.
We were told by varioru sources that the mitry is a very important part of Israeli aocfety, Mtty service ls often coruidered to be a precondition to a successful caeer becarse milftry servlce influences the networks and assocliations wed later in lffe. Since nearly everyone is required to serve ln the armed forces, estblishing amilitary record s important People with medical..or psycholo$cal problems oft'en try to hide thei
tt
According to variow sources, Israel in recent years has become more accepting of homose:cuaity, md tttis is reflected i.n recent changes in law' Isralis have tadionally held negadveviews toward homosexuals because Judalsm condemns homosexuality. But due to Western .influences, more homosenals are reveallg thef se)rua orlentation' According to recent studies by Israeli and U.S. sociologists, Jews in Israel view homosenral rights more favorably than Americans. TVe were told by U.S, embassy offlcials that an acflve homosexual cornmuniff now edsts in Tel Aviv. Nevertheless, most homosexuals still do not reveal thei sexual orienttion rurtil later in life due to feas of negave parental and societl rections.
Pse 89
ADD.Ddf V
lEt
Wtrile lsrl has nd corpdtudon or provisions similar to the U.S. Bill of Rlghts, ttre UiaaUo,df Ure Establishment of the Stte of Isral includes langrage tht ganes freedom from discrlninaon on the basis of sex, race, or rell$on. Ieral'e laws regardlng cltizen rlghts, tncluding homosexusl dghb, ae sll evolving and are graduslty becoming more speciflc. trn the absence of a Blll of Bights or simila legal provisioru, Israel has relied on the courts to safeguard civil rights and liberdes.
Isral has lncreaslng recognized homosexual rights. For example, Israel decriminaltzed sodomy in 1988. F\$tter, in 1992, Israel amended its la,bor law to prolribit dlscriminadon aganst homosexuals in the worIace' According to the amendment, employers cannot discrnint against usexual lnclinadon'The employees andJob seekers due to aperson's amendment covers all condltions of employment, ircluding hlring, worHng condidoru, promotion, baining, and dismissal.
In Febqary 1993, the Knesset's subcomrnitte dealing with homosenal rtghts hosted a conference to draw attenon to homosenral equality before the !aw.z According to the subcommittee's chaetson, the eubcommittee is workingto obtin full equal dghts for homosenals, and is developing legistadon to estsbtish partnership rights for homosexual couples. Currently, homogernral maJriases axe not recognized, and homosenalpaitners do not have spouial rights.
' i | |!
Limitations
Under Israeli military policy, homosexuatity is not a reason for deferment or discharge. Until recently, the military policy restricted homosenals from serving in,inlligence positions; however, this policy was not followed in pracce. CunentJy, no special effort is made to idend$ homosexuals, and the rnilitry ptaces no restrictions concerning the promodon potential of homosemals. F\rrther, militxy regulations on serual behvior stte that sexual activity is not to take place ln the baracks (mates and females live in the same barracks); the regulaons make no distlncflon between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Any problems related to homosexuals are to be handled tluough normal 'chartnels, such as the rnit psychologL
During ou in-country review, Israel officially had a military policy that placed certain ltmitations on the assignment of homosexuals, The regdadon, established ln 19&9, stted that the assignments of homosexuals would be limited becawe their semal orientadon could
tThe lheet l the Isreell eqrjvatent of
I. r ' ,! I
,
Prge 40
Mllltv
Agpoudlr Y
It
prove to be a sectriff hzard, Accordng to the regulation, under no drcumstancee shall homosenal soldier serve in aposion requiring a top secret security clearance in the intelligence commuity. MiUtry officials Eald tht conscripts are not asked about their snal orlentadon durig inducdon However, those who identied themselves as homosetnl were required under the 1983 regula,flon to undergo additional psycholo$cat tesng. Ttre tests were intended to determine whether (1) the lndivtdual's lnliRon corld prove to be a security hazad or (2) the hdivldual h^ad the mental fordtude and mahrrity to withstand the preEure of serving ln the defense forceg.
On May 18, 1993, Israel adopted a new militay policy conceming homosexals. Ttris policy sates that no resb:icdons shall be placed on the recrulnent, assignment, orpromoon of homosexual soldlers and clvians due to thel sexual inclinadon. This policy wa^s tmplemented after we had conducted ou in-country review.
thoqh Israel's mitltry policy towad homosexuals is new, our revlew shows ttrat its;pracdces a.re more conslstent with the new policy than witJr the 1983 relaon. According to active and reserve miItry oflcials, the 1983 regulaon protrtbitlng the assignment of homosexuals to intelllgence posiors reqtriring top secret cleaance was never formally lmplemented, Accordirg to these offlclals, homosernrals were found to be capable of doing theirJobs without problems, and therefore it did not make serue to enforce this regulation. Homosexual soldiers, we were told, have served and are currently serving in tntelligence positioru. For example, we spoke wlth a number of reservlsts and retled military personnel who stated that while on acdve duty they served openly as homosenrals, still,received promooru, and were not restricted in their asslgnmetlts. However, a fomer colonel in Israeli intelligence testified at ttre Febnrary'l998 conference hosed by the l(hesset sucornittee deallng with homosexual lssues that he was summari dismissed from his unit when tris homosexual orientaon became lanown in 1983.
Even
According to rnitry ofcials, the Knesset's conference prompted the lsralt Defense Forces to reevaluate its rvritten policy towad homosetflrals. As a result of this conference, the Israell Defense Forces drafrd and adopd lls new policy,
Pr3e
4l
Mllltrv
Aprodl V
In
Representaves of the leading homosenrl and dvil rights organizaons ln Israel eald theyae sa,sed with the mtlitar/s prac'lices toward homosernrals. They told ru that being homoeexual has no bearlng on an lrdividual's mUitry career and that homosexual soldiers are judged on thef mertta like any other soldier' Other than the case involving the fOrmer colonel Sttd above, neither organizaon was aware of any cases ln wtrich a homosenral'B catreer had been hrmed becwe of the lrdlvidual's senal orientadon
Israel Has Experienced Few Problems Related to the Presence of Homosexuals in the
Mitry officiats believe the Israeli Defense Forces has been very effecdve tn lncluding homose:nrals tn rni[try servlce, and they lmew of few problems associated with ttreir presence. Ttris was confr.rmed by representadves of Isra,eli homosexual ard civil dghts Sroups, openly homoserilsl reservi.sts, and retired soldiers who totd rrs they were openly homosenrl druing their active duty and reserye service.
Any problems concernirng homosenalg that hve arisen, officials said' generally involve a,homosexual's inabiliff to cope in the military nvironnient, Some mtitaw officials believe that homose:nrals tend to have more a{fgsftnent problems than heterosexuaJs ad tlt this was one psychological Jnsttflcadon fr the former policy requiring additional tesflng of homosenals. However, militdry officials resporuible for security and mental health said homosenals adjustd to rnilitry [fe as well as heterosexuals. These ofciats noted that most heterosexual soldiers can control their sexual urges when they are living in mixed-sex quarters, and the same is tne of homosexual soldiers. Secrriff offlcials said homosexuAls can hold secuity clearances rvithout posing an unnecessary securiy risk.
Military
Military officials said most conscripts do not declare thei sexual orientadon drxing mardatory servlce. We were told that most homosexual soldlers are not certair of thei sexual orlentaon at the time of thel conscripdon (usuatly age 18). F\rttrermore, those who arecertain they are 'homosexual prefer not to reveal their sexual orienton whlle on acdve duff. According to homosexual advocacy groupg, homosenal soldiers who openly declare their sexual orienton generally waltuttil thei judged on nrid-Zds orlater when they ae est.blfshed in thei rxrits and are their indivldual merlB.,
Pl{.c 42
Acodl V
lnl
The mllltary has not studied how the lnchsion of homoserusls in the rri[tsry affects urit redlness, effecdveness, cohesion, or morale, but ofnclab totd rs thq based on thel experlence, the inclusion of homosexua|s hs not hd an adverse inpact on these a.reas. Ttrey also said
coueg dealhg with homosexuals to unit personnel. Mitry officials see no need for trairlng becatse there are few problems relted to the
presence of homose:nals,
IsraU officlals cited several factors ttrt may account for Israel's lack
of
problems in tnt'sradng homosexuals il the milftary. Ftrst, the Israeli military has allowed homosexuals to serve tor 46 yea$' ever stnce the corurtry was created. Hence, most people do nOt have strong feeltngs about homosexuals' presence in the rUtry. Moreover, homOse:ruls and homoeexual rights in general axe not issues wttich are at the forefront of public deba.
Second, milttary service highly regarded in Israel, and deferments ae
not viewed favorably. Thjrd, homosenrals hve served creditab ir the defense forces and have nOt htrrt their rfilts' morale, coheslon, readiness, or capablllty, based on the e:cperiences of military ofEcials.
Fourth, universal conscripon in Israel results in a military force tlat reflects ttle diversiy of Iewish soclety. MiUtry personnel accept ttjs diverslty, and,homosexurls ae viewed as Just another subgroup'
FTnally, ln peacetime, Israell soldiers spend a mininl amount of time
away frorntheir homes and thrs ae not isolated from thelr private lives.
Page,lS
,:i
l,
Aprendtx Vl
Sweden
lt began formally
atlowtng homosexuals to sen'e in the milttary in 1976. lill[tary ocins bellerre they have been eecdve in integrating homosexuals, and mility offlcfls as well as rnlt'level offlcers and conscripted personnel agee with the crrrent poltcy allowtng homosexuals to sele in the military. However, mogt homooexuals keep their serul orientdon to thenselves, and there wsE a percepon among those we interviewed that openly homosenal membere of the mility might fae subtle discritllnson, harassment, or other negave treslnent from thel peen. Flgrrre VI.l sunmarizes the development of clvilian and militay policies conceming homosexuals.
Anlldlsclmlnaon
Homooxuallty
decirnlnallred
law gnacled concomlng tratmont ol homoesxualB Cohabllstlon lw provldgs crtaln parler rlghts
coneentfor holgroooxualS
Homooxuals longer
, I
commisslon olatBd lhat homosexullty muBl not dlsqualify.an lndlvidual Antl-ctlscrlmlnatlon law.also aPpllos to lrom 8rlng ln milltary Ermed
the forces
Supreme Comrnander
lsauB pollcy Latement, milltary no lgng8r asks conscrlpls ll they Brs homsg)o.ral or malnlalng recordg of homosexuelB
Background
sweden has a population of about 8.6 million, with the vast mqiority being ethnic Swedes, Appro:dirately 96 percent of the populaon belong to the Chruch of Sweden putheran); however, only a small percentge are active
!n the
churc.h.
Pege
4{
Mllltrv
AgDcldtl VI
Srcd
Tte Swedish rnilltry forces have approdmately 63,0@ aclfve duty personnel In the event of war, Sweden car call up a total of 80,000 troops. Tfomen Inay Eerve tr the mitry, but only as officers. About 22 women are, cu.rrently fn the armed forces. Swedent{s r:nlversal conscription of men between the ages of 18 and 4?. Most yotng men eruoll for mitry service at age 18 or l9 and strt theil eervice wfthtr 9 years of enrollment After completlng acve duy, the men pertodicat\y recelve refresher tratnhg to mafntiri their military sHlls and serye ln the reserves undl age 47. Swedish conscripts serve only a short mF6 to 17 montlu-and ae permitted frequent visits home.
MiUtry of$cials and otherc said most young men corsider military service an obligadon and want to fflffll thei militry duty. However, it has becOme easler to obtain an exempon from militry sen'ice, and there is leae sdgma ttched to not complelng militry sevice thn in previow generadoru. In addition, for the flrst dme, Sweden's cLlrnt deferse budget ls not eufdent to corucript all available young men. As a result, about 6,000 of the eli$ble conscripts will not be required to serve this
yea.
Curently, Swedlsh soldiers are serving with Unitd Nadons peacekeeping forces in Ibanon, Kore4 Cprtrs, Angola, Kuwait, Central America"
I(ashmir, Cambodia, Croa.dq and the Middle East'
Sweden has historica[l' been a strong advocate of human rights' a^s usafe havenn for individuals denied human demonstiated by it roie as a ri$hts ln their home ccjun{es. Ttre basic rtght5 and freedoms of Swedish cltlzeru are guaxanteed by the trnstrument of Govemment, Sweden's consdtuon, Some rights ae absolute, while others can be restricted by
Parliament, Homosexuality ls not a specically protected right' but dtscrimiradon against homosenrals ls prohlbited by a 1987law and is a crimlnal offense under the Swedish penal code. Sweden has no laws that restrfct sexual behavior or prohibit sernral acts between consenting adutts'
IVhtle homosexual rights are protected, the lssue generally ls not discrssed in Swedish society because sexuality is conddered a prirate mattr. In 1984, a pailiamentary commlsslon on homosexuality found that 'the silence sunoundlng homosexuals and homosexuality ls virtually totl." On he basis of ou rllscussioru with numerouS Individuals, we fornd that this sllence is sflll pervasive in Swedlsh socieW. The
Prgc {
GAO/{814D.98-21 BomoexuI ln te
Mttry
1:i
',
:1
DlVl
0odo
ovenilhelmlng sentlment is tht homosexuas shotld have equal rights, but that thet se)na preferences should be kept to themselves.
Sweden began to ease restricdons on homosernrals in 19.l14, when it decrintnllzed homosenrality wrder the penal code, but most changes in homosenal rlghts have occured whr the last 1 years, In 1978, the age of coruent fo homosexuals was changed to 16 to coincide $ith the age of corurcnt for heterosexuas. [n 1979, the Nadonal Board of Health and Selfare removed homosexuality from the Classlflcdon of Illnesses Hardbook,
In
1978, Parliament estblished a commission to study homosexuality in *The only Swedlsh eoclety, InTts 1984 report, the commfusion coneluded, certalr dlfference'between homosexuals and hetro.gexuals is that homosexuals are emodonally attracted to persoru of the salne sex, t light
of this backgforurd, it is obviow that homosenals should not be discrnintd againsL" Ttrls repor Swedish officials said, led to paEsage of the 1987 andiscriminadon and cohabittion liaws providing rights and protecdon to hornosexuals. The antidiscririndon law makes it a crlminal oense for commercial estabtishments to refuse sersices to homoeexuals or for individuas to make derogtory remarks based on a person's homosenrality, Ttre coha,bitation law provides each cohabfting lndlvldust the right to half of theJointlyowned home ard household goods when cohabita.don cebses.
At the tlme of ou review in Aprll 1993, two other issues conceming homoeexusls were rurder review in Parliament. The rst was a proposal to estbltsh reglstered partnerstrips, wltich would provide homosexual couples basteally the same rights as heterosexual eouples, but would not irclude he right to adopt children. If one parher were to die, for instance, the survlvlng partner would be able to receive insurance, pension, and lnheritrce beneflts. The second issue wa.s a proposal to tnclude homose)ruals as a protected category under the Act to Cotutteract Ethnic Dtscriminadon,, OfclaLs we interviewed andcipate parllamentary approval of the registered partnerstrip legislation and lnchsion of homosexuals 'under the act by the spring of 1994.
Prge 46
Mltlty
r-t
i
ApDTDdllVI
J'
E*rdo
Under 9wedlsh nitry policy, homosexuIs are permitted to sewe in the Swedish armed forces, The current policy, estblished in 1984, sttss that eice homosexualtty is increasin$y accepted by society, it is not a reson, by itself, for treatlng an lndidual differently in the military. Prlor to 1976, a medlcal diagnosis of homosenrality during the enollment procr was Bupposed to result ln an automsdc exemption from military eervlce. According to Swedj.sh Deferse officials, however, tlris exempdon
waE not strictly lmposed, as most enrollment officers treated homosenallty on a case-by-case basis. In 1976, the Manual for Medicl
Peruonnel,ln the.Armed Forces was rer'lsed to ellminat the automatic exempon folhomoe)ruas. And tn 1979, when the National Boad of Hedth and lflelfare removed homosexualiff from the Classiflcation of Illnesse^e Handbook, the milttary no longer di,agnosed homosenlity as ar lllness. However, the military continued to mainttn records of those lndivtduals tdentlfled as homossnals. Ttris pracce was haltd in 1984, the same year tlrat the commlssion on homosenrality issued lts report statlng that homosexuality mrst not disqualJfy ar individual from serving ln the armed forces.
Also in 1984, the Supreme Commander of the Swedish Defense issued a policy statment on homosexuals in the rnitry. Tttls policy, wttich is curently in effect, states that wht is essential is the tndtvidual's ability to cope wfth fiis or her sexuality. If an indivfdual has reached the level of matrxity where homosenrality is an accepted or controlled part of his or her personaliy, there ls no basis for treating this tndividual differently than others in the armed forces. Under the curent policy, as part of the routine psycholo$cal interview during eruollment, conscripts are asked lf they have any problems that world interfere with their ability to fulffII military servlce, but they are not speciffcally asked if they are homosenal. They have the liberty and opporUnily o dlsclpse their homosexuqlily but ae not pressured to do so, lndividualB who elleve they wlll hve problems due to thei homosexuallty may'be excused fom their mllitrry obgadon. If they "hoose to complete their mlitary service, no record ts kept of thei homosexuallty. There ae no addidonal steps or follow-up tests required if corucripts declare their homosexuality.
Sweden's 1987 anddlscrimination law, which prohibits discrimiradon against homosenrals, also applies to the milftry. No sqrarate mlitry policies address assignments or promoons for homosexuals.
PtSo 17
GAO/T\SIAD-98-21
Eomoexul ln te Mllltry
Apodl,W
Srrda
Policy
Our dfsc'rqcions with military personnel lndicated thst militry practices ae consistpnt with the policy on homosexuals. Senior ocials and unit personnel told us that the armed forces do not make an effort to identify homosexua,lE, do not dlscriminte against homosensls ln the eruollment proces, and do not formally place resEicons on the assignment and
promoon of homossnals.
Representaves of two homose:rual advocac EIoups sald they are satlsfled wlth the crrent policy of accepting homosenals into the milltry, but the Stoups had differing opinions about discriminadon in the mllltary's promoon and assignment processes. Representfives of the Swedfsh Federadon for Gay and Lesbian Rights believe that, despite the milltary's policy, homosgxual officers may be denied caeer opportunities or promodoru. However, lhey could provide no suppordng evidence. Ttre President of the Gay qnservadves of Sweden did not believe homose:nralsr were discrlmlnted agairst in the rnilitary.
Sweden has not studied the impact of admitting homosenals into the armed forcee, but mitltry officials said few problems concerning homoeerarals have occurred. For instance, the officials gaid that the inclusion of homosexuaJs had not adverse affected unit readiness, eecdveness, coheslon, or morale. Most of the unt peroonnel we lnterviewed agreed with the Swedlsh policy of admitting homosexuals, and few of these perqonnel knew of any problems concemlng homosetnrals. lte frequently head the comnent that the important issue was whether the person corld do theiob. Representaves of Pa.rliarient's Human Resouce Council of the Swedish
rs
that homosenrality
ls not an tssue in the military. Ttre Human Resource Council makes several vfsits a year to various tilitary iwtallaoru to discuss personnel issues $'ith militry officials, rrit-level ofEcers, and conscripts. The ViceChair told r that in her 12 year on the council, homosexuallty has never been ralsed as an issue. l.ikewise, the Chairman of the Central ouncil of Corscripts said,issues related to homosexuality have never been raised to
the organizaon.
''l .r
,'r ,
'
I
Mitry personnel and others Isrow of few open homosexuals in the nrilitary. For example, of tlte 42 unit persorunel we lntewiewed, ory 3
TTre Cental Courcu of Conscdpts of Sweden ia a group ofconccripts elected by rprsent telr tntrests in dealing8 wit e Swedleh efen8 Forc.
teir
peers
to
Pge 48
--
ApDCdlr VJ
0rodc
lnew for
other
peruonnel "stupectedn that certain unit persorutel may have been homosenal. F\rttrer, the foru commanders atAt Force, Army, and NaW facilJHes we vleitd did not know of any homosexuals arnong the approdmately 2,400 corrscrlpts they commanded. A psychologist said that, at most, 10 corucripts a year dlsclose tht they ae homoseruat dudng enrollment, out bf appro:dmately 12,000 corucripts that are processed through tlrt enollment ofce.z
Many mttary ofEcials believe that opery homose:nal individuals cotld e:rpedence some adverse lmpact on thelr careen. For example, the oEcfals discussed two cases where homosenral ofcers had been reasstgned. In one case, they sald, the officer's homosexrallty was belleved to present a security risk. In the other case, the offieer "was exerdng tris homosexualiff in a bad way.' F\fiher, ntilitry officials and unttpersonnel sald openly homose:flal individuals could face harassment and other ne gave treatnent from their peers, and possibly subtle discrbradon in the a.ssignment and promotion pbocess. Some military personnel and others Bald that when individrrnls ssese to be open about thelr homosexuality, they tend to reveal thei senral orienttion to those tn thelr tmmedlate rritthatthey }now well and brt.st.
uit
srrre that the'y hed Bewed tn the mitry witt a homosexual. Ten
A sigrricant facor lit $weden's ability to integrate homosexuals may be the private natue of sexuality tn Sweden and the virhl silence surrorurdlng homosexualiy, We were told that few homosexuals in the armed forees ae open about thei se>nral orientaon, but that those who are corld face haassment from peers and subtle rllscrimiration,
Three other factors may contribute to Sweden's success in integating homosexuals into the nrilitry. Frstr Swedlsh conscripts serve only a short tims-6 to l7 montls-and are permltd fequent vlsits home. Thw, they ae not isolafed from their private llves for long pertods.
Secon{ Sweden's strong commlEnent to human rights ls reflected in civilian as well as military policies regarding homosenrals.
r''
Pge49 '
''.'
J'-i
CAO{8IAD-S8.?1 HoqocxuI ln
tlc
Mtutrry
AgDGldlrW 8rdo
Fna[y, any homosextal conscripts at the age of l8 or l9 may not yet be firlly aware of thetr senrallty or homosexul tendencies and therefore tnd not to mke thelr Eextnl orient,on publicly loown.
Pag 0
GAO/I{SIAD'S8'81 Eonocxuslt tn
tle Mllltary
Anoendix VII
TI
InternationalAffairs
Division, Washington,
D.C.
Hfl-**'l;ffi;gg'#i*3iector
Brends.darreu,Evalutor-rn{harge il{. Ellzbeth Guran, Eraluator-itharge Ketth N. Burnhar\ Evaluator Jrlne l\ll Cantin, valuator Michal T. Nolaa Eraluator Thomas W. Gosling, Editpr
Ttromas J. Howard, Assistnt Director Padck,4. Dicliriede, Site Senior Paul M, Arxsendorf, Senior Evaluator Stephen M. Iord, Senior Evaluator Darury C. Schreck, Senior Evaluator Davtd M. Bruno, Evaluator Peter J. Bylsma, Evaluator Kevir B. PerHns, Evaluator Pamela J. Timmerman, Evaluator
European Offrce
lzosoo{)
Pge
6l
GAO/{BIAD-98"21 Eomoerual tn
tle Mttsry
Qrderlng Infonndon
Ihe t copy of each GAO report ard testlmony le ee. .A.ddtdonal copler are t2 eaeh. Orders ebould be sent to te fotlowlng addrecc, accompanled by check or money order nde out to te Superlntendent of Documentsr when neslsr!. Orders for 100 or more coplee to be malled tp a lngle address are dlscorutted 2 percent.
Order by mall:
U.8. General Acorndg Ofce P.O. Box 601 Galtlrereburg, MD 20884-60 1
or vllt:
Boom 1000 ?00 4ft gt. NW (corner of 4th ard G Stt. NW) U.8. General Aceoundng Offlce Washlngton, DC Ordere may also be placed by clltng (2O2) 612-6000 or by rEtng fax number (801) 284060.
Flrst-Class Msil Postsge & Feee Psid GAO Pemlt No, G100
GAO
February 2005
MILITARY
PERSONI\TEL
Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated
ia ,.,':,, t
,j
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Financial Gosts and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Gompletely Estimated
What GAO Found
The total costs of DOD's homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. However, DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, GAO estimated that, over the l0-year period, it could have cost DOD about $95 million in constant
fiscal year 2004 dollars to recruit replacements for servicemembers separated under the policy. Also, the Nar,y, Air Force, and Army estimated that the cost to train replacements for separated servicemembers by
(1) the military seryices'annual financial costs from fiscal yar' ' 1994 ttuough fiscal year 2003 for cerbain activities associated wiJh administering the Deparhnent of Defense's (DOD) policy on homosexual conduct-e. g., the
'
',',,,r,': ,'
Approximately 757 (8 percent) of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct held critical occupations, identified by DOD as those occupations worthy of selective reen[stment bonuses. GAO analyzed and selected the top 10 most critical occupations for each year from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. About 59 percent of the servicemembers with critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were separated within 2.5 years of service. The typical military service contract is for 4 years of service. Also, 322 (3 percent) of separated serwicemembers had some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, or Korean. A total of 98 servicemembers had completed training in an impor-tant language at DOD's Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency score; 63 percent ofsuch servicemembers had proficiency scores that were at or below the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency scales for stening, reading, or speaking. Students can graduate from the basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale.
Number of Separations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Homosexual Conduct by Fiscal Year and Milltarv Servlce
separated:under.the,,homo5xual,r, conduct statute-and (2) ttre extent to which the policy has resulted in the separation of servicemembers with critical occupations and
imp oltqn' fo.,r9ig1:,lan gUage skills. GAO provided DOD
Fiscal
1
vear
':
Armv
136
Alr
Force
185
Marlnes Naw
60
315 413
Total"
615
994
1995
1
1 1
184
ith a draft of
19g6'f i., i
997 998 999
!.i, ,t,:
19g
197
'
ZB4
414
310
271
,145
313
177
1S0
574
104
105 187
2,413
2,970
31
9,488
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For mor information; conlaot Derek Slwart di (202) 51 2.5559 or stwartd @gao.gov;,
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
I
d
Background Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Can Be Estimated Servicemembers with Critical Occupations and/or Important Language Skills Have Been Separated for Homosexual Conduct Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
t2
I6
23
Appendixes
Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV
Scope and Methodology
25 29
3l
42
Tables
li
Table 2:
Table 3: Table 4:
Table 5: Table 6:
Table
7:
Table
B:
Table 9:
Number of Searations of Active Duty Servicemembers for Hoinosexua Conduct by Fiscal Year and Military Service Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with Some Proficiency in an "Important Foreign Language," Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Serwice and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 TotI Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Interwals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 individuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected Intervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Individurls with Intelligence-Related Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct dur-ing Selected Interuals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Individuals with Ttaining in Important Languages Separated for l-Iomosexual Conduct during Selected Intelals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Sample of'Critical Occupations
:r.
2l
29
30
31
.)
JJ
34 35
Page
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Table 10: Sample of Intelligence-Related Occupations Table l1: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal Year 2003 Who Were Tfained in a Language at the Defense Language
DN I
Institute
Table
12: Languages Spoken
39
by and Proficiency Leves for Individuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal Year 2003, as Reported through Service Personnel Files
Separations for l{omosexua-l Conduct by Race, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Separations under DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason, Fisca"l Years 1994 through 2003 Average Annua Recmiting Cost Estimate by Military Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals with Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals
40
Figures
Figure
Figure Figure Figure Figure
1:
I
10
11
2:
3:
4: 5: 6: 7:
13
14
Figure
19
Figure
with Intelligence-Related Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years
Figure
8:
through
2003
1994 20
Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by Individuals tained in Important Languages prior to Separation for Hoiriosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
22
Abbreviations
DOD FY GAO
Page
c.AO-05-299
Military Personnel
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. lt may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety wthout further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page
GAO-06-299
Military Personnel
t
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 24548
training.
In 1993 Congress enacted a homosexual conduct policy statute which ilfresnpe in the arrned forces of persons who declare.d tharthe demonstrate,a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an maccetable risk to the high standards of motale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."r During the l0 years following this declaration, the military services separated about 9,500 servicemembers for homosexual conduct under the statute. This represents about 0.40 percent of the 2.37 miion members separated for all reasons during this period. In the postSeptember 1lth environment, questions have been raised about the finarcial costs associated with the Department of Defense's (DOD) policy on homosexual conduct,2 especially in light of concerns about the shortage of personnel with skills in critical occupations and foreign language -
You asked us to determine (1) the military services' annual financial costs for certain activities associated with administering DOD's policy on homosexual conduct-the recruitment and training of servicemembers to replace those separated under the homosexual conduct statute, inquiries and investigations of homosexuality cases, counseling and pastoral care for affe cted individuals, separation fu nctions, and discharge reviews-and
(2) the extent to which the policy has resulted in the separation of servicemembers wiph critical occupations and important foreign language
skills.i :;''
', 1r
conduct, we interviewed officia.ls from a variety of DOD and service offices, including the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DOD's Office of Accession Policy; and offices in the military services responsible for budget, criminal investigation, chaplaincy, separation, and discharge review. The Air Force, Army, and
'
2
10 U.S.C. $
65a(aXl5).
The homosexua conduct policy statute is implemented through DOD Diectives 1332. t4 (enlisted administrative separations); 1332.40 (separation ofregular and reserve commissioned officem); and 1304.26, which specifies qualification stndads for enlistment, appointment, and induction.
Page
G.AO-06-299
Military Personnel
Nar.y provided data on training costs by occupation. While we requested the same training-cost data inputs, each of the services used their own methods to calculate the reported training-cost estimates.
To address the extent to which the homosexual conduct policy statute has
resulted in the separation of enlisted servicemembers with "critical" occupations, we adopted the military selices' definition of a "critical" occupation as an occupation that was part of the selective reenlistment bonus program. The selective reenlistment bonus program for enlisted military personnel is DOD's primary tool for addressing short-term retention problems in critical occupations by providing servicemembers who reenlisted following the expiration of their service contracts with up to $60,000.3 We collected and analyzed this information for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. Because intelligence occupatiors, as a group, have enduring importance for the military that is independent from their periodic inclusion in the selective reenlistrnent bonus program, we identified servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute who had such occupations. We defined the knowledge of a foreign language as "imporbant" if it was related to (1) an occupation included in the selective reenlistment bonus program or (2) a language identified by combatant commanders and the Joint Staff as a deficiency in thei periodic readiness assessments. We also analyzed separated members' occupations and foreign language skills by their length of service. The Defense Manpower Data Center (Data Center) provided information on occupations, foreign language skills, and the length of seryice of separated servicemembers.
The principal limitation of our analysis is that, for privacy reasons, we did not review separated servicemembers' personnel records, including training histories, which have implications for estimating training costs. For example, from data provided by the Data Center, we matched separated servicemembers to specific occupations, but we cannot state whether such individuas completed a.ll of the training associated with their occupations. Much of our analysis depended on the quality of information that the services provided the Data Center with and the steps that the Data Center took to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. According to Data Genter officials, since 1998, the Data Center has made a
':
;iWe ast reported on seective reenlistment bonuses in GAO, DOD Needs Mot"e Ejjectiue Controls to Assess thn Pt'ogress of the SeLectiue Reerul,istment Bonus Program, GAO-04-86 (Washington, D,C.:Nov. 13, 2003).
Page 2
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
special effort to ehsure.that the services provide accuate irformation about the number of servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct.
:-
Although we did not validate the budgeVfinancial systems used to produce the cost estimates used in this report, we determined that the estimates were sufficiently reiable for the pu-rpose of this report. We assessed reliability by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data and the manner in which they were collected, We conducted our review from August2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
Results in Brief
The total costs of DOD's homosexual conduct policy cannot be estimated because DOD does not collect relevant cost data on inquiries and investigations, counsel.ing and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews. DOD does collect data on recruitment and training costs for the force overall. Using these data, we estimated that it would have cost DOD about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars from fiscal year
1994 through fiscal yeaf 2003 to recruit replacements for enlisted servicemembers seaiated fo homosexual conduct.a DOD does calculate cost estimtes related to recruiting enlisted personnel, which we applied in broad terms, for servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct poicy statu[e as a replacement cost. We calculated that the estimated average annual cost to recruit an enlisted servicemember over the l0-year period to be about $10,500.5 Most of the services were able to estimate total training costs-recruit (or basic) training and occupation-specific training.
We are not suggesting by this cost estimate that the services specifically recruit one-for-one repacemenls of servicemembers who have been separated for homosexual conduct.
t This frgure is in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. DOD compiles the basis of this cost
estimate purcuant to DOD Instruction 1304.8 as part of its military personnel procurenent resources report to Congress. It is constructed by averaging the DOD estimated recruiting costs for each year over the period. The annual DOD recruiting cost figure is calculated as a weighted average of the services' recruiting costs.
Page 3
GAO-0-299
Military Personnel
The estimated training costs for the occupations performed by Navy members separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fisca year 2003 was about $48.8 million ($18,000 per member).6 The comparable Air Force cost estimate was $16.6 milIion ($7,400 per member).7 The Army estimated that the training cost of the occupations performed by Army members separated for homosexual conduct over the lO-year period was about $29.7 mitlion ($6,400 per member).t Thu Marine Corps was not able to estimate occupation-related training costs, However, other ffies of costs such as those related to inquiries and investigations of cases, counseling and pastoral care, separation functions, and discharge reviews are not estimable because DOD does not collect data necessary to develop such estimates.
The military gervices separated 9,488 memberse pursuant to the
homosexual conduct policy statute from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, some of whom were in critical occupations or had important foreign language skills. Seven hundred fifty-seven (about B percent) of these separated servicemembers held critical occupationsI0 ("voice interceptor," "daJa processing technician," or "interpreter/translator"), as defined by the services. About 59 percent of the members with critical occupations who were separated for homosexual conduct were separated during their first 2.5 yearc of serrrice, which is about 1.5 years before the expiration of the initial,service contract of most enlistees. Such contracts are typically for 4 years. Also, 322 members (about 3 percent) had some skills in an important foreign language such
tThe per-member cost estimates in parentheses are a weighted average of separated selicemembers' occupations for which we have data (for the Nary, this is 2,706 of 2,970 members). The weighted average is computed by multiplying the occupational training costs for each occupation by the proporlion of total studenLs and summing the products. By doing this, the occupations with the most students are weighted the mos in computing the
average.
?
We have dat4
.'
The occupations most frequently cited f<r selective reenlistment bonuses are in appendix IIL
I0
Page 4
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Aabic, Farsi, nd Korean. 1r A total of 98 members separated under the homosexual condubt policy statute completed language training at the Defense Language Institute and received a proficiency rating; 62 members, or 63 percent, were at or below the midpoint on DOD's listening, reading, or speaking proficiency scales. 12
as
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.
Background
HOmOSexuAlity and
the
Military
The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law'3 But in January 1993, President Clinton sought to ful-fil a campaign promise to "lift the ban" on homosexuals serving in the military, This led to the policy familiarly known as "don't ask, don't tell." In exchange for the military seryices' silence ("don't ask") about a person's homosexuality prior to induction, gay and lesbian servicemembers, as a condition of continued service, would have to agree to silence ("don't tell") about this aspect of their life. Failure to maintain silence can result in
r Servicemembers with critical occupations and important foreign language skills are not necessariy mutually exclusive groups because some critical occupatiors such as cryptologic linguists and interrogators require a foreign language skill, Thus a servicemember could be included in both the critical occupations and important foreign languages groups.
i2 To assess language proficiencies, DOD uses an I l-point scale. DOD describes the midpoint on this scale as "limited working proficiency plus." According to the Defense Language Institute, students can graduate from the basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the midpoint of this scale. For foreignlanguage-related issues in the federal government, see GAO, Foreign Languo4es: Human Capital, Approach Neerl,ed to Cotrect StalJing and ProJiciencE Shortfall,s, GAO-02-375 (WasNngton, D.C.: Jar. 31, 2002) We stated in this report that in fiscal year 2001, the Army had a 25 percent shortfall in cryptologic inguists and a 13 percent shortfall in human intelligence collectors in several
i Page6
,i: ,
,t, l, ,
'
GO-05'zg9MilitaryPersonnel
separation from the military.ta In November 1993, Congress passed the homosexual conduct policy statute and stated that the military's suspension of questioning should remain in effect unless the Secretary of Defense considers reinstatement of questioning necessary to effectuate the policy set out in the statute.rs The statute also sets out the findings of Congress in addition to the homosexual conduct policy. Included in the findings section is a description of the differences between military and civilian life, which forms a rationale for the institution of the policy.
Military life is fundanientally different from civiliar life in that the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and critical role of unit coheson, require that the militry community, whiie subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society [which] is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including nurerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.r6
In short, Congress indicated that because of the unique nature of military life, the military services may need to treat individuals who engage in homosexual acts, as defined by the statute, differently than they would be treated in civilian society.
According to our analysis of the information provided by the Defense Manpower Dat Center, 9,488 servicemembers were separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.t7 This figure represents servicemembers who were on active duty at the time of their separation, including members of the Reserves who were on active duty for 31 or more consecutive days. According to aData Center official,
r{ 10 U.S.C. 654@) and DOD Directive 1304.26, S Qual:iicati.on Standards Jor nlistmert, AppointmmE arud Induction (Mar. 4, 1994). For a discussion of issues associated with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, see Congressional Reseach Service, Homoseruals ar.d U.S.
r5
'6
t0 U.S.C.
654(aX8).
17 In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) stated that 9,501 servicemembers were separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 though fiscal year 2003. (See appendix [V.) According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 9,682 servicemembers were separated for homosexual conduct during the same period. The Network reports information on these separations at www.sldn. org.
Page 6
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
,.
.- I
118 reservists (other than those who served on active duty) were separated 1993 through fiscal year 2003. Because these separated reservists represent a small number of total
separations under the homosexual conduct policy statute, we did not include them in our analysis. This exclusion is consistent with DOD's reporting practice in this area, which repo only active duty personnel separated for homosexual conduct. The figure also does not iclude servicemembers who were in the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, or the Coast Guard. According to a Data Center official, the official tracking of separations for homosexual conduct began in 1997 at which time it was decided to include only the members of the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy on active duty. The data also do not include servicemembers who, for example, were separated for a "pattem of misconduct," which could include several reasons for separation, including homosexual conduct. The Data Center also provided data on the characterization of service at separation for service,members separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fisca-l year 2003. For "characterized" separations (5,763 senzicemeinbers), DOD granted "honorable" separations to 4,710 servicemembers (82 percent) ; "general (under honorable conditions)" separations to 766 (13 percent); and "under other thar honorable conditions" separations to 287 senricemembers (5 percent). DOD also granted "uncharacterized," or entry-level separations to 3,304 servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during this l0-year period. The Data Center also classified as "bad conduct," the separation of four servicemembers, which is a t,pe of punitive separation applicable to enlisted personnel only. (See Manualfor Cout'ts Martial, RuIe 1003(b)(8).) The Data Center did not have characterization-of-service data for 417 servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during this lO-year period. Table 1 and figures I and? show the number of separations by military service, race, and gender, respectively, from flscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.
Page 7
GAO-0-299
Military Personnel
Table
Fiscal year
1 1 1 1 1
Air Force
185
Marines
36 69
Navy 258
269 315 413 345 313 358 290 222
187
Totalu
184
199 197
235
284
309 414 352
177 190
60
78
310
271
76 97 104
111 105
2000
2001
574
626
1.t 378 3,307
2E
125 142
62
2,413
25
798
2,97O
31
Page 8
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Figure 1: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Flace, Fscal Years 1994 through 2003
1"h
I
Unknown
(1
,550)
White (6,676)
Sourcesr Delense Manpower Dala Center (dala); GAO {analyss),
Page
GAO-O5-299
Military Personnel
Figure 2: Separations for Homosexual Conduct by Gender, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
Female (2,586)
Male (6,887)
Sourcesr Delense Manpower Dala Cenler (dala)i GAO (analysis),
Note: Gender informalion was not available for 15 of the 9,488 servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct during this period.
The homosexual conduct policy statute sttes three reasons for separation, namely,,that a servicemember has (1) "engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts. ..',' (2) "stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect...;" or (3) "married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex." In addition, the statute provides mitigating factors that may prevent separation in cases arising under the first two categories. rs Figure 3 shows the distribution of separations by these three reasons from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003.
'8
l0 u.s.c. $ 654(b)
Page
l0
GAO-O-299
Miitary Personnel
3: Separations under DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy by Reason, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
Figure
1o/o
Married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex (57) Engaged in, attempted to engage in, or
Note: The figure displays information on 9,477-ralher than all 9,488 servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct during the 1O-year period-because the statutory reason for separation was missing for'l 1 former servicemembers.
Previous GAO Report on Costs Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy
In 1992 GAO reviewed DOD's policy on homosexuality, including the costs associated with replacing personnel separated under the policy and the cost of investigating allegations of homosexuality.re We concluded that "DOD does not maintain records of the costs associated with administering its policy [on homosexuality]; nor does it record the costs of investigating alleged cases of homosexuality. Accordinglyr our analysis was limited to estimates of the costs of recruiting and training individuals to replace personnel discharged for homosexuality."
l
noted that the total cost of replacing personnel discharged for homosexua"lity would need to include other factors such as out-processing
1Ve also
See GAO, DeJertse Force Managment: DOD's Polic.q on Homosex;u(Llit?1, GAO/NSL{D-92-98 (Washington, D.C,: June 12, 1992).
Page
ll
GAO-0-299
Military Personnel
The cost dat in this'report and the 1992 report are not comparable because, at the time of the 1992 review, we did not include the estimated training costs for the occupations of servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct,
Costs of Certain Activities Associated with DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy Can Be
Estimated
Though the total costs associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy carnot be determined because neither DOD nor the services collect relevant cost data, some costs can be estimated. For example, DOD does collect estimates of the costs to recruit enlisted servicemembers, a portion of which can be associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy, In addition, upon our request, the services were able to ca-lculate the estimated costs associated with the training of personnel by occupation. However, DOD was unable to estimate the costs associated with other activities related to DOD's homosexual conduct policy, namely, those related to investigations and commanders'inquiries, counseling and pastoral care, and the processing and review ofseparations.
While not specific to individuals discharged for homosexual conduct or other reason, pqD does collect dat related to the cost to recruit servicemembers. Collected dat related to DOD's annual average recruiting cost estimate for enlisted servicemembers are shown in figure 4. Taken together, available data show that the average annual recruiting cost estimate for en-Listed personnel from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 was about $10,500 per member in constant fiscal yeat 2004 dollars.2o
This hgure is an average of DOD's reported cost per recruit. Each of the services annuay reports recruiting costs to DOD that are weighted by the size of the force to detemine an average cost per recruit. DOD's reporls on recruiting do not include the cost per recruit for officers and medical personnel.
Page 12
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Figure
Dollars
1
4:
Average Annual Recruting Cost Estimate by Military Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
8,000 6,000
14,000 12,000
I 0,000
994
Fiscal year
W ffi
:'
ru*
n..v
Source: DOD.
Note: All figures are in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. Tabular data related to cost in ths and other figures are in appendix ll.
The total estimated cost to recruit potential replacements for the 9,352 enlisted seryicemembers separated under DOD's homosexual conduct pocy dqring the l0-year period2r was about $95 million in
corstant fiscal year 2004 dollars. (See table 4 in appendix IL) Estimated recruiting costs by military service are shown in figure 5.
2r
Of the 9,488 servicemembers considered in our analysis, 136 were offcers, and recruitment costs per officer were not available.
Page 13
GAO.05-299
Military Personnel
Figure 5: Estimated Recruiting Costs to Replace Enlisted Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
Dollars in thousandg
1
6,000
14,000
.t
2,000
0,000
1994 1995
Fiscal year
1996
997
r W
ffi I
Most Military Services Can Compute Estimates of Costs to Tlain Personnel
With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services were able to compute cost estimates to train members, by occupationr upon our request. We asked the military seryices to provide total and per-capita training-cost estimates of the occupations performed by servicemembers who were separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. These figures include estimates of all training costs related to selectefl occupations, including recruit training. The Nar.y estimated that the tbtal training cost for the lO-year period was $48.8 milliqn and.the.estimated per-capita cost was about $18,000. The comparable totl estimated cost for the Air Force was $16,6 million, and
Page L4
GAO-06-299
Miitary Personnel
the per-capita cost estimate was $7,400. The Army estimated that the training cost for selected Army occupations for the 10-year period was about $29.7 million. The estimated average training cost of these occupations was about $6,400 per member.
Other Tlrpes of Costs Associated with the Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Estimated
with homobexual conduct, including investigations and inquiries, counseling and pastoral care, processing separations from miitary service, and the review of such separations by service boards. For these cost categories, we found that relevant data (for example, a system that records the time spent on specific tasks for specific reasons) are not collected, and, as a result, these types of costs cannot be estimated.
Investigative cost estimates were not available for our inquiry because DOD law enforcement organizations do not generally investigate adult private consensual sexual misconduct as a matter of investigative priority and because of resource limitations, As the Navy notes in a policy statement on this subject, "if there is no victim, there is virtually no circumstance where the [criminal investigative service] will investigate sexual misconduct." Sexual misconduct cases under these circumstances are referred to commanders for appropriate disposition. And because commanders do not record the time they spend on sexual misconduct inquiries, it is not possible to estimate the cost of conducting them,
The estimated cost.of counseling services, including pastoral care provided through the caplains.cgrps, is also not determinable. Servicemembers separatbd f,pr,honosexual conduct are not required to seek counseling. Army and Nvy, chaplains, for example, record the types of tasks they
perform-religious ministry outreach, or pastoral care-but they are not required to compute the time they spend performing these activities. Consequently, it is not possible to estimate the cost of conducting such tasks. F\rrthennore, chaplains are not required to differentiate "pastoral care" in their task reports by topics covered such as homosexual conduct
or sexual harassment.
The estimated cost of separating servicemembers also cannot be deterrnined. Separation procedures ae handled by salaried employees who work in the personnel offices of various military installations ard who have multiple resp onsibilities other th an co ordinating a servic ememb er's
Page
l5
G,AO-0-299
Militry Personnel
separation from the military, They too do not compute their time spent on the various activities they perform.
Servicemembers who have been separated for homosexual conduct have occasionally requested service discharge review boards to review whether their separations vere properly granted. The estimated costs associated with this activity also cannot be determined. Officials associated with such boards told us that they are not required to compute the estimated cost of reviewing seryicemembers' requests ard that they do not record the number of reviews associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy. But service discharge review board officials were able to identify for us at least 119 reviews associated with homosexual conduct (the Army, 72 reviews, f,scal years 1993-2003; Navy, 24 reviews, and Marines, l1 reviews, fiscal years 2000-2003; and Air Force, 12 reviews, fiscal years 2001-3). The service discharge boards conducted about 33,200 reviews during these same time periods.
:
Servicemembers
rrith Critical
Occupations and/or Important Language Skills Have Been
Separated for Homosexual Conduct
From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, the military services separated members who had some training in critica-l occupations and,/or impofiant foreign languages pursuant to the homosexual conduct policy statute. Most servicemembers who had such occupations were separated during thei first 2.5 years of service. Also, DOD separated servicemembers who had some language skills in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and Korean. Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had proficiency scores in listening to, readilg, or speaking these four languages that were above the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency scales, although students can graduate from the basic program with proficiencies somewhat below the
Most Separated Servicemembers Who Had Critical Occupations Were Separated during Their First 2.5 Years of Service
Servicemembers with critical occupations were separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. Examples of critical occupations, as defined by the military services, include "voice interceptor," "data processing technician," and "interpreter/translator." The occupations most frequently cited as "critical," that is, eligible for selective reenlistment bonuses are listed in appendix III. (See table 9.) We found that 757 (about B ercent) of the 9,488 servicemembers discharged for homosexual conduct during this time period held critical occupations.
Page 16
GAO-O-299
Militry Personnel
Before new recruits are sent to recruit training, they are required to take an enlistment oath and sign a contract to serve one of the military services for a specified period of time, generally from 2 to 6 years and typically for 4 years. Consequently, a separation within 1.5 years is well before the end of a typical service contract for enlisted personnel, By comparison, we reported in 1998 that for fiscal years 1982 through 1993, about 32 percent of all enlistees were separated during their first term of service: l1 percent of enlistees were separated during their first 6 months (versus about 30 percent of servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during their fist 6 months) and about 21 percent of all enlistees from their 7th through 48th month;23 Next, we analyzed the length of serwice for 755 seryicemembers separated for homosexua-l conduct who had critical occupations.2* The separation rate for this group was lower than for the total population separated for homosexual conduct. Generally, 267 servicemembers (about 35 percent) were separated within about 1.5 years of service, and 443 servicemembers (about 59 percent) were separated within about 2.5 years of service. Figure 6 shows the separation rate of servicemembers who had critical occupations by various time periods.
Attriti.on: Better Data, Coupled.lVith Policy Changes, Coukl HeIp the Early Separti.oru, GAOIISIAD-98-213 flilashington, D.C., Sept. 15, 1998)
The Data Center has length-of-service data for 755 of the 757 separated selvicemembers
Page 18
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Figure 6: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by lndividuals with Critical Occupations prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
3o/"
Period 4: Separated within 1.5 to 2.5 years of military service Period 5; Separated after more than 2.5 years of service
'fl:
trVe identifleid servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy statute who had intelligence-related occupations (a partial list of these occupations is in appendix III, table 10);not all of these occupations wpre related to the selective reenlistrnent bonus progran. We identified 730 separated sewicemembers who held intelligence-related occupations from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. The separation rate is similar to the separation rate of servicemembers who held occupations that were related to a selective reenlistment bonus: 274 of these servicemembers (about 38 percent) were separated within about 1.5 years of service, and 450 servicemembers (about 62 percent) were separated within about 2.5 years of service. Figure 7 shows the separation rate of servicemembers with intelligence-related occupations by various time periods.
Page 19
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
7: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by lndividuals with lntelligence-Related Occupations pror to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
Figure
4%
Period 1: Separated within 3 months of military seryice (recruit training) 4Yo Period 2: Separated within 3 to 6 months of military seryice (advanced individual training)
62"/"
Period 3: Separated within 6 months to 1.5 years of military service
Period 4: Separated within 1.5 to 2.5 years of military service Period 5: Separated after more than 2.5 years of service
Sourcei Defense Manpowr Data Cenler (dala); GAO (analysls).
Note: Parts may not sum to equal cumulalive percents because of rounding. (See appendix lll for frequency counts.)
DOD separated several hundred members with training in important foreign languages. During flscal years 1994 through 2003, DOD separated 322 servicemembers for homosexual conduct who had some skills in a foreignlanguage that DOD had considered to be especially important. A total of 209 separated servicemembers attended the Defense Language Institute for training in one of these important languages. Ninety-eight of these 209 completed training and received a proficiency rating, and 62 members (63 percent of the 98) had proficiency scores at or below the midpoint on DOD's language proficiency scales for listening, reading) or speaking. To assess listening, reading, and speaking proficiencies, DOD uses an 1l-point scale. DOD describes the midpoint as "limited working proficiency, plus." According to the Defense Language Institute, in order to graduate from the basic language program, students are expected to achieve at least a "Iimited working proficiency" in listening and reading and
Page 20
GAO-06-299
Military Personnel
an "elementary proficiency, plus" in speaking a foreign language. Both of these levels are below the midpoint on DOD's proficiency scale. Table 2 shows the number of servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had some skill in an important foreign language.
Table 2: Number of Servicemembers Separated for Homosexual Conduct with Some Proficiency in an "lmportant Foreign Language," Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Number of students Number of students Number of students with speaking with reading with fistening separated proficiencyu proficencyu proficiencyu servicemembers Who Language attended lnstitue Defense studenls with Above Below Above Above Below Language proficiency Below lnstitute scores midpoint midpont midpoint midpoint midpoint midpoint
Number of
Language
Arabic Chinese
Farsi
54
20
Korean Russian
s0 42 I 24
20 6 2 25 25 4 15
I
(50) , 5 (25) 1(17),, ,0(0) 2(100) 0(0) 21(84) 2 (8) 11 (44) I (32)
10
I (40)
20
0 (0)
1(17)
0(0)
0 (0)
4 (16) 1(25)
1 (7)
SeroSpanish
Croatian
Vietnamese
0 (0) 7
Total
number
Percent
53 209 98 1004754,243430877
Notes:
29
1. "lmportant" foreign languages are those for which servicemembers are eligible to receive selective reenlistment bonuses or those identified as "deficiencies" by combatant commanders and the Joint Slaff in their periodic readiness assessments. 2. The table does not include the number and percentage of students with scores at the mdpoint but includes such information only for students below or above the midpoint. uPercentages in parentheses. The Data Center has length-of-service data for 205 of the separated servicemembers who received training in an mportant loreign language.
We analyzed the length of service for the 205 separated setwicemembers who had reeived.training in an important foreign language at the Defense
Page
2l
servicemembers. About 131 (64 percent) were separated within about 2.5 yearc of service.
8: Distribution of the Amount of Time Served by lndividuals Trained in lmportant Languages prior to Separation for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
Figure
1"/"
64%
Note: No servicemember with lraning in critical languages was separated for homosexual conduct in Period 1, the first 3 months of military service, which generally corresponds to recruit training.
We further analyzed the occupations of the 54 separated servicemembers who reeivedrtraining in Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. We were able to match 42 (bou 78 percent) with an occupation that utilizes a
foreign lanuage, many in intelligence-related occupations such as "cryptologic linguist" or "communications interceptor." However, these 42 members might have had limited experience in their occupation because 36 servicemembers (about 86 percent of the 42) were listed as "helpers" or "apprentices," or had the lowest skill level associated with the occupation.
PaEe 22
GAO-06-299
Military Personnel
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided information on separations for homosexual conduct compared with other unprogrammed separations from flscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. DOD also provided technical changes, which we made where appropriate. The department's written comments are incorporated in their entirety in appendix IV.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no futher distribution of this report until 3 days from its issue date. At the time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and interestgd congressioal committees. We will also make copies available to others upon 4equest.,I{r addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao,gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 (Stewad@gao.gov) or George Poindexter, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7213 (Poindexterg@gao. gov), if you or your'staff have any questions concerning this report. Mqjor contributors to this report were Lisa Brown, A-Lissa Czyz, Joe Faley, Nicole Gore, Catherine Humphries, Tom Mills, Charles Perdue, and Jen Popovic.
fl"'tfu
Derek B, Stewart, Director Defense Capabilities and Management
Pag,e 23
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Honorable Tom Allen Honorable Robert Andrews Honorable Tammy Baldwin Honorable Danny Davis Honorable Susan A. Davis Honorable Diana DeGette The Honorable William Delahunt The Honorable Eliot Engel The Honorable Bamey Frank The Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee The Honorable James R. Langevin The Honorable Carolyn Maloney The Honorable Ge-orge Miller The Honorable Jim,Moran The Honorable Jerrold Nadler The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton The Honorable Christopher Shays The Honorable Adam Smith The Honorable Pete Stark The Honorable Lynn Woosey House of Representatives
The The The The The The
Pge 24
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Appendix I
To conduct our work, we interviewed individuals at a variety of Departrnent of Defnse (DOD) and service offices, including the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; DOD's Office of Accession Policy; DOD's Defense Manpower Data Center; and offices in the military services responsible for budget, investigation, chaplaincy, separation, and dischage review To determie the estimated financial costs associated with DOD's homosexual conduct policy, we obtained information on the estimated costs to recruit enlisted personnel from fisca-l year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 from DOD's Office of Accession Policy. DOD includes this irformation in the Military Personnel Procurement Resources Report. DOD ca.lcu-lates recruiting cost per enlisted member by dividing a miitary service's total expenditures for recmiting enlisted personnel by the seryice's total number of accessions. Recruiting expenditures include, but are not limited to, the costs associated with recruiting personnel, enlistment bonuses, advertisin g, c ommunications, re cruitin g support, and re cruiting command resources. Wecomputed an average of the reported figures for fiscal years 1994 through 2003. DOD does not include per-capita recruiting costs associated with commissioned officers in its procurement resources
reporf.
We also requested.that each of the four military services provide estimated
training cost information for occupations performed by enlisted servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In order to provide total estimated training costs, we asked the services to provide estimates of both fixed and variable costsr associated with each occupation. Estimated occupationrelated training costs include, but are not lirnited to, miitary and civilian pay for instructors, operations and maintenance, student trarsportation, ammunition, supplies, and flying costs (if any). We reviewed the services' general methodology for developing training-cost estimates and found
r Total costs are ihe total costs of procucing any given leve of output. Total cost can be divided in two pans: fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs aJe those that do not vary with output, A.ll costs that vary directly with output ale vaiable costs.
PaEe 25
them acceptable.'We used weighted averages2 to estimate the average per-member occupational training costs for the Air Force, Army, and Navy. The Marine Corps was unable to provide this information. Additionally, we excluded from our analysis the training costs associated with medical and health-care-related occupations because the services could not reasonably estimate them. Service officials told us that the length of training and other factors necessary to achieve a health-care-related proficiency varies wldely, as do the costs associated with them.
To assess the extent to which DOD separated members with critical occupations or important foreign language skills, we obtained occupation- and foreign-language-related data (for fiscal years 1994-2003) on servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct from the Defense Manpower Data Center's Active Duty Personnel Ttansaction File, which is a compilation of data provided by each of the n-Lilitary services. Ou analysis was limited to active duty personnel and did not include 118 reservists who were separated for homosexual conduct because they represent a small number of total separations under the homosexual conduct policy statute. This is consistent with DOD's repor[ing practice in this area. The department reports only active duty personnel separated for homosexual conduct. The Data Center provided information on an individual's branch of senrice, occupation, rank, length of time in service, and language skills.
With respect to the occupational data, we adopted the military seryices' definition of a "critical" occupation as an occupation that was part of the selective reenlistment bonus program. The selective reenlistment bonus prograrn for enlisted military personnel is DOD's primary tool for addressing short-term retention problems in critical occupafions by providing servicemembers who reenlist following the expiration of their service contracts with up to $60,000, The Army, Marines, and Navy list their 10 most critical occupations in their annual budget justifications. The Air Force, however, does not prioritize its critical occupations in its budget justification. The services determine reenlistment bonus amounts by multiplying (1) a servicemember's current monttrly basic pay by
2In calculating a weighted average, each vaue is nrultiplied by its "weight," and this product is summed for all values. The "weight" is derived as a proportion of the total. With respect to a service's occupational training costs, the cosls of training for an occupation (the value) would be mutiplied by that occupation's weight (that occupation's proportion of tota.l servicemembers for a.ll occupations). This product would be summed for all occupations to calculate a service's weighted average of occupational training costs.
Page 26
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Appendix
(2) the member's number of additional years of obligated service by (3) a bonus multiple that car range from 0.5 to 15. For the Air Force, we used this bonus multiple to determine a list of the l0 most critical occupations for each year from flscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003; the Ai Force occupations with the 10 largest bonus multipliers in a specific yeax were deemed by us to be the most critical. For example, in 1 yeax we included Air Tlaffic Control in the list of the top 10 Air Force occupations because it had a bonus multiplier of 7, which is the largest mu-ltiplier that the Air Force used from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003. In contrast, Pararespue, and all other occupations that had a bonus multiplier of 5 for that year, were not included on our list of most critical Air Force occupations. This is because there were at least I0 Air Force occupations whose bonus multipliers were 5.5, 6, or 7. Note that, in other years, depending on the bonus multipliers for all jobs, Paarescue could be included as an occupation on the "top ten" list. To assess the extent to which DOD separated individuals for homosexual conduct in inteligence-related occupations, we compiled a list of servicelevel occupation titles that could be categorized as "intelligence-related" by their relationship to DOD's occupational codes. DOD occupation codes are a way of organi-zing service-Ievel occupations into general categories. Each separated servicemember whose occupation matched an intelligence-related DOD occupational code was considered to have an intelligence-related occupation.
Finally, with respect to separations for homosexual conduct of individuals with important language skills, we identif,ed separated servicemembers with foreign language skills using language data drawn from the Defense Manpower Data Center. The Data Center provided two types of language data. The first type addresses the language skills of servicemembers who attended the Defense Language Institute's Foreign Language Center. Language proficiency data for these students ae based on the Defense Language Froficiqncy Test score they received when tested at the completion of their iourse of study. The other type of language data in the active duty file is information reported to the Data Center by the services. The language proficiency data in this file are based on multiple sourcesfrom servicemembers themselves or from the official Defense Language Institute profi ciency test.
Although we did not va-lidate the budgeVfinancial systems and processes used to calculate the cost estimates used in this report, we determied that the estimates were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. As
Pege 27
GAO-05-299
Military Personne
Appendix
j | !,
,.r
previously discussed, \rye assessed the reliability of these data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced them and (2) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data to determine the steps taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data.
We assessed the reliability of the Defense Manpower Data Center's Active
Duty Military Personnel Ttansaction file by (1) performing electronic testing of the requiqed data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interuiewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We conducted our review from August2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
PeEe 28
GAO-05-299
Military Personne
Appendix II
Recrufting SefViCemembefS
Sepafated fOf Homosexuar c onducr
Bstimated COSI Of
$95 million. To compute this cost, we multiplied the number of servicemembers as shown in table 1 (less the number of off,cers) by the
i:i?i;i#i.li#ernurtipried
conduct in fiscal year 1994-13&-from tbte I by the Army's average annual recruiting cost for fiscal year 1994 ($9,597) from table 3 in order to compute $1.305 million in table 4. The sum of these calculations for the lO-year period is about $95 million in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars,
Table
3:
Estimated Average Annual Recruiting Cost by Military Service and DOD, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
$9,597 $11,053 $10,460 $11,547 $13,059 $14,278 $14,078 $15,509 $16,200 $16,536 6,937 8,214 8,573 8,466 8,803 10,124 10,162 11,221 13,'121 13,394
Air
6,595 6,313 6,560 8,208 8,353 8,831 8,453 4,873 5,306 5,126 6,636 8,244 9,928 9,934 7,606 9,519 8,928 10,134 10,913 12,906 13,715
Pge Zg
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Table
4:
Total Estimated Recruiting Costs to Beplace Enlisted Personnel Separated for Homosexual Conduct, Fiscal Years 1994
lhrough 2003
Dollars in thousands
Fiscal year
1 1 1 1 1 1
Army
$1,305
Air Force
s879
1,086 1,345 1,613 2,097
Marnes
$265 395 389
Navy
$1,755
492
499
7,814
9,589
10,091
998 999
2,289 1,443
1,807
788
860 980 879 580 $6,127
2000 2001
3,587
3,221
2002
2003
1,192 1,322
$15,073
16
2,860
2,478
$28,248
30
Total
Percent
$45,s4s
48
Page 30
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Appendix III
Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct were separated within I.5 years of entering military service (approximately periods 1-3 in table 5). The firstand second periods on the table correspond to different phases of enlisted personnel training: recruit training (Period 1) and advanced individual training (Period 2), when a servicemember is initially trained in an occupation. The exact number of days in each period varies by service.r
Iable 5: lndividuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected lntervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003
Number
Period 1: Service
Marine Corps
Period 3:
365
Army
Navy
3,241
2,915
2,303 1,458
16
964 1,747
19
1,037
1'l
2,662
2,335
9,239 100
Percenf
Period 1: recruit Servce
Marine Corps Navy
Period 2:
traning
individual
advanced training
10
Period 3:
365
Period 5:
subsequent periods
18
101
100 13
Air Force
Note: The Data Center has length-of-service data for 9,239 of the 9,488 servicemembers who were separated for homosexual conduct during the 1o-year period. aPercents may not add to '100 because of rounding-
Period l, recruit training, includes the following intervals for each of the services: Marines, to 84 days; Amy, 0 to 63 days; Navy, 0 to 56 days; and Air Force, 0 to 42 days. Period 2, the average time for advanced individual training (100 days), inciudes the following intervals for
0
each
85
to
to
to
Air Force, 43 to 143 days. Period 3 spans I year from the end of the advanced individual training period, and period 4 spans I year from the end of period 3. Period 5 includes aII
subsequent time periods,
Page 31
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Most servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who had critical occupations were separated within 2.5 years of entering the military. Tlvo and a half yu*s cot"sponds approximately to the end of the 4th period in table 6.
6: lndividuals with Critical Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected lntervals, Fiscal Years 1994 lhrough 2003
Table Number Period 1: Service
Marine Corps
training
21
recruit
Period 2:
individualiraining tr I
advanced i
19
Period 4:
365
next
Period 5:
Total
Army
Navy
164
102
Jr)
207
OJ
445
'142
Air Force
Total number
Percent
21
30
216
29
176
,5
312
41
755
100
Percenf
Period 1: Service
Marine Corps
training
13
recruit
Period 2:
advanced
25
12
<1
individual
training
Period 4:
365
next
Period 5:
Army
Navy
101
Air Force
99
Pag,e 32
GAO-0-299
Military Personnel
Most servicemembrs',w.ho had intelligence-related occupations were separated for homosexual conduct within approximately 2.5 years of entering military service. TWo and a haf years corresponds approximately to the end of the 4th period as shown in tble 7.
Table 7: lndividuals with lntelligence-Related Occupations Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected lntervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Number
Period 1:
Service
Marine Corps
training
,)
recruit
Period 2: advanced
Peripd 3:
365
individualtraining
23
days
14
nelrt
84 84 33
Period 5t
subsequent periods
20
o
Total
48
Army
Navy Air Force
43 74 39
129
69
Total number
Percent
32
27
215
29 Percentu
176
24
280
38
730
1
00"
Period 1: Service
Marine Corps
Period 5:
subsequent perods
42 25 45 100
101 101
29 20 26 27
Army
Navy
Air Force
48
100
Page
93
a'
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Length of Service of Separated Servicemembers Who Had Important Foreign Language Skills
The same pattern is true for servicemembers separated for homosexual conduct who were trained in an important language. Most servicemembers were separated by the end of the 4th period-or approximately 2.5 years
aJter entering military
B.
Table 8: lndividuals with Training in Important Languages Separated for Homosexual Conduct during Selected lntervals, Fiscal Years 1994 through 2003 Number
Period 1:
Service
Marine Corps Army Navy Air Force
training
recruit
Period 2: advanced
individualtraining
Period 4:
365
days
28
next
Period 5: subsequenl
periods
28
12
Total
79 35 85
14
32
Total number
Percent
62 30
67
J
74
36
205
100
Percenf
Period 1:
Service
Marine Corps Army Navy Air Force
training
recruil
Period 2:
advanced
individualtraining
Period 4:
365
days
50
35 26 32
next
Period 5: subsequent
periods
JJ
29 40 28
Sourcesi Defenss Manpower Dala Cenler (dala); GAO (analysis).
35 34 38
Page 34
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
A sample of occupations eligible to receive a selective reenlistment bonus is shown in table 9. Because each service's designation of critical occupations changes annually, the column on the far right of the table shows the number of times from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003 that an occupation appeared on the military seryices' "top ten" list of
critical occupations.
Table
9:
Service Army
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective reenlstment bonus
Satellite Communications Systems Operator-Maintainer Navy Signal lntelligence Analyst (Chinese/Korean) Aviation Structural Mechanic (Equipment) Aviation Structural Mechanic (Structural)
Cryptologic Technician (Technical) Data Processing Technician Electrician's Mate (Nuclear Field) Fire Control Technician Machinist's Mate (Nuclear Field) Mineman Missile Technician Operations Specialist
Page 35
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Service
Air
Total number of years in which the occupation received a selective reenlistment bonus
10
Force
ator
Marines
Aircraft Flight Engineer, KC-130 Electronic Swilching Equipment Technician Ground Mobile Forces Satellite Communications Technician Air Command and Control Electronics Operator
Computer Technician
Consolidated Automatic Support System Technician Cryptologic Linguist, Arabic Sudace Air Defense Systems Acquisition Technician
Technical Controller
Aircraft Navigation Systems Technician ldentification Friend or Foe/Radar/Tactical Air Navigaiion Computer System Technician, Honeywell Data Processing System 6 Counterintelligence Marine Cryptologic Linguist, Korean Cryptologic Linguist, Spanish
Field Artillery Radar Operator
I
nterrogation-Translation Specialist
Weather Forecaster
Sourcesr Seryco-submilted budgel juslilicalon (dala); GAO (analyss).
Page 36
GAO-05-299
Military Personne
Appendix
III
Service
Marine
Occupation
Air Command and Control Electronics Operator
Corps
Airborne Radio Operator/Loadmasler Counterintelligence Marine Cryptologic Linguist, Arabic Cryptologic Linguist, Korean Cryptologic Linguisi, Persian, Semitic Cryptologic Linguist, Spanish
Fleet Satellite Communications Terminal Operator
lntelligence Specialist
I
nterrogalion-Translation Specialist
I
Navy
Air Traffic Controller Aviation Antisubmarine Warfare Operator Cryptologic Technician (Collection)
Cryplologic Technician
(l
nterpretative)
Cryptologic Technician (Technical) Electronic Warfare Technician Operations Specialist Radioman, Surface Walare
Sourcesr DOD (dara)i GAO (analysis).
Tables l1 and 12 describe characteristics ofthe language speakers in the popuation of those separated for homosexual conduct from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, as reported by the Data Center. The table Iists the median proficiency level for all speakers of each language. DOD's language proficiency scale includes 11 possible values, ranging from 00 to as high as 50.2 In tables 11 and 12, the median proficiency is the middle value if all proficiency scores for students in that language are placed in numerical order.
2 DOD's language prohciency scale is as follows: 00-no proficiency; 06-memorized prohciency; l0-elementary proficiency; l6-elementary proirciency, plus; 20-limited working prohciency; 2G-limited working prohciency, plus; 30-general professiona proficiency, plus; 36-general professioni proficiency plus; 4O-advanced professiona proficiency; 46-advanced professional profi ciency, plw; and 5O-functionally native
profciency.
Page 38
Tvo tables are provided rather than one becatse the service-provided data
set contains an unknown mixture of self-assessed and Defense Language Proficiency Test data. For the language institute-trained population of language speakers,.however, all proficiency data resulted from tests. Note the high percentages of service members in both groups without a reported proficiency score; individuals with no dat available are included as those without any recorded proficiency in speaking, Iistening, or reading. This means that the Data Center did not have any in-formation from any source on the servicemembers' ability to use their reported language.
Table
'1994
11 : Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels for lndividuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year through Fiscal Year 2003 Who Were Trained in a Language at the Defense Language lnstitute
Median
servicemembers
54
proficiency
20
o
20
3'
26 20 N/A 1 (50)
50 42
20 20 26 26 26 26 20
25 (50)
7 (78) 17 (40)
4 (50)
I (35)
1 (50)
2't6
Sources Delense Manpower Dala Center (dala); GAO (analysis)
111 (s1)
Page 39
Table 12: Languages Spoken by and Proficiency Levels:for lndividuals Separated for Homosexual Conduct from Fiscal Year 1994 through Fiscal Year 2003, as Beported through Service Personnel Files Number (and percent) of Language
Achinese Amashi
20 30 N/A N/A 26
2 (40)
1 (50)
(1
00)
1 (100)
4 (31) 2 (20)
to
50 26 30 50
10
German, Bavarian
Haitian, Creole Hungarian
2 (100)
1 (20) 1 (20)
lndonesian
Italian
Japanese
Korean OId High German Persian, lranian (includes
Farsi)
'' 20',
1ri
2 (40)
(1
00)
1 (100)
Polish
1 (100)
1 (100)
Portuguese, Brazilian
Fussian Serbo-Croatian Spanish Spanish, American
1(11)
18 (36)
3 (33) 30 (60)
20 30
6 (10)
4 (7)
Spanish, Castilian
Spanish, Creole
20
30
Page 40
G,O-06-299
Miitary Personnel
,
Total number of Language
Tagalog Urdu
reported
prof iciencyu
1
servicemembers
proficiency
50 50 50
(12\
190
Sourcesr Delense Nanpower Data Center (data); GAO (analysis).
46 (3s)
57 (30)
Nole: N/A = not available "lndividuals received lhree separate proficiency scores: one in reading, one in lislening, and one in speaking. lf any one of these three scores indicated that the indvidual was tested but had no proficiency, the.,individuAl is counted in the "no proficiency" column. Likewise, if one of the three scores was not availabl, the individual is listed in the "no data available" column.
Pge 4L
GAO-O-299
Military Personnel
Appendix IV
PEBNNEL AN
REAOIN5
FEB 7
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft report,
'MILITARY PERSONNEL: Financial Cost and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DoD's
Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot be Completely Estimated,' dated January 26,2005 (GAO Code 350496iG4O-05-299);' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO daft. As you have noted in yourreport, the discharges due to the DoD Homosexual Conduct Policy that implements Federal statute represent only about 0.37 percent of the members separated for all reasons during this period. We believe it is imPortant to recognize the low discharge rate under this policy and, for comparison purposes, provide the following chart comparing discharges under this policy with other unprogrammed separations for this period.
Separatlon Reason
20N 2643
3114 3756
Tottls
9501 26r46 36513
Homosexuality
Prognancy
885 770
weight
Standards 4033 5061 4782 M36 4309 3458 2558 2238 2524
1690 1817 2088 1872 21Qz 27Q2 23/'5 17a5 1768
524Q
SerlousOffsnses 5592 4934 4859 4377 3476 3103 2805 2535 2741
38t78
20527 59098
Parenthood
DrugOffensesrusq
53475368 58225269
I have attached technical cornments on the content of the report. Please note that the number of discharges you identify by year does not match the official Department of Defense number maintained by the Defense Manpower Data Center that was provided in the course of your review. A copy of our official numbers is also attached.
Page 42
GAO-05-299
Military Personnel
Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Defense
The Department of Defense seeks to implement the Federal statufe concerning homosexual conduct in the military in a fair manner, treating every service member with dignity and respect. Thank you again fon{re opportunity to review your eport.
,i"
,:
/-hr*'l
r; t4r7_.
-/------
(350496)
Page 43
GAO-05'299
Military Personnel
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its corstitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people, GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyes, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability,
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
S. Government Accountability Offi ce 441 G Street NW, Room LM
U.
;*?' iilli..:.T
Contact:
Web site; www. gao.gov/fraudnelfraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 5124400
IJ.S. Government Accountabiity Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Congressional Relations
Washington, D.C.'20548
Managin g Dire ctor, And ers onP I @ gao. g ov (202) Pan-l AnderEon, ', J ,l
5 LZ
Public Affairs
4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.20548
PRTNTED
o"
&
RE'Y'LED
PAPER
Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
: 'i
ZGBY INTERNATIONAL
Submitted by: Zogby International John Zogby, President and CEO John Bruce, Vice President and Systems Administrator Rebecca Wittman, Vice President and Managing Editor
December, 2006
Table Of Contents
Subiect
Page
L
IL
Tables
1. Intra-Unit Leadership And Cooperation
12
2. Impact Of Gay/Lesbian Presence On Unit Morale 3. Assumed Impact Of Gay/Lesbian Presence On Unit Morale 4. Argurnents For Keeping Gays/Lesbians From Serving 5. Arguments For Allowing Gays/Lesbians To Serve
17
l8
23 24
CSSMM
Page
Zogby International
Characteristics
Zogby International conducted online interviews of 545 U.S. Military Personnel who have served in lraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel. The online poll ran from 10124106 through 10126106. The rnargin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups, Slight weights were added to age and race to more accurately reflect the population. Data used in weighting was obtained from official Department of Defense (DOD) resources. The panel used for this survey is composed of over I million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles. The panel uses a double opt-in format through an invitation only method. Panelists are sourced through a variety of ommercial enterprises and all recruitment methodologies fully comply with CASRO guidelines. Each panelist is defined by over 400 variables, therefore making the panel highly segmented and fully representative of the US and military population.
CSSMM
Page 2
Zogby International
rWW
Sample size
'ffiffi
South
54s YWWffiffiffi
100 43
West Veteran
r!
WWW 123
Wffi WffiW 356
88
223
24
t6
rffi"#ffitr#siffi!fr1ffifi
Air Force
Marines
w#l,,fffi;ffi r60
'ffi,r,*lti!,i:h
29
'wffiffip.?,iww
3s7
wffi'ffiffi
1
{W^fW"f$WWt{W
age
62
rWW '
B
WWffiW,ffi -' 6
t2
I
41
lack/African American
. W
,
American Indian/Alaska
Native
WWfi,ffiWW
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
WW W'W
28
wffilw!##lw,,
Christ
,ffiM
WWffiW,W,ffi,r,,i 4 22
WIW''{W
CSSMM
Page 3
Zogby International
Jewish
Methodist
ffiW
6 265 5l Adventist 1
TffiW'##'YW"'FW
WTffiWWWffi
Muslim
?.
w#ffiffiffiffi 1l
2 ,ffiW,ffiI.WW:
WlKWffi f{ffi
'
W{!trffiW
101 103
Independent/l\4 inor party 22
ffiWWW t
Did not answer parfy
Female
WtW'#Wffi,ffi 68 'ffiffif,#f,WWffi.,#'W,Wffi,',.#j j l5 80
* Numbers have been rounded to the nearest percent and might not total 100.
w,rffi,#wffi,ffffi,www.ffi-w
CSSMM
Page 4
Zogby International
Population Within Service Unit By interviewing military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (both those who have served and are serving currently), we were able to capture a snapshot of the current military environment with respect to this issue. Our survey included respondents from all service branches as wellas Active Dufy Personnel, Veterans and Reservists. The sample also included cornbat and non-combat units as well as enlisted men and officers.
The overall aftitude of these service members was optimistic. Large majorities report being well-trained, well-equipped and battle ready. Additionally, most respondents believe that their leadership (both Non-Commissioned Officers and Commissioned Officers) was excellent and they report feeling a high level of teamwork exists within their unit. Regarding the presence of gays and lesbians in their units, a near majoriTy (45%) states that They suspecl a member of their unit is homosexual. Roughly one-third (31%) does not suspect a member of their unit. Higher rates of suspicion were found among Reservists (60%), Navy Personnel (59%) and Females (56%). The lowest rates were found among Air Force Personnel (38%) and Officers (33%). When asked how many unit members they suspected, two-thirds of respondents (68%) said less than three.
Respondents were also asked if the knew of any members within their unit who were gay or lesbian. Here, less than one quarter (23%) said they were definitely aware. Of those who were, three-in-five (59%) report having been directly told by the individual. When asked how many they ltew within their unit, the vast majority (75%) reported knowing two or less. A majority (55%) also notes that the presence of gays and lesbians is well-known within their unit.
Opinions On Homosexualify
Asked whether they agree that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military, respondents were closely split with a plurality (37%) disagreeing with the idea,
and 26 percent agreeing they should be allowed.
CSSMM
Page 5
Zogby International
Of those agreeing with their inclusion, certain demographic groups represented higher than average supporl. Among those were Independents, African-Americans, Women, those aged 25-34, and Women. These subgroups were largely more supportive of gays and lesbians in every question, with Democrats and Hispanics also frequently representing more open views toward gays in the military.
Within military subgroups, veterans and those having served less than 4 years were also more likely to support the idea of inclusion within the military, while Active Duty Personnel, Officers, and those having served l5 or more years were less likely to agree, There was slight variance among service branches, and this variance has been
noted where applicable.
Three-quafters of those surveyed stated that they felt comfortable around gays and Iesbians and four-in-five (78%) noted that they would join the military regardless of their open inclusion. Additionally, a majority (52%) reports having received some form of anti-gay harassment training, with Air Force personnel representing the highest level of training (62%) and the Marine Corps the lowest (34%).
Perceived Impact
Of those who were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, twothirds did not believe that their presence created an impact on either their personal morale (66%) or the morale of their unt (64%). Approximately one-quarter of that group believed there to be a negative irnpact to both.
"
In contrast, of those who do not suspect the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit, only half (49%) perceive no impact on personal morale, and only less than oneIhrd (26%) feel there would be no irnpact on their unit's morale. Regarding their unit's morale, a majority of this group (58%) believes if there were gays or lesbians within their unit, there would be a negative impact. Given a set of arguments both for and against allowing gays in the military, respondents were asked to choose those that were the strongest. The most widely selected arguments for keeping gays and lesbians from serving centered on the threat of their presence undermining the unit (40%) or the threat of harm befalling them (28%).
When given the arguments in support of allowing their inclusion, the two most selected arguments were the irrelevance of sexual orientation to job performance (39%) and the morality of discriminating based on sexual orientation (30%). Additionally, onein-five respondents (21%) believed there to be no strong arguments for the exclusion of homosexuals, while one-in-five (19%) believe there to be no strong arguments in their favor.
CSSMM
Page 6
Zogby International
Overall, this survey paints a mixed picture for the future of gays and lesbians in the military, While overwhelming majorities of those responding display tolerance and understanding of the rights and issues involved in the argument, there are still large obstacles that must be overcome.
CSSMM
PageT
Zogby International
CSSMM
Page
Zogby International
l.
I/hat is
'sw
Veteran Reserve/Guard, mobi I ized
as Active
Wffi
16
A majority of those surveyed (65%) indicated that they were currently classified Duty. Almost one-in-five (19%) identified themselves as being in the Reserves l3 percent non-mobilized, 6 percent mobilized. The reaming l6 percent noted their
status as Veterans.
2. In which branch of the military do you serve? (Vets: did you serve?)
Wff
'#fi#'W'#j'#ffi,
Air Force
Marines
29
'Wffi"-i-#1ffirffi'W
Respondents serving (or having served) in the Army composed almost half (46%) of the sample size. Three-in-ten (29%) noted their service in the Air Force, with another l7 percent affiliated or having been affiliated with the Navy. The remaining respondents were either members of the Marines (7%) or the Coast Guard (1%).
3. (Veerns only) How many years ago did you leave the service?
#tffi|'wffi
r'ffiffi?fuffi
Four Two
24
'{ffiffiffiffi
More than fwo-in-three veteran respondents (59%) stated that they had left the military within the past two years. The remaining 42 percent left within the past fve years. All took part in operations in either Iraq and/or Afghanistan or were involved in combat support operafions related to those two operations,
CSSMM
Page 9
Zogby International
4. Hotp many years have you served in the U.S. ntilitary? (Vets: How many years did you serve in lhe U.S. military?)
W
Four
9
ffiffi
8
W,
?ffiffiMffi W
Roughly one+hird (32%) of those surveyed have (or did) serve 5 or fewer years. More than a quarter served between either 6 to l0 years (28%) or between 1 I to 20 years (27%). Little more than one-in-ten (12%) served longer than 20 years.
l1 to 20
27
o1
-08
3l
{Mffi"Y''##},
Nearly two thirds of respondents (66%) achieved their highest rank as an enlisted man/woman. An additionalthird (31%) reached their highest rank as an officer, with the remaining 3 percent identif,ing themselves as warrant officers.
The following are queslions aboul your curuenl unit. If you jusl aruived at a new unil, please ansu,erfor your last uni. (Vets: First we'd like to usk some questions about the last unit you served in.)
6. Is your unil a combal, combal-suppor, or combal service support unit? (Vets: llos the lust unit in which you served combal, combat-support, or combt service support anit?)
'.WW
fffi'ffir
Other Combat support
32
t9
'ffiffifi#.ffi,ffiwffiww
Nearly equivalent numbers of respondents were currently in (or had last been in) combat units (29%) and combat support vnits (32%). A slightly smaller number, one-infive (18%), listed their current or last unit as a designated combat service supporl unit,
CSSMM
Page 10
Zogby International
The remaining respondents were either in units under another designation (19%) or were unsure about their unit's designation (2%).
Among service branches, more than one-third of respondents from the Navy (39%) and the Army (34%) classifed their units as combat units. A little fewer than onein-five of those surveyed (19%) from both the Air Force and the Marines listed themselves as part of combat units. Air Force members were more likely to be part of units designated as combat support (39%) than under any other designation, Similarly, respondents from the Marine Corps were most likely to be in combat service support designated vnils (42%) than in any other such designated unit,
7. How would you rate your unit's level of trainingfor its u,artime nti,ssion? (Vets: How would you rte lour unit's level of training for its wrtime mission? If it varied, think generolly about tlte lst year you served in it.)
'Wffi,ffrffi,I\fffi,{,ffiffiffi
ffi
Welltrained
39
Wffiffi
J 'W trelap
1
Poorly trained
Below Average
The overwhelming majority of survey respondents (83%) rate their current or former unit as well or very welltrained, Only one-in-fwenty (4%) list their unit as being poorly or very poorly trained for their wartime mission. When viewed by service branches, some disparities emerge. Among Air Force and Marine respondents, nine-in-ten (89 and 90 percent, respectively) rate their unit as having above adequate training. On the other hand, four-in-fve (80%) of Army and Navy respondents each lists their units as above average. The only subgroup that presents a below average rating above 5 percent are Reservists, whose net below average rating is 8 percent. Across Veterans, Active Duty Personnel, Enlisted men and Officers, these ratings hold within the sample error.
CSSMM
Page I I
Zogby International
8. How would you rate the equipment your unil has for its warlime ntission? (Vets: How would you rste the equipment your unit had for its wrtime mission? Consider overll the lst yer you served.)
Well equipped
Poorly equipped
Not sure
W W W
39 7
I
Below Average
Three-out-of-five survey respondenls (62%) rated their unit's equipment as well equipped (39%) or very well equipped (23%). Less than one-in-ten (9%) rated their equipment for their waime mission as below average, The remaining respondents either stated that their unit was adequately equipped (28%) or were uncertain ( I %). Within the service branches, respondents from the Air Force rated their unit's equipment readiness the highest (76%), while members of Army gave their unit's the lowest rating (53%). Approximately three-in-five respondents in both the Navy (61%) and the Marine Corps (62%) designated their units as having an above average equipment
readiness,
Only the Arrny and Navy had below average ratings - 13 and l2 percent, respectively. Among other signifcant subgroups, the highest above average rating emerged from officers (73o/o), while the highest below average rating came from reservists (17%).
would you rate the rediness of your last generally about tlte last yer you served.)
for
How
w.ffiffi'ffiffi
WffiW Low
Not sure
High
39
'ffi,Wffie\#M
Below
Average
Three-in-four respondenls (79%) rated their unit's overall readiness as above average, with only 4 percent designating their unit as below average. Members of three service branches - the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps - rated their readiness higher than the overall above average rating, with 82 percent, 86 percent and 90 percent respectively. Slightly less than three quarters of Army respondents (73%) rated their units
the same.
CSSMM
Page 12
Zogby International
Among other sub groups, only Officers (85%) and Active Duty Personnel (82%) gave their units higher ratings than the overall average. The overall results held across all other subgroups.
l0
Table
rhefollowing stalenzents?
l. Intra-unit Leadership
and C
tion
##.4.gffi
rs.s99t[.i;
The NCOs in my unit are good leaders. (Vets: The NCOs in my last unit were good leaders,) 85 36
ffi
49
11
<I
The officers in my unit are good leaders. (Vets: The offcers in rny last unit were good leaders.)
W
72
25
W
47
19
Both Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and Commissioned Officers received high marks for leadership. NCOs did fare better in the overall ratings, as more than fourin-five respondents (85%) agreed that their NCOs were good leaders. Among Marine Corps respondents, agreement reached almost complete unanimity (95%), while among Army service members that rate dropped to 82 percent. When asked about their officers, more than two-in-three (72%) agreed that they were good leaders, Navy members were far less likely to believe that their officers were good leaders, as just over half (58%) agreed with that statement. Again, Marine Corps respondents gave their officers the highest vote of confidence among service groups, with almost all (93%) agreeing their officers were good leaders,
Four-in-five survey respondents (82%) agreed with the statement that there is a lot of teamwork and cooperation in their unit. Four subgroups had higher agreement rates with the statement - Active Duty Personnel (86%o), Officers (87%), the Air Force (88%) and the Marine Corps (92%). All other subgroups were within the sampling error.
CSSMM
Page 13
Zogby International
13. Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians lo serve openly in the military?
.ffi"ffi
Agree
Disagree
7rffi
l6
5
l7
WW
37
W Disagree
Not sure
Slightly more than one-in-three respondents (37%) disagree that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, while almost three-in-ten (28%) believe they should. Of those remaining, an almost equivalent amount holds a neutral opinion (32%), while just 5 percent are unsure.
Along political lines, Democrats and Independents,Moderates (lndependents) are far more likely to agree with the statement. One-in-three Democrats (35%) and Independents (36%) hold this opinion, while only one-in-five Republicans (22%) holds the same. One-quarter of Democrafs (28%) disagreed with the statement, while Independents (41%) held close to the overall average, and almost half of Republicans (45%) expressed their d i sagreement. A further divide was present along racial lines, as Whites (26%) and Hispanics (26%) held to the average agreement rate, while more than a third of African-Americans (37%) agreed, Only one-in-fve Hispanics (17%) and a quarter of African-Americans (28%) disagreed with the statement, but among Whites the rate rose to more than two-infour (43%).
There also exists a gender divide with women far more likely than men to express agreement with the idea of gays and lesbians in the military. Four-in-nine women Qa%) believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve, while more than a quarter of women (27%) disagree. Among men, the rates are almost reciprocal with a quarter of men (24%) expressing agreement and two-in-five (40%) voicing their disapproval. The only remaining non-military subgroup results to display signifcant findings were the disapproval rates among Baptists (41%), those befween the age 35-54 (46%), and those living in both the Central/Great Lakes (45%) and Western U.S. (48%). Among Easterners, the rates were highly favorable toward the statement with more than two-in-five (39%) agreeing and less than one-in-five (15%) disagreeing.
Within military subgroups, the highest agreement rates were found among Veterans (35%) and those having served less than four years (37%). The lowest acceptance rates were among Active Dufy Personnel (23o/o), officers (23%), those serving between 10 and l4 years (22%) and those serving more than 20 (19%). Active Duty Personnel were also among those with the highest disapproval rares (39%o), as were those
CSSMM
Page 14
Zogby International
l5 and l9
Among the service branches, the Army had the lowest agreement rate - less than - as compared with the Marine Corps (25%), The Air Force (29%o) and the Navy (31%). The highest disapproval ratings were found amongst the Air Force (40%) and the Army (37%), followed closely by the Navy (33%) and the Marine Corps (32%).
a quarter (23%)
14. In your unit, are there people you suspecl are gay or lesbiqn, but don'l lvtow for sure? (Vets: In your lst unit, were there people you suspected were gy or lesbin, but dicln't knowfor sure?)
ffi:ffiWffiWW No 3l
y#fiffiffi,ffi#f&
Almost half of all service members (45%) stated that they suspect there are members of their unit who are gay or lesbian. Three-in-ten (31%) said they did not suspect a unit member, while a quarter of all respondents (25%) said they were unsure.
Females were much more likely than males to suspect a member of their unit, with nearly three-in-five females (56%) believing a member of their unit to be gay or lesbian, while little more than two-in-five (43%) males held the same belief.
Three-in-five Reservists (60%) and more than half of all Veterans (54%) responded that they suspected a member of their unit, as opposed to approximately twoin-five (38%) active duty personnel. Higher than average rates were also found among Enlisted men (50%), Marines (51%) and Navy Personnel (59%). Roughly two-in-five members of the Air Force (38%) and the Army (43%) suspected members of their unit, as did only one-third (33%) of officers.
I 5. (Asked only of those who suspect gays/lesbins in their unit.) How many people do yott suspect qre g,ay or lesbian'? (Vets: How many people did you suspect were gay or lesbin?)
Two
26
12
ffig#{{ffiwffi
Four
Six or
;'Ne#:"ffi#
More 9
CSSMM
Page 15
Zogby International
Of those who responded that they suspect a member of their unit is gay or lesbian, respondents were asked how many individuals they suspected. Two-thirds of respondents (68%) said they suspected three or fewer individuals in their unit were gay or lesbian. A little more than one-third (39%) suspected two or fewer unit members. The remaining fhird (32%) suspected that four or more members of their unit were gay or lesbian. These numbers held across all military subgroups.
I6. Do you know J'or certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unil? (Vets: In your lst unit, did you know for certuin that someone ws gay or lesbian?)
ffiW
No
61
i?,ffiffirruffirffi
Sixty-one percent of respondents surveyed stated that they were certain that a member of their unit was not gay or lesbian, as compared to 23 percent who were certain, Among women, nearly three-in-ten (29%) expressed certainty that a rnember of their unit was gay or lesbian, Only one-in-fve males (22%) had the same degree of confidence. When compared among service branches, those in the Navy were the most likely to be certain regarding the presence of gays and lesbians in their unit. Thirty-one percent of Navy personnel responded as such, while a quafter of Marines (26%) and those in the Army (25%) had the same level of certainty. Members of the Air Force were the least likely to be certain of a unit member's homosexuality, with only l3 percent holding this view. Enlisted men \ryere more than twice as likely as offcers to know for cerlain, with more than a quarter (27%) noting this, as opposed to the l2 percent of officers.
(Questions I7-21 were asked only of those who knowfor certain thut someone in their unit is gy/lesbian.)
I7. Hotu many people do you know for certain are 4ay or lesbian? (Vets: How mny people did you hnow for certain were gJ) or lesbin?)
''f:il&ffir.ssg,&
Two
38
't#8f.,9ffiFffi'ffitrffi ,r*tWW,,"#&$W
Six or More
5
Four
Three quarters of respondents (75%) who were certain about the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit knew of two or less people. Fourteen percent were aware of three members, while a further 10 percent knew of four or more. Among males, more
CSSMM
Page 16
Zogby International
than two-in-five (42%) were a\.vare of only one individual. Females, on the other hand, were less likely to know ofjust one individual ( l 7Vo),bu| much more likely to know of the presence of four or more (37%). Only 4 percent of males were aware of four or more within their unit.
I8. How
do you know
for certain?)
(Choose
all
tht apply.)
f&ffi#
I
observed the person being romantic with someone of the same sex
W ,W
32
Wffi,&fffr#t{
Other
'fffiffi
z4
12
A majority of those who know about a unit member being gay or lesbian (59%) report as to having been made aware by the individual themselves. Additionally, a third (32%) say that they were told by another person. One quafter also repoft their certainty as being based either on the person's behavior (25%) and/or having observed the person engaged in homosexually romantic activity (24%).
When broken down by gender, women were more likely than men to have been told by the individual (74 percent to 55 percent). Men, on the other hand, were twice as likely than women to have been told by another individual (36 percent to 17 percent), Enlisted men were also twice as likely as officers to have been told by the individual themselves (63% fo 30%).
19. Is the presence of gays or lesbians in lhe unit well-lrnotun by others? (Vels: Ws the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit well-known by others?)
*###PffiW6fZt
25
ffiffirffiffiffi
More than half (55%) of those knowing with certainty about the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit state that such a presence is well known by others. More than a quarter (25%) claim that the presence is not well-known. Benveen males and females, males are more likely to agree that the presence of gays and lesbians within the unit is well known (56%), while less than half of women (47%) report the same. The overall averages hold constant across all other subgroups.
CSSMM
Page
l7
Zogby International
20. How does lhe presence of gays or lesbians in your unil impact your pq;-Qnglmorale? (Vets: How did the presence of gays or lesbians in your lsst unit impact your personl
morale?) 2l. How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your unit's overall morale? (Vets: How did the presence of gays or lesbians in your lust unif impact your unit's overall morale?) (AIl responses skip to 24)
Table 2. Im
ww{ffiffiffi
Not sure
Very negative impact Somewhat negative impact No impact Somewhat positive impact Very positive impact
cd#$.-l#ffiW KoJe-qle*m9-ryiQr I 8
z0
t9
66 64 11 42 'wffi.i,ffi!-Y,ffiffiw
t6
When those who were certain of the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit were asked what impact this presence had on both their personal morale and their unit's morale, responses were consistent across the board. Roughly one quarler of all respondents said that the presence of gays or lesbians had a negative impact on either their personal morale (28%) or their unit's morale (27%). The overwhelming majority of respondents stated their belief that the presence of gays or lesbians had little or no impact on either. Less than one out of every ten respondents noted a positive impact with personal morale (6%) or their unit's morale (3%). Men were twice as likely as women to view gays and lesbians within their unit as having a negative irnpact on personal morale. Three-in-ten men (31%) voiced this opinion, while only one-in-ten women (14%) did the same. Eleven percent of women noted a positive impact created by gays and lesbians, as compared to 4 percent of men. Among other subgroups, the only significant variation was found with Active Dufy Personnel, of whom more than a third (36%) listed a negative impact on personal morale created by gays and lesbians within the unit.
Opinions regarding the impact on the unit's morale were even more consistent. Here, the only signifcant variations were found among women l0 percent of whom believe in a positive irnpact of unit morale. This is starkly contrasted by the I percent of men who hold the same belief. Among Active Duty Personnel, negative impact rating is also higher than average, with one-third (33%) believing it to have a negative impact.
CSSMM
Page 18
Zogby International
(Questions 22-23 were sked only of those who do not knowfor certain that someone
of
Very negative impact Somewhat negative impact No impact Somewhat positive impact Very positive impact
I
29
t5
43
49
26
2
14
I
2
Respondents who had previously stated that they were not certain about the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit were asked about the hypothetical impact such a presence existed. The result was a higher negative impact rating than is seen among respondents who are certain of gays or lesbians in their units.
if
More than one-third (38%) of these individuals believe there would be a negative impact on personal morale, and more than half (58%) believe such presence would have a negative impact on the unit's morale. The percentage of those voicing the opinion that the presence of gays or lesbians would have no impact fell significantly from the percentages of those who are certain of gays or lesbians in their units, as did the percentage of those perceiving a positive impact.
Across the gender divide, men again saw the presence of gays and lesbians as having a more negative impact, with more than wo-in-five (42%) holding this opinion regarding personal morale, and more than three-in-five (62%) regarding the unit's morale. Only one-in-five women (22%) believed gays and lesbians in their unit would have a negative impact on their own morale, while twice that number (45%) believe in negative impact for the unit.
Older respondents were also more likely to perceive a negative impact - the highest such rating coming from those befween the ages of 35 to 54,as46 percent believe in a negative impact on personal morale and two thirds (68%) in a negative impact on the unit,
CSSMM
Page 19
Zogby International
For impact on personal morale among military subgroups, the lowest negative ratings emerged among those having served less than four years (27%) and between l0 and l4 years(29Vo), and those in theNavy (29%). In contrastthe highest negative ratings emerged from those having served between l5- l9 years (43%) or more than 20 years (49%), Officers (42%), and those in the Marine Corps (43%). All subgroup positive ratings were well within the sampling error.
The negative impact of gays and lesbians regarding unit morale also presented several significant subgroup variations. Among the service branches, personnel in the Navy (5 1%o) and Air Force (54%) have the lowest negative opinion, while the Army (61%) and the Marine Corps (69%) have the highest. The data also shows that the longer one serves in the military, the more likely they are to believe in a negative impact. Such ratings were lowest among those serving less than 4 years (50%) and highest among those serving either between 15 and I 9 years (63%) or more than 20 (68%). Two-thirds of officers (66%) also held a negative opinion, compared to 53 percent of enlisted men. Still, net negative impact ratings were above 50 percent for every subgroup.
24. Personally, hotu comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians?
'w'ffiffi
flffi"ffiffi|l'Wf&
Very Uncomfortable
Somewhat Comfortable
W
,ffi
5
uncomforrabre le
wffij
When asked whether they were comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians, three-quarters (73%) of those surveyed said they were either somewhat comfortable (44%) or very comfortable (29%). Less than one-in-five (19%) stated that were uncomfortable, and of that group, only 4 percent identified themselves as being very uncomfortable.
Comfort rates were consistent across both Democrats (73%) and Republicans (72%), but spiked among Independents (81%). Arnong Independents, very comfortable rates were the highest of any subgroup, with more than one third (37%) stating their high degree of comfort with gays and lesbians. The highest discomforf rate was found amongst Republicans - nearly a quarter of whom (24%) held this opinion.
Females were also more likely to express comfoft among gays and lesbians, as nearly nine-in-ten (88%) held this opinion, as compared to seven-in-ten males (71%). Males were three times more likely to be uncomforrable (22%) than were women (6%).
CSSMM
Page 20
Zogby International
Among other subgroups, African-American s (71%o), Catholics (78%) and those between the ages of 25-34 (7 5%) displayed the highest rates of comfort. Baptisfs (26%) and those between the ages of 18 and 24 (24%) presented the highest discomfot rates.
Within military subgroups, Veterans (81%) were more likely than Active Duty Personnel (70%) to be comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Also, more than four-in-five (85%) of those who have served befween 10 and 14 years expressed being comfortable, while two-thirds (66%) of those having served more than 20 years feel the
same.
Additionally, roughly four-in-five members of the Navy (79%) and Marine Corps (82%) stated that they felt comfortable around gays and lesbians - the highest rates among the service branches. This compared with less than three quafters of Air Force members (73%) and Army members (69%). Air Force personneldisplayed the highest discomfort rale (23o/o) of any service branch.
25. In your current unit, how often do you take showers privately, such as in a single-stall shov,er rather than an open group shower? (Vets: During the last year of your militry service, how often did you tqke sltowers privately, such s in single-sall shower rather thun on open group shower)
'r#
Usually Privately Usually Group Showers
w,$,ffi
22
W
Not sure
W
4
Just less than half of all respondents (49%) stated that they almost always shower privately. An additional fifth (23%) note that they usually shower privately, which aggregates to nearly three quarters (7l%) of service personal surveyed who at the minimum usually shower privately. A further 17 percent shower privately approxirnately half the time, leaving only 8 percent who usually or almost always shower in groups.
Women were more likely than men to shower privately, with three-ffths (61%) responding that they almost always shower privately and at least three quarters (78%) who usually do so. Less than half of all men (47Yo) said they always shower privately, and more than two-thirds (70%) at least usually do so.
Among the service branches, those in the Navy (88%) and Air Force (79%o) were most likely to at least usually shower privately. Within the Navy, almost two-thirds (64%) noted that they almost always shower privately - the highest such rate. Roughly three-in-five Army personnel (60%) and Marine Corps members (63%) report at least usually showering privately. Only 37 percent of Arrny personnel said that they always shower privately - the lowest such rate.
CSSMM
Page2l
Zogby International
26. Which of the following were important in your decision lo join the military? (Choose sll hat apply.)
Wffi
Benefits (such as retirement, health care)
Job skills/experience for a civilian Interestin g/meaningfu I work Salary/cash bonuses
job
W 5l
'ffi
44
35
62
Wffi
ffi,
Knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly Not sure
2
Wffi
I
Asked to choose which reasons were most important in their decision to join the military, an overwhelming majority of respondents (78%) stated that their decision was a product of a sense of duty and a desire to serve their country. Approximately three-infive said that their reason for joining was either for non-wage benefits (62%) or for funds for college tuition (54%).
Half noted their reasons as being either for military values (50%), Job skills and experience (51%) or for interesting and meaningful work(44%). Only 2 percent noted that the inability of gays to serve in the military was a reason behind their decision to
serve.
Piqiijt.1y"Yo.,
Probably
WffiffiffiWNO
Definitely
Yes
I : #?"/si,
ir
'ffi"ffi.i#.ffi'#ffi''wffiffi
Four-out-of-five respondents (78%) report that they would have joined the military, regardless of whether gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve. One-in-ten (10%) would not have joined if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly. Thirteen percent of respondents remain uncertain about their decision to this hypothetical.
Not
CSSMM
Page22
Zogby International
Eighty-nine percent of female respondents report they would have joined the rnilitary regardless of the presence of gays and lesbians, as compared to 77 percent of their male counterparts who hold the same opinion. All other subgroups' responses remained within the sampling error, including all military subgroups. Do you agree or disagree with rhe following statentent?
28. Contpared with my peers, I consider nryself more toleranl on the issue of hontosexuals in the ntilitary. (Vets: Compared with the peers I served with, I considered myself more tolerant on the issue of homosexusls in the military.)
"s'sLffi-Wffi#W
',t-litrit.W :d ffi f'S #ffi';ffi
Disagree
Agree
Not sure
36
Wi##iffi{,jhy
l#trffi.ffiMffi{ffi.:ftffi Disagree I I
A majority of respondents (52%) believes they are more tolerant than their peers the issue of homosexuals in the rnilitary. Only one-in-ten (ll%) feels they are less on tolerant, with 3l% claiming neutrality on the issue.
Several subgroups present significantly higher than average agreement rates, including Democrats (69%),lndependenfs (62Yo), Females (68%), Hispanics (64%) and African-Americans (55%). Conversely, male respondents and Republicans were less likely to agree that they were more tolerant than their peers, with 50 percent and 46 percent, respectively, holding that opinion.
Within military subgroups, Veterans (62%), those having served less than 4 years (62%), Marine Corps members (78%) and Navy personnel (61%) were more likely to agree that they were more tolerant than their peers. The lowest rates of agreement were found among Active Duty Personnel (29Yo), those serving between 5 and 9 years (42o/o), Air Force Personnel (48%) and Army Personnel (48%).
CSSMM
Page23
Zogby lnternational
29. 'tlhat are he strongest arguments for keeping gays from openly serving in lhe military? (Please choose up to three of the most convincing options below)
Open gays and lesbians would undermine unit cohesion Straights would not respect gay or lesbian leaders
''
ffi
40
26 22
6
ffiffi
r#ffiw
Straights should not have to share foxholes, showers, etc. with open gays and lesbians
Yig,ffffi
Gays and lesbians would increase the spread of HIV/AIDS
W
'W,&
'w#
J
Not sure
W l4
When asked to identifu which are the strongest reasons for keeping gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, the top two responses were concern for unit cohesion (40%) and for the individuals themselves (28%). The next tier of responses, each being selected by approximately one foufth of respondents, peftained to concern over the violation of moral or religious beliefs (25%),lack of respect for gay or lesbian leaders (26%), and a concern over sharing personal space (22o/o).
An almost equivalent number (21%) stated they believed there were no strono arguments for keeping gays and lesbians from serving openly.
CSSMM
Page24
Zogby International
30. What are the slrongest arguments.for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Plese choose up to three of the mest convincing options below) Lesbians to Serve
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with job performance
W
Wffi
25 36
During wartime, the armed forces need every qualifed service member regardless ofsexual orientation
W'fi:ffi
W
Gays already make valuable contributions to the military
,WTW
l7
No one should be forced to lie about who they are as a condition of military service Discharging service members for being gay undermines military readiness
Wffi
ll
'Wffi
There are no strong arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly
W
19
tW,.W
Given potential arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, the fwo most frequently selected options were that sexual orientation has no impact on job performance (360/o) and the ethical concern for discriminating based on sexual orientation (30%). The next three most selected options involved the implications for service, especially during wartime. Respondents noted that in a state of war, the military needs access to every qualified individual (25%), discharging based on sexual orientation is a waste of resources (22%) and that individuals gays already make valuable contributions to the military (17%). Nearly one-in-five (19%) of respondents stated that they believe there are no strong arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the
military.
CSSMM
Page 25
Zogby International
3I . Have you had *aining on the prevenion of anti-gay harassmenl in the past three years? (Vets: During the last three yers of your military service, did you hve any lraining on the prevention of nti-gy harssment?)
,WW
ffiW
No
37
A majority of those surveyed (52%) report having received anti-gay harassment training within the past three years. Approximately one-third (37%) say they have not received such training, while one-in-ten (11%) is not sure, Within military subgroups, Active Personnel were more Iikely than Veterans to - 56 percent compared to 44 percent. Also, 64 percent of thosehavingserved l5to l9yearsrepofthavingreceivedtraining,whilelessthanhalfof
have received such training those having served less than 4 years (47%) or between 5 and 9 years (48o/o) report the
same.
Among the service branches, the Air Force had the highest percentage of respondents having received training (62%), while those in the Army (51%), Navy (44%) and Marine Corps (34%) reported far lower levels of anti-gay harassment training.
CSSMM
Page 26
Zogby International
Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces: Did lifting the Gay Ban Undermne
Miliry Performance?
ARON BELKIN AND METISSA LEWTT
A s the number of countries that permit gay and lesbian soldiers to 1{r"ru, in the armed forces has grown over the past two decades' it
has become increasingly important to determine whether
official deci'
lead to sions to include homosexual service members in the mililary in organizational performan0e. Although most NATO counchanges tries s well as a handful of other nations allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve, there has been little empirical analysis of whether the decision to lift a gay ban influences the armed forcas' ability to pursue their there has missions. Theoretical studis have addessed this topic, but wrk on the actual consequences of a been no in-depth empiricai decision to lift a gaY ban.r in Israel is a case in point, A few scholars conducted careful studies 1993 decision to abolish restrictions the immediate aftermath of Israel's the new on gay and lesbian soldiers. Hwever, the long'term impact of poiii *ut not immediately apparent and even the most thorough of analyses is only eight pages long'2 Our rationale for considines"
"urty
AARoNBELKINisanassistanlprofessorinthepoiticalsciencedepartmentatthe UniversityofCalifomia,santaBarbara,andDirectoroftheCenterforrheStudyof in the Military. His reseach intercsls include gays in the military, civil'
Sexual lvfinorities
militaryrelations,andsocialscienccmethodology'Heisco-editorofCoun'erfariual
inuei,
j",
Universiry Press in 1996' Experiments in World Polirics, prrblished by Princcton polirical science, univeconespondence; Dr. Aaon Bclkin, Department of
MELISSALEVITisanadjunctprofessorofpoliticalscienceatSanFranciscoSlate
methods, university. Her research lnerests include Israeli polirics, suwey reseach ponducred reseach irr-lg*rion policy, In additioo toihrscholarly-'wofk, Ms 'Lcvitt has in New to, uJtn pri"ate and public,organlzarions,.including lhe cenrerfof urban ff,esearch
and
Yofk.
ii
,j r;
1 l-
pp 54l-565' ARMED FORCES & SOCIETY| Vol' 27, No' 4, Summer 2001'
I
DEFENDANT'S
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
542
ering more recent evitidnce, aicmulted in the eight years since Israel
lifte its gay ban, is that ith iis history of over half a century of continuous military engagement, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are considered to be one of the premiere fighting forces in the world, The Israeii case thus affords an opportunity to examine the impact of lifting
a
Historical Context
The Israel Defense Forces play a central role in the daily life and identity of the Israeli people.3 Since,its founding in 1948, Israel has fought five major wars, cqnducted numerous major operations against hostile neighbors, and spplied ?n,frmy of occupation in the West Bank andGazafor more than'30 years. The wide-ranging and exiensive nature of these operations has pivided tTrq or with nearly unparalleled combat experience, Israelis rely on a strong military to ensure their safety as citizens and as a nation, and the IDF has been central to the lsraeli sense of mission concerning the renewal of the Jewish homeland, Although the prestige of the IDF has declined somewhat in recent years and although it no longerplays's prorhinent a role in the nation-building process as it once did, the IDF remains an important institution in Israeli life and the boundaries between civilian and military culture "remain porous or, according to some views, virtually nonexistent."a The IDF acts as an imporrant agent of socialization for Israelis as well. Military service is mandatory for Jewish men and women at the age of 18, and it provides a common exprience for young Israelis entering adulthood, Men serve for three years and women for just under two years. While women do not serve in combat and primarily occupy support roles, in recent years they have gained greater access to a range of opportunities such as that of elite fighter pilot training. Once Israelis complete active duty, men remain in the reserves until they are 55 and
Belldn ad Levin
women serve in the reserves until they marry or turn 24, Because Israel is home to a Iarge number of imuligrants and includes people with diverse cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds, the IDF still embraces the ideals of a melting pot for many Israeli groups,s The Israeli military never has formally prohibited service by homosexuals. Because of the personnel demands of a nation continuously at war, the IDF geneially has pursued an officially inclusive conscription policy. Before 1980, however, known homosexuals usually were discharged. In 1983, the IDF for the first time officially spelled out regulations relating to homosexuality in the Manpower Division Stand-
ing Order K3 1-11-01, "Service of Homosexuals in the IDF." The regulation stated that homoseuals would not be limited in their positions or discharged from sqr.vice solely because of their sexual orientation. It did, however, proibit sexual minorities from serving in top secret and inteligence positions. The order required officers to refer suspected homosexuals to a mental health evaluation center to determine whether they were security risks and maintained sufficient "mental strength and maturity" for military service, Based upon the results of the evaluation, the Field Securiry Department could decide to do nothing, terminate the soldier's service, limit his or her deployment, or conduct an extensive security investigation. The IDF did not maintain regulations that were specific to homosexual behavior becaus military codes prohibited all sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, on military bases, as well as sexual relalionships between officers and their
subordinates
.6
"
In 1993, the IDF faced mounting opposition to its restrictive policy in the wake of the Knesset's first hearings on homosexal issues. Professor Uzi Even, chairman of Tel Aviv Uiriversity's Chemistry Department, creatpd a public sensation when he testified that he had been stripped of his rank ofofficer and barred from sensitive IDF research in the 1980s because of his sexual orientation. Even conducted highly classified military research for 15 years and. was open about his sexual orientation and therefore not at-risk for blackmail when the IDF revoked his securiry clearance,T His testimony "created a public storm-against the military and for Eveh."8 In response, tlle iDF'isiued a statement declaring that it did not discriminate again1 igays and lesbians and did not prohibir homosexuals as a $oup from sensitive assignments, Prime Minister
Rabin declared, "I don't s'ee ny reason to discriminate against homosexuals," and called for a military commine to explore the matter.e The military committee then drafted amendments to the 1983 order that officially "recogniz[ed] that homosexuals are entitled to serve in the
military as are others" and declared that sexual minorities would be judged fit for service "according to the criteria in force for all candidates for'securify seryice."r0 The amendments also shifted the assumption of security risk away from sexual minorities as a group, As a rule, placement or advancement of sexual minorities in the military would not be restricted. Cases where a possible security risk existed were to be handled on an individual basis. According to officiat olicy, gay and lesbian soldiers were to be treated thg same as their hererosexual peers.
{1
hearings and military ordeis'-rlevant to homosexual service jn the IDF. Although our footnotes,do nt Iist cirations to most of these sources, we examined 'al of tfem and included the most relevant referenccs in the article. Certainly it'is possible that we missd some
evidence, although we tried to ensure that our universe ofsources was comprehensive. For example, we asked interview subjects repeatedly to suggest additional experts from different sectors and we contacted
all suggested individuals. In our search for published evidence in English and in Hebrew we were unable to find any data indicating that lifting the gay ban undermined Israeli military performance, cohesion, readiness, or morale. In addition, none of the 35 experts we interviewed could recount any indication that the lifting of the gay bn compromised miitary effectivcness. The comments of Professor Stuart Cohen, a professor and senior research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at Ba-Ilan University, who has written military, were rypicat of
":*nr,""'1,:,i
rl,iI*tt
Belldn ad levitt
545
our findings: "As iar as I have been able to tell, homosexuals do not constitute an issue [with respect to] unit cohesion in the IDF. In fact, rhe entire subject is very marginal indeed as far as this military is concerned,"rr In a recent interview for ABC news, Israeli BrigadierGeneral Oded Ben commented tha( Israelis show "a great tolerance" wirh respect to homosexual soldieri in the military.12 Scholars, officials, NGO observers, and service merirbers interviewed for this report echoed the theme of toleranc.e,pt'ionyard by the brigadier-general,
When asked if she had bxperienced any problems because of her sexual orientation, for example, a fmale stilier who served between 1993 and 1996 stated: "I was quite amazed to find out that people either thought that my sexual orientation was 'cool' or were indifferent to it."r3 Amir Fink, the co-author of Independence Prk: The Lives of Gay Men in Israel, argues that the IDF policy changes, among larger societal changes, have resulted in a more open attitude in the military: "I believe that ,,. after the 1993 chnge in regularions tbere are more soldiers who are aware of the fact that there are gays'.in the unit and [that] they should treat them decently."te In an October 1999 article on sexual minorities in the military entitled, "Coming Out of the Kitbag," the IDF newspaper Ba'machne includes comments from seventeen'heterosexual soldiers about their attitudes about having a gay ommander,rs r#hile the responses do not constitute a representative sample of heterosexual IDF personnel, they are consistent with the results of our interviews and literature searches. Two of the seventeen soldiers (lTvo) intewiewed for the Ba'machne article felt that serving under a homosexual commander would constitute a problem for them, One soldier explained that "The ruth is it would be a bit strange for me. Not that I am primitive or homophobic, but among my friends there aren't any gays, I would try to get used to the idea and ifI did not succeed I woqlf rBqgst a transfer, I do not think that gays are less good, but jt would be h bit. difficult:or strange for me." The rest of the respondeniistaiihat,the sexual orientation of their commanding officr would noi iluil, a hiffr"nce to them. Ayah provides one example of this anitude: "I respect gays a lot, There is no problem with their service in the Army, It is none of my business if my commanding officer is gay. If he has'already decided to participate this does not have to interfere with work..." While the question posed.boud working under a gay commander did not address the issue of showering together specifically, 12 of the respondents brought up this issue as well. Three soldiers expressed some concern about sho"vering with a hoinosexual solider, although
546
they stated that in general they did not have a problem with gay soldiers. second Lieutenant Gal in Human Resources explained his feelings: "[ don't have anything against homosexuals in the army, They're citizens of Israel like you and me, The sexual orientation of the workers around me doesn't interest me, It does interest me if his output suffers from it, maybe if it bothers him and h9 needs help. I wouldn't shower with him. There are cubicles here at [the officer's training base]"'Eight of the respondents stated that they have no problems showering with sexual minorities. Dima, an officer,;exPressed the prevailing view of the respondents who brought up the issue: "They're citizens ofthe state, Iike all the other citizens. I think that even if they have a different sexual
orientation, that doesn't have anything to do with hateful feelings' I don't have a problem showering with [homosexuals]. It seems to me that
' it wouldn't be a problem," No statistics have been collected on the number of incidents of haassment of known hpmoseiual soldiers in the IDF. In 1993, in the wake of the changes in IDIpolicies toward homosexuals, the Knesset empanelled a committee to iirvestigate complaints of harassment' Uzi
Even, who was involved in'the review, stated that none of the cases had their roots in anti-gay bias,16 Brigadier-General Uri Shoham, the military's judge advocate general, reported recently that harassment because of sexual orientation is very rare and that he could remember few, if any, cases. He further stated that that he had never had to deal with harassment againstrgay troops in his career as a ririlitary lawyer' Because individual commairders generally handle harassment, however, Shoham's lack of knowledge of such cases does not mean that problems have not occurred.r? For example, a female offcer presently in the IDF told us that she experienced general accePtance from most of her superiors and peers. She said that "In the unit I serve in I have heard
added,
however, that "[r]umors (usually from the news) do show the existence of some such problems.in 'closed units' ([w]here one lives on base)'"18 Walzer uncoveed two cases of harassment of homosexual soldiers in the IDF. In one, a female former.,soldier recounted in 1997 how the mate officers on her base tried to sleep with female soldiers: "The thing was that any giri who refused got a reputation as a lesbian. And the way it was portrayed was very dirty' It's true that none of them were lesbians, but the response to them was so harshtht.I didn't dare say anything'"re Even though her comihandtii evaniuatly'dealt with the problem, the humiliating treatment'conin* nbi;i leep silent about her own sexual orientation. When told of the two examples of harassment, Brigadier-
General Shoham replied that if they were the only cases that had come to light, the mititary's policy could rb cpnsidered quite successful' In light of his research, \/:alzeq blievs that vicious harassment of sexual minorities in the IDF is rai,, ' , .' , . ' ' The IDF does not conduct any special education or sensitivity training related to sexual orientation issues' In contrast, the Israeli military provides training on sexual abuse of women and harassment of new immigrants and Mizrachim, Israelis of North African or Middle Eastern origin.20 One board niember of Agudaht Zechuyot Ha-ezrach, Israet's primary gay-rights group, expressed overall approval. of the
and
representatives of gay rights groups hbve declared that the IDF could do more to address the concerns of sexual minorities in the military and that many soldiers are not aware of official policy.z The findings that emerged from or intcrviews and literature searches consistent with brief reports on the IDF prepared by the U.S. General are Accounting Office (GAO) and the RAND corPoration in the immediate
aftermath of Israel's l99p decision to abolish restrictions ofr gay and lesbian soldiers,2? In interviews with embassy and IDF officials, active and reserve military personnel, scholars, a member of the Knesset, and personnel from the leading homosexual rights and civil rights groups in Israel, RAND and GAO researchers found that fsrael's long-standing informal inclusion of homosexuals in the military had neither created internal problems nor jeopardized combat units. Officials interviewed for the GAO report stated that'hbmokexual soldiers performed as well as heterosexual soldieis. Baed-oh ihe officials' expeiience, homosexual soldiers had no adVersely affected "unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale."?3 Security personnel noted that homosexual soldiers were able to hold security cleatances without posing an unnecessary security risk. Gal, the director of the Israeli Institute for Military Studies, affirmed the findings of'the GAO and RAND studies: "Accord' ing to military reports, fhomosexuals'] presence, whether openly or clandestinely, has not iinpaired the morale, cohesion, readiness, or security of any unit, Perhaps the bebt indication of this overall perspective is the relative smoothness with which the most recent June I993 repeal of the remaining restrictions on homosexuals was received within the IDF and in Israeli society as a whole,"2a In the context of a country. continuously at war, Iack of service is considered suspect. Unrestricted participation in the military by sexual minorities therefore serves to bolster the core Israeli value of common defense of the nation rather than to ihreaten military cohesion or morale'
,,1f i,"...,
-1
I
548
When asked if he had heard any sulgestion by military officials that known homosexuals affcted operational effectiveness' combat readiness, or unit cohesion, a board memhei of the homosexual-rights groups Agudaht Zechuyot Ha'ezrah responded: "No, I have never heard any
such nonsense,"25
: "
i
.
549
.:.
irrelevant, While no single.case,study. can show decisiveiy what would happen ifthe U,S. changed its poliy, Iqssons from the Israeli experience seem to us to be relevant for determining what would happen if the U,S. Congress and Pentagon lifted the American gay ban, In particular, we believe that the Israeli experience lends some weight to the claim rha[ American military eflectiveness would not decline if known homosexuals were allowed to serve. Known Gay and Lesbian Solders in Combat and Intelligence Units of
the
IDF
According to Professor Charles Moskos, one of the principal archiof "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," thre are no known gay and lesbian soldiers in combat or intelligence units of the IDF. l)uring testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1993, Moskos stated
tects
that known gay soldiers were not assigned to elite combat units, did not work for intelligence units, and did not hold command positions in any branch.28 In later work, Moskos reaffirmed that "gays are excluded from elite combat units, and most gleep at their own homes rather than in barracks."2e During trtro recent appearances on National Public Radio, Moskos said that there are no known gay soldiers in combat or intelligence units of the IDF.30 . 'i ,.,,
he-
many militaries, a distihctisn mustibe'rride between official IDF policy concerning sexual minoritis ail the rtialities of informal IDF practices and culture. Like the rest of Israeli society, the IDF was until recently an environment in which sexual minorities were largely invisible. Prior to the lifting of the ban in 1993, the vast majority of gay and lesbian soldiers kept their sexual orieniation private, due to fears ofboth officiai
sanctions and ostracism from fellow soldiers.3r Lesbian and gay soldiers often preferred to wait until reserve service to be more open about their sexual identity, sinie tle atmosphere was less restrictive and more conducive to a separate persnal life, Rafi Niv, a journalist who writes on gay issues, confirmed in 1993 that "Most gay soldiers I know are in the closet,"32 Even before Israel lifted it gay ban in 1993, however, some known gay and lesbian sol.diers did serve in the IDF and some were promoted through the ranks and served in positions requiring top security clearances, In 1993, for example, an Isracli military attach assigned to the embassy in Washington, DC, declaed that Israel did not have a blanket ban on homosexuals for top-secret positions.33 Gal reported in 1994 that
.;
,..'
i ,,''
i.
550
prior to the lifting of the ban, much latitude normally was given when
a seasoned
that homosexual soldiers did in fact serve openly in units with top security clearances and that soldiers who excelled were unlikely to be
removed once their sexual orientation was revealed. According to Gal, "Commanding officers, even in highly classified intelligence units, who
All available evidencei iuggsts that the IDF continues to be a place where many homosexual soldiers choose not to disclose their sexual orientatign. As more gay Israelis have grown comfortable about expressing their orientation in recent years, however, greater openness has been found in the military as well.35 A woman who decided to bring her partner to one of her base's social events in 1997 explains that ,,the
decision was preceded by consultations with my professional commander,.,.He recommended to me quite warmly not to hide my sexual orintation and promised to qupport me professionally if there were any problems following my revelation,"36 A June 2000 Israeli television broadcast thar was sanctioned by the IDF featured homosexual active-duty and reserve soldiers discussing their experiences of being gay in the military,3T Walzer found that military personnel generally reported positive resporses ro their coming out and in 1997 he spotted a soldier ,in uniform ft a gay pride march. 'When asked if appearing in uniform could cause problems with military officials, the soldier replied: "No, not at all. I can come here in uniform, The military command is accepting of [gay and lesbian soldiers],":r An officer interviewed for his report had no problems rising through the ranks as an open lesbian. When asked how everall arddes had changed since the I993 policy change, the major replied: "I have felt a change for the better, mainli in the atttudp,'of s'ecuriti' o$icers, but not as big a change (because not as big a change was needed) as it seems by the change in
army regulations."3e 'Wtrile. no bfficihi statisrics exist on the nurnber of known gay and lesbian soldirs in the IDF today, these and other sources
indicate growing openness. Even though we agree thar most homosexuals in IDF combat and intelligence units do not acknciwiedge their sexual orientation to peers, it is also true that some known gays do serve in such units. Indeed, some IDF combar and inteligence units'have dcveloped a reputation as particularly welcomingto gay and lesbian soldiers; some have even developed a gay culture, R'ei,,a tank corps soldier, reported in 1999
5rl
that "I have not had any prdr, being lay, On the contrary, in my base we had a large gay contingenf. You would come to the base, and you know one other gay person, who knows another gay person, etc., ,.In my basic training, people knew that I was gay and it was enough that there was one homophobe in my unirt.r.,After that, I had nothing to be afraid of. People come out of the closet while they are civilians, why could I not do it during the army? Sometimes, it's even easier beause you are protected from society, You don't have friends from the same town so you can be more open in the arrny."
Kaplan and Ben-Ari conducteil in-depth interviews with 21 selfidentified gay IDF combat soldiers nd found rhar five of rh em (Z3.BVo) were known to be homosexual by at least one other member in their combat unit.al If we estimate conservatively that two percent of Israel's 130,000 active duty land forces are gay! and ifwe extrapolate based on Kaplan's finding that 23.8 percenr of gay combat soldiers are known by at least one peei to be homosexual, then we can estimate that 2,600 active duty IDF foot soldiers are Eay and that 6l 9 of them are known by at least one member of their unit to be homosexual.az Even if this informal estimate is wildly exggerared, recall that opponents of lifting
the ban claim that no known gays serve in combat and intelligence units in Israel. Even in combat and intelligence units with known gay soldiers, however, we found no evidence of a deteiioration in cohesion, performane, readiness, or moralc,,Generals; ministry officials, schotars, and NGO observers all have ilairibd thar their presence has not eroded cohesion, performance, readiness, or morale.
Those who believe that low disclosure rates underscore the irreevane of foreign military experiences assume that if the American ban were lifted, man! gays and lebins would reveal their sexual orientation. This assumption sees highly qu'estionable. A considerable amount of evidence suggests that gay and lesbian soldiers in the U,S. and in Israel are driven by the same,factor: rh'by reveal their sexual orientation
only when safe to do so. With regard to Israel, Fink confirmed the impression of numerous experts who we interviewed: ',,.. I think jt really depends on the unit and on rh commanders in the specific unit. In some units it will be really a iiece of cake to come out and people [will find] it something that rnakes their unit more diverse, more
interesting,...There are other units in which especially a commander
can be a conservative or homophobic and not help the gay soldier to be part of the unit...."a3 The same calculus motivates Ainericans, For example, a study of American police departments that aliow opeu homosexuals to serve
,',
s,.,
r ;.
552
identified seven kpown gays .in the Chicago Police Department and
approximately 100 in the New York Police Department.# Several different factors may account for the vaiation in disclosure rates but scholars who have compared organizations believe that much if not most of the variance reflects the fact rhat safety is the primary determinant of Ameri-
cans' decisions to reveal sexual ori'entarion. Since safety varies from organization to organiiion depending on whether leaders express clear messages in support ofintegration, disclosurs rafes vary as well. Koegel claims that "Perhaps one of the most salient factors that influences whether homosexual police offTcers or firefighters make their sexual orientation known to their departments is their perceprion of the climate. . , [TJhe more hostile the environment, the less likely ir was that people publicly acknowledged their homosexuality."4s Similar vajance can be found in the U.S. military, and a recent study found that white 21.2 percent of naval officers know a gay sailor, only 4.1 percent of Marine officers know a gay Marine.a' Ir seems likely to us that this difference results from the fact that it is safer to reveal one's homosexuality in the U.S. Navy than in the Marines. Inrieed, at last one study has found the U.S, Navy to be more tolerant.toward homosexuals than the Marines.a? To summarize our response to the first argument, known homosexuals do not undermine cohesion and performance in Israeli combat and intelligence units. And, the facf that many gay Israeli soldiers choose not to reveal their orientation does not indicatc that the Israeli experience is irrelevant for determining what would happen if the U.S. lifted its gay ban. On the contrary, the evidence shows that both Israelis and Amerians come out of the closet only when it is safe to do so. Scholars who believe that many American gays an lesbians would revear their sexual orientation if the ban were lifted need tci dnswer two questions. First, if American culture or'ttie'nmeilaii, gay rights movemenr are primary determinants of disclosureirates, theii hy have so few homoexuals revealed their sexual orientatioir in some U.S. police and fire departments that allow known gays to serve? And second, why do the majority of gay Israeli soldiers decline to reveal their sexual orientarion despite the recent emergence of an Israeli gay rights movement that includes widely-attended pride parade5'and civic and human rights organizations? Even the Pentagon's own studies have found that gay and lesbian soldiers are as commirred to national security, patriotism, and military ffectiveness as their heterosexual peers.as To suggest that they would reveal their sexual orientation when doing so would undermine their personal safety or the effecti veness of their units seems to contradict the available evidence,
'i
Belhn ad Levin
553
Special Treatinent Experts who claim that foreign experierces are irrelevant for deter-
mining
if lifting
performance argue that although mlrny nations allow homosexuals to serve in their armed forces,', gay soldiers receive special treatment in these cases. Even if the decision to all0w known homosexuals to serve does not harm the military, the special treatment that gays and lesbians receive can undermine cohesion, performance, readiness, and morale, In lhe case of lsrael, for example, Moskos has noted that whi]e it is true that gays are expected to fulfill their military obligation, it is also true that they receive, de facto, special treatment. For example, gay soldiers are assigned to "open" bases, allowing them to commute to and from home and to sleep at their own homes rather than in barracks.ae Similar to the argument about.,lhe absence of known gays and lesbians in combat and intelligence units, we have found tat Moskos's claim about special treatment is partially conect. Some evidence suggests that prior to the 1993 decisio, the IDF treated homosexual and heterosexual soldiers equally in many cases, For example, Gal noted
that "aside from a few exceptions, "homosexuality has almost no bearing on an individual's military career,"s0 Colonel Ron Levy, a former head of the IDF mental health system, insisted that homosexuals were not discriminated against by the military as a group.sr
However, other data confirm that treatment of gays and lesbians was not always equitable before the 1993 regulatory changes.,Gal Uchovsky, a journalist who analyzed IDF tieatment of gays and lesbians, stated that "It's a question of who y'ou are and wh'ere you serve,"sz An openly gay reservist for an intelligence'unit wir ta access to top-secret material told one journalist that everyone knew that he and several other of the unit's members were gay. "It's not an issue," he said. But he added after a pause, "in my unit."53 Ilan Sheinfeld, a reserve tank crew member, reported that security officers reduced his security ranking and allegedly bugged his phone, although they did let up after he was transferred to anotherjob, Sheinfeld declared that "One hand doesn't know what the other is doing."sr No quantitative data are available on whether sexual minorities continue to face increased scrutiny foq promotions and sensitive positions. Publicly, the IDF insists that homosexual soldiers are screened for positions accrding to d s;m stnaids s hetbrosexuai soldiers. For example, Bri gadi er-Geirerai S'hohan; the j udge advocate general, stated in 1998 that the IDF accords eqal rights and duties to gay and lesbian
)x
"rile are not interested in the sexual, orientation of the soldiers."55 In support of these claim$, a oqr{ member of Israel's primary gay rights organization who wasiintqrqieryed for this report knew of no cases in which a soldier had been denied benefits, promotions, or assignments because of his or her sexual orientation,s6 A review of newspaper artiles and web sites related to lesbian and gay issues in Israel also
uncovered no stories of soldiers who were denied promotions because of their sexual orientation. Even though available information suggests that official treatment
of sexual minorities has become more equitabe since the 1993 removal of homosexual restrictions, however, it seems clear that sexual minorities do not always enjoy equal rights and that they continue to be viewed with an increased level of scrutiny by some commanders. Official differentiation still exists, if perhaps'in a more muted form. For example, the IDF negotiated the first seltlement providing survivor benefits to a same-sex partner in 1997, However, the same-sex survivor received lcss than the full monetary compensation usually given to war widows arid widowers. TVhile there are no rules against promoting gays and lesbians, a clinical psychiat'rist stated that soldiers in her care still "suspect that if they come out, they v/on't get a good position."57 Kaplan and Ben-Ari conclude that "The new policy has only partly percolated into practice. Similar to what has been found among other nations of NATO, full integration has tended to lag behind policy changes."58 Despite the lack of perfectfy.eriual dreatment in all,cases, several 'be noted. To begin, i,ve found that important qualificatioirs should unqual tretment is rare a'ind th'ar:mot lsraeli gay and lesbian soldiers are treated tike their heterosexual peers most of the time.5e Gay soldiers are assigned to open as well as closed bases and most cases of unequal treatment that we found consisted of local attempts to resolve problems flexibly rather than systematic extensions of specia rights. For example, some heterosexual soldiers are allowed to live off-base or to change units if they are having trouble with their group. And, some commanders allow heterosexusl soldiers to shower privately. When gay soldiers encounter hostility from others in their units, the issue tends to be handled as a discrete situation rther than the symptom of a systemic problem. Most importantly, we haTe not found any evidence to show that differential treatment has undermined performance, cohesion, readiness, or rnorale. Indeed, most of the experts who confirmed that Israel's decision to lift its,gay ban did not undermine performance, cohesion, readiness, or morale also confirmed that the rreatment of gays and
lesbians has not been perfectly equitable in all cases. Despite their awareness that this is true, all experts agreed that lifting the gay ban did not undermine military effectivene'S.
O
rg anizet
A third argument that experts have invoked to show that foreign military experiences are irreleyant for determining whether lifting the
gay ban would undrmine American military performance is that impor-
tant organizational and cultural differences distinguish the United States from other countries that allow known homosexuals to serve. More specifically, they argue that the U.S, military is a unique institution that cannot be equated with foreign armed forces. In addition,
unlike most other countrie!, the Ur-rited States is home to powerful gay rights groups as well as large and highly organized conservative organizations. In the case of lsrael, this argument is correct, We believe that severa] important organizational and cultural differences distinguish the Israeli and American cases. To begin, many American citizens do not regard service in the armed forces as a necessary rite of passage, In Israel, on the other hand, the prevalence of security issues and the system of naruniversal conscription have made participation in the IDF the primary rite of passage into Israeli citizenship and a necessary precondition for
consideration as a
full
confront problems involving adjustrhent to military Iife and interpersonal ielations emphasize flexibility nd,mutual accommodation. In the American armed forcesi by ontrast, the system of voluntaiy enlistment forces the military to compt with'priate sector employers who might offer more promising career options to potential recruits. Another distinction between the two cases is that Israeli society does not have a longstanding tradition of anti-gay violence or hatred of
,56
.i ; t,
homosexuals, althougii obervers'hpve spoken of "a strong heterosexist outlook, in which one is resmed io be straight."6r In the military context, IDF commanders do not use negative images of homosexuality as a motivator in basic training and they do not use the Hebrew equivalent of "faggot" to humiliate soldiers who perform poorly. While the term "homo" gets used, it is primarily employed by soldiers teasing
each other,62
Finally, unlike sexual minorities in the United States, homosxuals in Israel did not begin to develop a semi-autonomous culture or organized political movement until the late 1980s and early i990s' Walzer says that until recently, thglsraeli gay and lesbian community was not mobilized to demand its rights and that legislative victories such as the repeal of the sodomy law resulted from top-down elite action rather than grassroots political pressure. Conversely, anti-gay forces are not organized into social movements in Israel, For example, in the early 1990s GAO researchers who attempted to contact organizations that oppose homosexual participation in the military were told
that none exist.63 Despite organizational and cultural differences, we do not believe that the Israeli experience is irrelevant for determining whether American military effectiveness would suffer if known homosexuals were allowed to serve in thqU.S. armed foroes, For example, organizational structure does not seem to play an jmportant role in determining whether 'nrititary performance. No two the lifting of a gay ban ,rindeimias militaries are exactly the same and the rwenty-three armed forces that have lifted their gay bans include different organizational configurations,e Some militaries, such as the Canadian Forces, are volunteer organizations that are not central to national identity while others such as the Israel Defense Forces are conscript militaries that play a more prominent role in the nation's consciousness, In the 27 years since the Dutch military became the first to lift its ban in 1974, no countries that have decided to allw -known homsexuals to serve have reported a decrease in miiitary performancg,65 Given that organizational particutarities do not determine whether the lifting of a gay ban undermines the armed forces, the institutional difibrences that distinguish the Israeli and American militaries do not support the argument that IDF experiences are irretevant for determining what would happen if the U.S. allowed known hcimosexuals io serve. With respect to cultural differences, the Israeli public is not completely accepting of homosexuality and American society is no! completely intolerant. Under traditional Jewish law, sex between two men
f
'
557
is considered unclean, and ail983 study found Israetis to be considerably tess tolerant of homosexuality than Americans.66 Although Israeli culture has become more tolerant since 1983, religious parties continue to oppose gay rights and gay and lesbian soldiers in the IDF sontinue to serve in,the context of a machoi organizational culture that promotes a masculinity oriented to heterosexuality and bonding through jokes about women and homosexuals, r/hile Israeli commanders do not use the Hebrew equivalent qf the word "fa'ggqt,l' poor combat performance often is equated with childishneS and'femininity and ",..images of combat soldiers as masculin,e, toughland team oriented are often contrasted with stereotypes of homosexuality as characterized by effeminacy, mental illness, promiscuity, loneliness and insecurity."6? A study by Sion and Ben-Ari of the humor used in two elite combat units found thatjocularity about sexuality was explicitly heterosexual and included jokes and stories about homosexuals,6s Discussions of women and sex continue to be a uniting factor for unit personnel, even as the strong bond created in small units permits expressions of affection that would generally be avoided in all-male groups.6e Just as Israeli culture is not completely tolerant, American culture is not completely intolerant. For example, a recent Gallup poll,shows that 70 percent of Americans believe that gays should be allowqd to serve in the military, and a recent Harris poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe that known gays should be allowed to serve in the military.?o More importantty, tolerant national climates are not necessary for maintaining cohesion, readine_ss, morale, and performance after the integration of a minority group into the military, Among the twentythree nations that allow known gays and lesbians to serve, many include powerful social and political groups that oppose gay rights,Tr It would not be possible for the numerous American police and fire departments that include known homosexuals tb continue to function smoothly if a fully tolerant national'cimate'weie 'n"r.rrury fr the maintenance of organizati onal effectivenessl Wi *roi:t quating the experiences of sexual and racial minorities, the U,S.'military allowed African American soldiers to serve on an equal basis when 63 percent of the American public opposed integrtion, We do not equate the experiences of sexual and racial minorities but we do believe that the racial example shows that tolerant cultural clifnates are not necessary for maintaining organizational effectiveness when minority groups are integrated into the military. According to a recent study, "if the military services are eventually ordered to cease excluding homosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior, threy will do so quite effectively and without
: I.
\
' : t ,' ') ,',' j t
t,,
558
..
Conclusion
In our comprehensive search for published evidence and our interviews with all known experts on homosexuality in the IDF, we were not ble to find any data suggesting thatlsrael's decision to lift its gay ban undermined operational effgctiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion, or morale, In this security-conscious country, where the military is considercd to be essential to the continued existence of the nation, the decision to include sexual minorities has not harmed IDF effectiveness, In addition, although no official statistics are available for harassment rates of sexual minorities in the IDF, scholars, military officials, and iepresentatives ofgay organizations alike assert that vicious harassment is rare. Despite the facts that the majority of gay combat soldiers do not disclose their sexual orientation to peer,s, tat some gay soldiers receive
special treatment, and that important organizational and cultural differences distingui,sh the;Israeli nd American cases, we believe that the Israeli experience supports the claim hat American military effectiveness would not decline if known homosexuals were allowed to
serve,
Professor Laura Miller has argued that although straight soldiers' reactions to open gays couldl'undermine unit cohesion in the U.S, military, merely lifting the gay ban would not undermine ohesion, morale, readiness, or performance,Ta Miller, whose conclusions are based on interviews she conduted over the past ten years with thousands of American soldiers, reasons that few gays or lesbians would come out of the closet in units wher hostility and homophobia prevail, Rather, she believes that Americn gay and lesbian soldiers would disclose their sexual orientation to peers only when they believed it was safe to do so. In other words, she draws a sharp distinction between the effect of the decision to lift a gay ban and the effect of the presence of known gays and lesbians in the military. The Israeli case seems to us to confirm her distiriction,
Notes
AUTHORS' NOTE: /e are grateful to the numcrous indviduals who helped us conduct the senice ntembers, fficials, \gneously scholars, and expefls who ailow,ed ui to interuew them.'And we are very
Belldn ad Levitt
559
grateful lo three anonymow revieweri Jrom Armed Forces & Society, as well as Stuart Cohen, Eva EtionHalevy, Aeyal Gross, Danny Kaplan, Mary Kanenstein' Rurh Linn' Laura Miller, David R, Segat, and Lce lYalzer lor their helpful reactions to earlier drqfts of the manuscrpt, Most mporlantly, we thank Rhonda Evans and Jason McNichoL
l.
The longest case study on the impact.of the lifting of a gay ban is Rosemary E. Park, "Opening te Canadian Forccs to Gays and Lsbians: An Inevitable Bt lmprobable Reconfiguration," in Gays and lsbians ig the Military" lssues, Concems, and Con' trasts, eds. Wilbur J. Sott and Sandra C Stariley (Ncw York: Aldine de Cruyter, 1994), 165-181. ,{lso see thd-briefc3e studios in Gregory Hcrek, Jaed Jobe, and Ralph Camey, eds., Oul n Force: Sexuol' Orentation and the Military (Aticago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Ntional Dgfense Reseach Institute, ,Sexual Orienation and U.S, Mititary Polcy: Oiloni and Assesment (Santa Monica, CA: RND, 1993); Ceneral Accounting Office, Homoseillals in the Military: Policies and Practcs oJ Foregn Countries (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounring
Office, 1993); and Frank Pond,,'lA Comparaive Survey and Analysis of Military Policies with Regard to Service by Gay Persons," in Policy Concemng Homosexu'
D, Ray, "Miliury Necessiry & Homosexuality," in Gaysr In or Out? The I),3, Mttitary & Homosexuals-A Sourcetio,ok (Ncw York: Brassey's, 1993); Chales C, Moskos, "From Citizens' Army to Social Laboratory," Wlson Quarterly l7 (Winter 1993), 83-94r Elizabetl Kier, i'Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integra' tion and Combat Effectiveness," Inierhorional Security 23 (1998): 5-39 Robert J. MacCoun, "sexual Orientation ad Military Cohesion: A Critical Review of the Evidence," in Ou in Force,157-176.
Ronald
2,,
Reuven Gal, "Gays in the Military: Policy and Practice in the Isreli Defense Forces," in Scott and Stanley, Gys and Hsbians in the Military, I8l-189; National Defense
Resech Institute, Sexqal Orientaion and U'5, Mllitary Pocy' 85-901 General Acoounling Office, Homosexuals n he Military,38-43; Paul Gade, David Segal' and Edgar Johnson, "The Experionce of Foreign Militaies," in Out ln Force,l24-125'
3. 4. '
Israel's ground, air, and land forces inblude iiPProximately l?3,500 troops on active duty and 42i,000 on reserve. $nhony Hi Coidsman, Middle East'Mititary Balance 2000 (Washington, DC: Centgr f1 SelUnU and Intemalional Studies, 2000)' Baruch Kjmmerlng,The Inrerruted Sysrem (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1985); Reuven Gal and Sruart Cohen, "lsrael: Still Waiting in the Wings"'in 7e Postmodem Miltary: Armed Forces afer the CoId Wor, ed' Chales C. Moskos' John Allen Williami, and David Scgal (New York: Oxford University Press' 2000)' 224.For recent changes in the IDFis role in Israeli sociely, see StuartCohen"'Military Service in Israel: From Naiion-Binder to Nation-Divider?" Paper prcpared for BESA Conference on "Armed Forces in Isracl and Other Westem Democratic Societies, Bar'Ilan University,
5.
Israel does not conscript Aabs. hegnant and married women, lhose with severc handicaps, and ultra-orthopox Jews also. ae exempted from service, See Yagil Levy,
'
r!
560
'The Right to Fight: Recruitent of Homosexuals in tle U.S. and Israel," Unpublished manuscript, 2000i Amia Lieblich, Transiion ro Aduhhood During Military Sence: The Israeli Case (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989)' Clyde Haberman, "Homosexuals in Israeli Army: No Official Discrimination, But Keep It Secret," New YorkTimes,2l February I993, 14.
7.
Knesset Daily Hearings, Discriminarion and Hindrances of the A'ccepnce of Sexual Minorities in rhe IDF, l3th Kesset, 2rid Session, l0 February 1993,3202-3208.
le Walzer, Betn)een Sodom and Eden: A Gay Jouney Through Today's Changng /sraal (New York: Columbia University Prcss, 2000), ll7-l l8i Robert Block, "Gay King David Theory Starts Gotiath of a Row," The Independenl, I I February 1993, ll; The Asiocated Press, "Dcfense OfFrcial Says He Was Fired aftcr Coming Out as Homoscxual, 2 February 1993.
Amir Sumakai Fink and Jacob Press, Independence Park: The Lives of Gay Men ln /srael (Staford, CA: Stanford Universiry Press, 1999), I L
t0.
Amendments to K-3 I - | I-01 Seryce of Homosexuals in the IDF, Manpower Division Standing Orders (Israel Defens Forceq,'{993), For the English translation, see Walzer, Bctween Sodom and den, l,l8-119. Plofessor Aeyal Gross ofTel Aviv University reports in a forthcoming articls that the 1993 revisions were canceled quictly in I998, Stuart Cohen, Personal communication, l0 April 2000,
ll.
12. Chales Gibson, anchor, 'iU.S. Strugglint with Issue of Gays in the Military," ,48C :. , Nelrs, 9 March 2000.
13.
i+.
15.
r6.
I t.
Walznr, Between Sodom and Eden. Anonymous, Personal communication, 27 March 2000.
t8.
t9, This paragraph is bed on Walzer, Between Sodom qnd Eden, 134 and Walzer,
Personal communication,
l4 April 2000,,
For recent problems.ggngening.!he sexual lqarassment of.female soldiers in the military, see Scy Feldman, 'Jhe Gender Battlefield," The Jerusalem Repon, l0 Apnl 2000, I l;Gayil Fiareven, "Of:Vice Td,ttfpl," The Jerusalem Rcport,l0 Aprit 20o0,
2t. Raanan Gabbay, Personal comrnunication, 9 April 2000; Oren Slozberg, Personal
communication, 9 April 2ffi0; Dan Yakr, Penona communicalion; 25 Mach 20fr).
56t
All
National .Dcfense Rxcarch Insritute, Setual Oreritation and U,S. Milltary policy, 85-90; Gcncral Accounting Offrce,,Homosexuql n the Military, 3843, Oeneral Accounting Otihce; flothos"U, n ini' Mitia,
Gal, "Gays in
e Military," iq
Gays and
Gabbay, Personaf communication,9 April 200O. Janet Halley, Don't: A Reder's Guide to rhe Milirary's Anti.Gay Pollcy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999); Urvashi Yud, Virtual Equalry: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Isbian Liberation (New York: Anchor Books, t 995),
21.
Policy Conccming Homosexualiry in thc Armed Forces; "The Connecdon," National Public Rado 20 December 1999; Charles C. Moskos and Stacey L. Sobel,,,Should Gys Sewe," Salon 13 June 2@0, available at hte://www,salon,cont/news/featurd
2000/06/ 1 3 /f ght _c lub/i ndex L html
28. 29.
30,
the
lrmed Forces,350,
Chales C, Moskos, "From Cirizens' Rimy to Social Laboratory," in Cays and Lesbi-
Mlllrary,64,
I May 2000;
3r. National Defense .Research Instirute, Sexual Orientation and U.S, Mllitary policy, 85-90; General Accounting Office, Homosexuals in the Military,38-43,
32,
33.
Concerning Homosexuatity,
34, Gal, "Gays in the Milirary," n ?aW anditles.iqns in rhe Mititary, tB6.
35,
Approximately two-thirtts oq'prr inteu,r'e* gubjcts spoke abour'the openness or growing openness of the IDF, althbugh nor everyone framed the issue this way. For example, one responderit sid thsr she had seen no change over time but that she had always found the IDF ro be accepting of gays and lesbians, There was a general consensus among interviewee.s thal negative attitudes about homosexuals persist but that the military, like rhe rest of Israeti society, is becoming
more
accepting,
36.
37, Aeyal
38. 39. 40.
M. 6ross, "Between the Homosocial and rhe Homoerotic: GBys/Military in Law-A Summary," Unpublished manuscript, 200O.
in Arms: Managing
Gay
, j. f 't
I r
t:,
'.i
':,,
t 1
(.
564
Appendix
Personal Communications :'
Anonymous (Female). Former Soldier, Israeli Delense Forces, 19 March 20@, Anonymous (Male). Former Captain, Israeli Defense Forces. 22
M*ch
2000.
Anonymous (Male), Former Soldie, 25 February 2000, Anonymous (Male). Officer, IDF Menll Health Unit. 28 Mach 2000. Asher, Arian. kofessor of Politial Science, Graduate Center New York. 3 Mach 2000.
Brom, Shlomo. Brigadier-General (re,) and Research Fellow, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University. 6 March 2000, Cohen, Stuart, Profcssor of Political Studies and Senior Reseach Follow, Center for Srategic Studies, Ba-Ian Univenity. 22 Mwch,24 March, 2 April, 5 April, l0
April 2000,
Dale, Andrew. Israeli Cifizen.3 February,
D. Monica. Shatil Organization, New Israel Fuhd. 16 Mach 2000. Demchak, Chris, Professor of Political Science ad Publis Adminisraon, University of
Arizona.
llApril
2000. ,
Drori, Gili, Post-Doctoral Candidatc, Center for lnternational Scurity and Cooperation,
Stanford University, 26 March 2000.
Eskenazi, Jean-Marc. Coordinator, Pa-amayim at UC Berkeley,2T Fcbruary 2000.
Fink, Amir. Scholar and Co'Author of Independence Psrk: The Lves of Gay Men in Israel. ll April 2000.
6abbay, Raanan. Boad Member and Chai
of the Overseas Relations Comminee of Agudaht Zechuyot Ha-ezrac.,25 Februa;,yi 28 March, 9 April 2000,
Gal, Reuven, Director, Israeli Instifute for Military Studies. 5 April 2000.
Calili, Shuly. New lsrael Fund, San Francisco Officc. I9 February 2000.
Giladi, Eival. IDF Lt, General and Research Fellow, Center for Intematonal Security Cooperation, Stanford University. 29 Mach 2000.
Gross, Aeyal, Professor of Law, Tel
and
Riiv
April 2000.
't
)0)
2l
Mach and
13
April
2000.
Heller, Mark, Reseach Fellow, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University,
27 February 2000, Kaplan, Daniel. Scholar and Author of David, Jonathqn and Other Soldiar,r, 29 Mach, l8 July 2000.
Lv, Shai. Deputy Director, Israel Department of Defcnse. 28 Mach 2000. Lvy, Yagi. Reseach Fellow, Hubert Humphrey lnstilute for Social Research, Ben Gurion University. 4 Mach and 15 April 2000,
I9 February,
2000.
Shacha, Rena.
Slozberg, Oren. Program Dirctor,.LYRIC, 28 February 2000, , Vitemberg, Ilan, Former Soldier, Israeli Citizen. 6 Mach 2000.
Walzc Lre L Author, Beween Sodom to Eden: A Gay Journey Through Today's Chang'
ng Israel.24 Feruary
2000,
qnd ifs contpnt Copyrighl of ,4rmed Forcs &Socicty is thc proerty of Trqrsqclion hblishars a listsrv uuithouf th copyright ,oy'noi ba copid or mailed to multipl sites or postcd fo qrticls for holicr,s exprsss rruriftpn pcrmission. Howevr, users may prinl, douvnload, or mqil individuol usc'
lr
il
ir:
The Evidence
135
conbat gronps," Moskos confirmed. And yet, as Senator William Cohen pointed out, they were not barred from military service. In fact, Cohen said, "The one piece of research I am aware of that adciresses this issue, a piece of research that has previousy been brought to the attention of this committee, throws into question the assertion that homosexual tendnies will necessarily undermine unit cohesion."sg Coulcl the W.frr*^.ht research apply in the United States? No one has replicatecl the Shils and |anowitz research, and the differences between the U.S. military today and the German army of more than a half century ago are enorurous. Yet, though the homoerotic thesis emerged from the specific context of a World War II authoritarian regime, it is surely significant that the reigning study on social cohesion and military performance theorizecl an erotic foundation for same-sex bonciing and conbat effectiveness. Cohen's thesis remains souncl: The empirical research that was directly responsive to the question of same-sex love and cohesion said the oposite of what the ban's champions were saying: Same-sex desire dicl not Lrndeimine cohesion but strengthened it, This is not to say that an influx of gay people into the military will increase our chances of winning the war in Iqaq. As Moskos and Segal expiained, it is repressed homoerotic tendencies that were sholvn to have helped cohesion in Wehrmacht German not a gaggie of actual homosexuals. Bnt Shils and ]anowitz make cl.ear what the real threat is of acknowledging a gay presence in the military: that it could somehow chip away at these repressed feelings ancl arouse in straight people the kinds of homoerotic tendercies that are typically kept at bay. This means the distinction between. condrict and status is imnaterial, It is not gay people doing their thing in priVate that threatens morale, discipline, or cohesion; rather, it,is t\e ^\nowiedge by a straight man that a pat on the ass, long considerecl n expression ofinnocent bonding, might now be fraught with same-sex desire. This is why military coctors, during and after World War II, were so concerned with effeminate and showy traits, rather than wbelher recruits were actnally gay or engaging in homosexual conduct. The knowledge that there are gay people in the military could bring straight people face-to-face with sarne-sex cesire, which could trigger i'rsecurities about their own desires. In the end, one ofthe few pieces ofdata that actually spoke to the issue of same-sex love in the military was, like actual gays in the rnililar acknowledgecl before Congress but then thoroughly ignored. As strange as it may sound, the Shils and Janowitz litelature could have helped focus national attention on lvhat was-anc remains-neded to solve the problem of homo-
The Eyidence
133
ban, if that is not what he relievecl. B-lt the concentration.u,np olulogy is not wholly in'elevant, as the ghosts of Nazi Germany have maintained a strange and per-sistent presence in the clialogue on homoSexuality ancl the rnilitary. A little-discussed section of Shils and |anor,vitz's famotrs str.rdy on Wehrmacht solcliers sheds unrvelcome, but inescapable, Iight on the neecl to maintain a regime of sexual repression in the armed forces. Revealing the "clark side of cohesion," this research highlights not only the homosocial boncis of enlistecl men but the homoerotic tendencies of military culture.s3 According to the scholarship, it is the unacknowleclged erotic londs of military men that actually unclerlay the primary group ohesion achieved in the German anny during World War II. In 1948, the noted psychiatrist William Menninger characterized the wartime solclier's bonc, as one of "disguised and sublimate<l homosexuality." Some scholars suggested that the popular war song "My Budciy" (j'I miss yor-rr voice and the touch of your hancl, my br-rddy") helped neutralize fears of unexpected longings, making the military a safe place for same-sex intimacy. As long as there were no honosexuals present, soldiers cor-lld have intense same-sex relationships and not worry about being gay.:+ At the r993 Senate hearings, the sociologist David Segal, who striclied uncer both Shils and Janowitz, clescribecl the World War II research to the frequently befucldled assemblage of silver-haired senators. Cohesion in the Wehrracht, he explained, was based in part on a "latent holnosexual subculture." There was, of course, no sanctioning of actual same-sex sexual activity in the Nazi army. But while the Wehrmacht toleratecl no avowed gay soldiers, homoerotic attachments seem to have been quite common, As Segal put it, "there was a harcl core of enlisted personnel in the Wehrmacht who were attracted to the company of other men. They did not necessarily behave homosexually; incleed, they probably did not. But they preferreci the conpany of
men.'55
Segal reported to Congress that he had neyer seen this particular piece of Shils and ]anowitz research cited before. "I discoverec it by acciflent," he said, "while I was grading sonre midterm exams,". But its implications rvere clear.
"It basically suggests that what we have more recently called 'male bonding' may weli have been in the Wehrmacht this propensity to seek other males as
erotic objects, although not acting on that." These conclusions, he explained,
"throw into question" the assertion that homosexual tendencies trnclermine unit cohesion, In fact, r'ather than lrnclermining unit cohesion, the presence of men with quiet same-sex longing appeat's to have enhanced it by bringing
togethel groups of people with the propensity for intense bonding, The key to
134
UNFRIENDLY FIRE
sirccessfuily cohesive figlrting units, it turns out, is that honrosexual-or at least honoerotic-affection should be present b11t repressed: that is, LlnsPoken and, if possible, unacknowledged.5
Moskos's testimony before Nunn expanded on ths theme: "Precisey because there are homoerotic tendencies in all maie grouPs"' he explainecl, referencing the "sexuaL insecurities" of straight men, "this is exactly why [we need] the ban. Once these homoerotic tenclencies are out, the cat is out of the bag, then you have all kinds of negative effects or unit cohesion." But for Moskos, "the point is that in the Nazi arnly, yoll cottld rot re a gay"' He Strr,rggled to reconcile the presence of latent homosexual desire with whai he regarded as "probably the most barbat'ic system toward gays" in human history. "You have these rotic tenclencies operating t one level," he cocluded, "bttt at the same time, the systenl is the most repressive ever ltnown," an arrangement which has historically "workecl for a good fighting army,'52 In other words, the problem with acknowledging tire presence of gays in the military is that it coulcl burden with added meaning the low-level homoerotic behavior that is norrnally operating among all service rnembers. It
would force even men who are effectively straight to come face-to-face with buried strands of their o1^/n same-sex desire, feelings that do not make them homosexual but whose very Presence is nevertheless a threat to their fragile
heterosexual identity. As Moskos put it in interviews, 'rin a heterosexuai environment, you can do a iot of palting people on the ass, hugging, and all that, which might not be possible among open gays." In many Mecliterranean and Middle Easterlr cultures, which ate homophobic by Americall standards n'911 stroll down the street kissing and holding hands without fear that their aft-ectiou has a sexnal meaning. It's the homophobic norms that make this possible, "It rnight even be that the more homoerotic tenclencies there are iu a group," saicl lVloskos, "the more homophobic they will be." Does this meau the military mtst ensure that certain emotions are kept repressed? It mrrst ellsure, says Moskos,
that they "remain subduecl.":8 DURIN THE SENATE hearings, talk of the latent honrosexual subculture of the Wehrmacht army passecl far over the heacl of Senator Satn Nttnn. "How in the worid," he asked, "is that applicable to wat we are talking 4bout here? It does not seem to me to aPPly or haYe any applicalion to Anlerica." But the Wehrmacht research was one of the most directiy applicable pieces of lesearch to address the reiationship between sexuaiit cohesion, and military performance, There was "a strong maie homoerotic tendency among these
132
UNFRIENDLY
FIRE
maiming of a unit Ieader), sexttal harassment-these collpctiye acts of insubordination are not products of lax social ties but of tis'thatbiid too much. It is lrot, tlren, lhe presence of gay soldiers that threens militry effectiveness but the invitation they represent to get too close. Solne aclvocates ofthe gay ban, it seems, fear that service lnembers in units with open gays will get along too poorl while others feel they'll get along just a little bit too well.5o This reassessment of the unit cohesion theor and the more subtle appreciation of the diftrence b.etween social and task cohesion, was also absorbecl by the U.S. military. In fact, despite the nilitary's eudless invocation of unit cohesion, the Pentagon has a long history of tlying to minimize social cohesion ancl encourage incliviclualism in its personnel. In 1985, a Rand report preparecl for fhe Pentagon warned against "too ucl: affeclive cohesion," because it "might interfere with the critical appraisal of performance that is needed to maintain quality output, as members become concerned with supporting each other and raising group morale instead ofconcentrating on the
task at hand." Between the r95os and the r98os, the army experimented with buddy system in rvhich units lvere trained together and then sent into combat. Evaluations by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research of the unit manning system, callecl COHORT, concluded that "military cohesion has not been valued as a combat multiplier in the U.S. Army." They found that cohesion is "a byprocluct, not a core goal leaclers need le trained to create and maintain," and that "there is as yet no cornmitment in th Army to building and maintaining group cohes.ion."tr , , , .r ', This may be why Moskos's real reasons for opposing an end to the gay ban had nothing to do with unit cohesion-whether task or social. While his public voice continued to emphasize the centrality of unit cohesion to combat performance, his private focus was cluite diferent. 'iFrick nnit cohesion," he
a
said in a 2ooo interview "I don't care about that." In Moskos's view, the ratio-
nale for the double standard was abotrt a discomfort with thinking about sexualit which, for him, boilecl down to the rights of straight soldiers not to be watched with eyes of desire. "I've offered all kinds of argurnents against the polic" he said, "but the privacy one is where it breas down." Indeed,
Moskos feit so strongly about the privacy issue that he viewed mandatory gay-straight cohabitation as ta[tamount to Nazisu: "l wou]d not want to fight for a country in which privacy issues are so trampled upon," he saicl. "Those are the conditions of concentration camps.":' One has to woncler why Moskos took the charge he was given as a social scientist and used it to give cover to the assertion by genelals and politicians that unit cohesion-not sexual discomfort-'vas the central basis of the gay
ry6
UNFRIENDLY FIRE
sexrlality in Anrerican culture. It is really a problem that straight people must solye (ever if, as is rnost likely, it will come only at the prodding of gays and , lesbians). What's needed is for straight people to challenge their reflexive, moral opposition to same-sex desire, in others and in themselves. What's so,bad uboii men loving men or women loving women? What would be so horrible about discovering that maybe even you have some love for a same-sex friend that's a bit stronger than friendship? The perspective offered by research into the complex and even discomfrting cornets of human psychology ,' was just what the United States neecled at the height of the gay service debate. Insteacl, policy malcers and much of the nation dismissed eviclence that was
difficult ancl relevant and embraced evicence that was rnisleading, false, or
irrelevant. wRAppED rN THE language of inclividual sacrifice,. national,securit and the unique conditions of military service, defenders of the military's ban wr able to ward of serious scrutiny of the need for refoim. They were able to substitute the personal juclgment of military leaders for perstrasive evidence ancl cast that jr-rdgment as rooted in professional experience rather than personal arimus, The courts ancl the Congress played along willingl accepting hook, iine, and sinker that the risk of floutin military juclgment on gay service was too high to brook. And it didn't seem to matter that even trusted rnilitary advocates like Charles Moskos acknowiedged publicly that the ban Was rooted not in genuine concerns over unit cohesion bqt in "antipathy toward gays"-a "prejudice," the professor added, that has a 'frational basis'"6o
i
I
,
PALM.CENTER
--
:i:-:_:!
_.
PUBLIE'.POTICY -- --
GAYS
IN FOREIGN MILTTARIES
A GLOBAL PRIME R
2OIO:
February 2010
Dr. Victoria Basham, Geoffrey Bareman, Dr. Aaron Belkin, Dr. lvfargot Canada Dr. Alan Okros, and Denise Scotr
Contents
Introduction...... Overview. History. Background...... Britain. Canada. Australia. South Africa. Israel. Militaries. Overview.
Case
......5
.............5 ........6
.......9
........9
........13 ......15
..........I7
... . .. . ....20
Research on the Impact of Lifting Bans on Service by Gays and Lesbians in Foreign
Inclusion
.......32
.
.. ..
..50
Militaries. .....
...1.04
Conclusion Appendix: List of ForeignMilitaries that Allow Openly Gay Service ...136
Executive Summary
1. ,-Twenty=frv-e-nationsrow allow gays-and lesbians
To senie-
and many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions.
In Britain and Canada, roughly two thirds of military respondents in polls said
they would refuse to serve with open gays, but when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned.
3.
Research has
without regard to sexual orientation have been highly successful uod Ouu. had no
negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat
effectiveness. No consulted expert anylvhere in the world concluded that the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military.
lifting
both military and independent analysts hold across time: none of the successes
studied, or yielded delayed problems over the years in which these militaries
5.
rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment, retention ofcritical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.
immediately or within four months of the govemment's decision to end discrimination. These experiences confirm research findings which show that a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that
the process
will
7.
Two main factors contributed to the success of transitions to openly gay service:
clear signals ofleadership support and a focus on a uniform code ofbehavior
without regard to sexual orientation. Also key are simple training guidelines that
communicate the support of leadership, that explain the uniform standards for
conduct, and that avoid "sensitivity" training, which can backfire by causing resentment in the ranks.
8.
None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals. Each country has
taken its own approach to resolving questions of benefits, housing, partner
recognition, and re-instatement. Generally, the military honors the status afforded to gay or lesbian couples by that country, and the military rarely gets out in front
9.
Lifting bans on openly gay service in foreign countries did not result in
a mass
"coming out." Yet gay and lesbian troops serve in all levels of the armed forces of
Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel, in both combat and noncombat positions, at both the enlisted level and as high commanders.
of
1.
Informal discrimination in treatment and promotions have not been wiped out, but
evidence suggests that formal policies of equal treatment for people equally situated helps reduce discrimination and resentment, and helps keep the focus on
behavior necessary to complete the mission rather than on group traits that can distract from the mission.
12. The U.
militaries to be relevant to its own lessons learned. While there is no doubt that
the U.S. military is different from other militaries, such distinctions have not prevented the U.S. military from comparing itself to and learning from foreign armed forces. Using resources like the Foreign Military Studies Office, the U.S.
Introduction
I. OVERVIEW
On February 2,2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told a senate hearing that they support President Barack Obama's plan to end the countrlr's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the
military. "To ensure the Deparfment is prepared" for the ban's end, Secretary Gates
announced an eleven-month study period and a military working goup that would
"thoroughly, objectively, and methodically examine all aspects" of the question of openly
gay service "and produce its finding and recommendation in the form of an
implementation plan" by the end of 2010. In response to questions from Sen. Susan
Collins of Maine, Adm. Mullen said he had spoken to his counterparts in countries that lifted the bans and they told him there had been "no impact on military effectiveness"
a as
result, and that he was aware of no sfudies showing that ending "don't ask, don't tell"
would harm unit cohesion. Both Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates, however, called for more
study, with the Chairman saying "there's been no thorough or comprehensive work done
with respect to that aspect since 1993" and the Secretary saying we need to "address a
number of assertions that have been made for which we have no basis in fact."r
This study seeks to answer some of the questions that have been, and will continue to be,
raised surrounding the instructive lessons from other nations that have lifted their bans on
openly gay service. The Palm Center has identified at least fwenty-five such countries,
including Britain, Canada,Israel, Australia, and South Africa, which constitute the focus
of this report. After summanzing the history of research on gay service in foreign -.---'------militaries, this study-chronicles-thrspecifirhistories of thepolicychanges in those f,ive
countries. It then returns to in-depth analyses of the empirical results of the policy
transitions, with an overview of research results; a brief section detailing how the new policies were implemented; and then individual case-studies organized by counfry. A
final section discusses the relevance of the lessons learned from foreign militaries,
addressing the limits and applicabiiity of those lessons to the current situation in the U.S.
II. HISTORY
ln the fall of 1992, Canada and Australia lifted their bans on gay service members, and in
1993 Israel followed
suit. In 1998, South Africa lifted its ban on gay troops as part of its
wholesale reorganization following the fall of Apartheid. And in 2000, Great Britain, the
staunchest ally of the U.S., ended its gay ban. Presently 25 nations allow open gays to serve in their militaries, including all the original
the
U.S. Since 1992, Americans have debated the prospect of lifting their gay ban.
President
in1993, he agreed to a compromise when resistance from military, political, and religious
opponents began to derail his efforts. The result, a Pentagon policy and federal statute
collectively known as "don't ask, don't tell," calls for the separation of service members
who are revealed to be gay or who engage in "homosexual acts" while prohibiting the
Under the current policy, which was implemented in 1994, over 13,000 service members
have been discharged. Republicans have generally opposed lifting the current ban on
openly gay service, with parly leaders saying the current policy is working. But President Barack Obama, like President Clinton, has promised to lift the ban, and Democrat leaders
in Congress have agreed to support the President's efforts. The political leadership,
however, has not set a timetable and has not yet moved to halt the discharges either by Presidential order or by legislative repeal, instead simply reiterating its commitment to do
so eventually.
Both advocates and proponents of lifting the American ban on openly gay service have
said they want to study the experiences of other militaries to inform the debate in the U.S.
Over the past twenty years, numerous studies of foreign militaries have been conducted,
including studies by the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Rehavioral and Social Sciences, the Rand Corporation, the Palm Center
at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Defence Ministries of Brtain and
other nations that transitioned to a policy of full inclusion. The results of each of these studies showed that openly gay service does not undermine unit cohesion, recruitment,
retention, morale, or overall combat effectiveness. Until now, however, these results
have not been compiled in a single volume or updated to reflect the latest information on the effects of lifting gay bans in the armed forces.
This study brings together the results of all the major research on gays in foreign
-..
----militaries
Canada, and other English-speaking nations with relatively similar cultures to that of the
U.S. The study begins with the historical background of policies on gays in several
armed forces. It then discusses the results of research on the impact of lifting gay bans in
these nations, with in-depth focus on American allies such as Britain and Canada.
Finally, a section on the relevance to the U.S. of foreign militaries offers a detailed
explanation of the value and limitations of generalizing from foreign experiences when
assessing the prospects for a successful transition in the
relevant policies in other nations and includes a list of lessons learned from studying
these experiences.
Background
I. BRITAINI
Like the U.S., Britain banned service by gays throughout the 20th century, just as its civilian laws initialiy criminalized sexual relations between men (laws did not address
female same-sex relationships). Depending on the service branch, the military dealt with
homosexuals either by banning them outright or by charging them with "disgraceful
Reflecting the similarities of American and British culture, the same rationales were invoked to justiff the exclusion rules in Britain as in the U.S. The British Ministry of
Defence argued that "Homosexual behavior can cause offence, polarize relationships, induce ill-discipline, and as a consequence damage morale and unt effectiveness." One
retired general told the BBC that letting gays serve meant "striking at the root of discipline and morale" since service members had to "live hugger-mugger at most times"
and that "the great majority do not want to be brought into contact with homosexual
practices."s Another retired officer who commanded U.N. forces in Bosnia recalled that when he had two gay soldiers in his battalion, he "had extreme diffrculty in controlling
the remainder of the soldiers because they fundamentally wanted to lynch them."4
As in the U.S., the language of homosexual exclusion arguments spoke of "sexual deviancy" and "feminine gestures," and of mental illness and sexually transmitted
- ------ -diseases. The same distinctions between identity and behavior were alsdma-drin bth
nations: in Britain, the rules specif,red that the admission of homosexuality was grounds
for dismissal even if no behavior was involved. And as in the U.S., the history of gays in
the British military is replete with surveillance, informants, blackmail, stakeouts,
By the time the British High Court heard a major challenge to the gay ban in 1995, most of the above rationales had been discredited and abandoned. Although the Court rebuffed
the service members' challenge and allowed the military to continue its ban, the Minisfry
of Defence created the Homosexual Policy Assessment Team to evaluate its policy. The
move was a response to a warning by the Court that, despite its current ruling in favor of
the military, the gay ban was unlikely to survive a direct challenge in the European
Convention on Human Rights which, unlike the British Court, had the authority to force
the military's hand.
The assessment team consulted the experiences of other countries, including Canada,
Austalia and Israel, which had lifted their bans a few years earlier. In their visits, they
were repeatedly told by officials tbaT gay service had not undermined military
performance. In response, British researchers acknowledged that the ban could be lifted, but that such a change was unlikely not because of a military rationale, but because
of
political resistance.6
t0
The team ultmately recommended that the military retain its ban. Its report made clear
assumption that gays were a threat to security and a predatory menace to young troops were unfounded. Rather, the problem was that straight soldiers were uncomfortable around gays, and openly gay service could therefore undermine cohesion and threaten
recruitment. Lifting the ban, said the report, "would be an afftont to service people" and
lead to "heterosexual resentment and
hostility." Reform
in the American debate, the moral opposition of straights was tied to military needs,
prompting senior leaders to argue that military effectiveness justif,red gay exciusion.T
The military did, however, order a relaxation of enforcement of the ban, mindful of the
changes in society taking shape throughout the 1990s, and bracing for a heftier challenge
in the European Court of Human Rights, which threatened to cost the government billions in wrongful dismissal claims. Military leaders told commanders only to investigate
suspected homosexuals
if
minimal: they continued to lose their jobs, receive unequal heatment and operate in a
climate of discrimination, fear and uncertainty.
On September 27, I999,the European Court of Human Rights issued its ruling that the
British Defence Ministry had violated the European Convention's guarantee of an "equal
respect" to "private and family life"
8
it
1l
prompted were "exceptionally intrusive."e The Court rejected the military's claim that
the unique circumstances of
than would be animus against groups with a different race or ethnic or national
origin. It
also dismissed the military's contention that gay service would endanger morale, saying the foundation of such arguments in opinion polls made them unconvincing.
The Ministry of Defence immediately announced that it accepted the ruling and it ordered
a halt to
all discharges while it studied how to abide by the court's decision.r0 It quickly
regardless of gender, sexual orientation, rank, or status. This code of behavior, which still
informs current policy, applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. It aims to ensure
that sexual relations ofany kind do not adversely affect operational effectiveness.lr
The Chief of Defence Staff General, despite expecting some tough scenarios for
commanding officers, expressed confidence in the military's ability to make the changes,
saying that "times have changed" since the gay ban was first formulated. that the operational eff,rciency of the Services
will
not saying we won't have some diff,rcult incidents." Ultimately, he concluded, "We think we can make it work."l2
In trying to figure out how to "make it work," the British military considered America's
t2
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. What they found was that it was
a "disaster," which
"hadn't worked," was "unworkable" and was "hypocritical."l3 Instead, the British
which simply banned public displays of affection, harassment and inappropriate relationships. The Ministry of Defence formally lifted its gay ban on January 12,2000,
within four months of the September court ruling, and invited ousted troops to reapply for
service.
II. CANIADA
Until
1988, the Canadian Forces had in place an outright ban on gays and lesbians rn
a peer was gay was
uniform: they were barred from service and anyone who believed
required to report the suspicion to a superior. The Canadian ban was relaxed
in 1988, as
Act
pressure mounted to bring the policy in line with the 1978 Canadian Human Rights and the 1985 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The important policy shift
dictated that the CF would not knowingly enroll homosexuals but would allow gays who
did serve to stay in uniform, albeit with no opportunities for advancement. Generally,
enforcement of the restrictions against known gays and lesbians was loosened during this
period, but unequal treatment of heterosexual and gay troops remained: known gays and
lesbians were routinely denied promotions, security clearances and awards. The Department of National Defence continued to argue that a formal ban was necessary to
13
protect "cohesion and morale, discipline, leadership, recruiting, medical f,rtness, and the rights to privacy of other members."l4
Yet momentum was growing in favor of change. Inspired by other court decisions, five
service members sued the Canadian Forces and won an initial ruling that the gay ban
violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ultimately, the Canadian military agreed to
settle its case in 1992, acknowledging that it was unlikely to win the case on its merits.
Key to the CF's internal research was a 1986 survey of active-duty CF troops that was
interpreted to indicate that heterosexual male members were strongly opposed to the
removal of the ban and that the presence of homosexuals could lead to a serious decrease
of the 1988 interim policy. These reviews culminated in the conclusion by the CF that it
could not successfully appeal the finding of the suit by former CF member Michelle
nthe
It is sometimes thought that reform in Canada went over without much resistance. In
actuality, opposition was intense. Surveys showed that majorities of those in the military would not share sleeping and bathing quartem with known gays, and many said they would refuse to work with gays or accept a gay supervisor. A military task force was formed during the debate, which recommended that gay exclusion remain, on the grounds
t4
that "the effect of the presence of homosexuals would flead to] a serious decrease in
operational effectiveness." Even when the military determined it would lose its case in soufi, the govenrment-delayed-the changabecauss of vociferous opposition by
conservatives in Parliament. The similarities to opposition in the U.S. were striking.16
III. AUSTRALIA
The Australian Defence Forces did not see quite the same fight as did Canada, but there was certainly resistance to equal treatment. The military only formalized its ban on gay
troops in 1986. Before that, commanders were given wide discretion to decide when to boot gays, and leaders were able to rely on civilian laws against sodomy and homosexual relations to root them out. Ironically, it was at the very moment when the rest of sociefy
was liberalizing its limitations on homosexual behavior that the Aushalian military
tightened its own regulations on gay troops. State and federal laws banning sodomy fell during this decade, as the counfry brought its laws into conformity with new international
human rights accords. Unable to continue to draw on civilian laws against homosexual
The short-lived Australian gay ban was always weaker than the policies in many of its
ally nations. While there were reports of witch hunts and unequal treatment, the policy
was often enforced unevenly and the tolerance and inconsistent enforcement extended to commanders throughout the services, who were often aware of gays and lesbians under
15
their command and took no steps to kick them out. In the years leading up to the ban's formal end, the ADF had been pressed to respond to several cultural trends toward
---liberaliztiornd
retain and respect women and racial and ethnic minorities. Such criticism could not be ignored, as the armed forces were frnding it difficult to
service members.ls
capable
consider formally ending its restrictions on gays and lesbians. Legal considerations also
held sway: in 1980, the Commonwealth had adopted the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. While homosexuality was not explicitly mentioned in the covenanr,
political leaders interpreted the agreement to mean discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation should be banned. For instance, when a lesbian soldier complained to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opporhrnities Commission that her sexual orientation was the pafal basis of her discharge, the ADA agreed to review its policy.
While the military chose to retain its formal ban at that time, political pressure was
mounting and the government created a study group to look into the policy and make a formal recommendation. During the study period, those who opposed gay service made
the familiar arguments: the presence of known gays and lesbians would compromise effectiveness by impairing cohesion and driving down morale. Nevertheless, the study group ecommended
in
of
t6
nondiscrimination, and the liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Keating, helped by
the health minister's argument that keeping homosexuality a secret exacerbated efforts to
As was the case elsewhere, the changes were vehemently opposed. The Defence
Minister and the Service Chiefs strongly opposed lifting the ban, with a Defence
spokesman saying, '"The real issue in this debate is not civil liberties, but rather the
legitimate concerns of the service chiefs about the need to maintain unit cohesion and discipline in the forces." A representative of the Armed Forces Federation said that 98Vo
of the troops would be "disappointed" with the lifting of the ban, and that they were not
anti-gay but simply "not comfortable ,vith the situation." The major veterans' group in Australia insisted that tolerating known gays would undermine cohesion and break the
bonds of fn:st that were essential to an effective
military.
of gays would increase the spread of HIV through battlefield blood transfers, even though
health officials say the best way to fight this prospect is to be able to identify those with
During the apartheid era, the South African military maintained a dual policy on homosexuality. FuUy prohibited among members of the permanent force, homosexuality
was officially tolerated among the conscript force to prevent malingering. But official
T7
toleration was accompanied by aversion shock therapy, chemical castration, and other
human rights abuses against gay and lesbian personnel which have only recently come to
---tight
including the status of gays and lesbians. After the South African Constitution adopted provision of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 1996, the South African military followed suit. In 1998, the South Afican National Defence Force (SANDF) implemented an Equal Opporrunity and Affirmative Action policy that
formally declared that there would no longer be discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed services and that the military was officially uninterested in the sexual
orientation of any of its service members, gay or straight.
The groundwork for the inclusion of a gay rights provision in the Constitution had been
laid in 1992,when gay activists persuaded the (then exiled) African National Congress (ANC) to adopt
a
politics-similarly
gay rights stance.22 As a result of this political support, sexual orientation was included in the draft Constitution when the ANC first came to power
in 1994.
During this process of constitutional review, the National Parly objected to specifrc mention of sexual orientation in the document.2' The gay rights provision was opposed
most strongly by the African Christian Democratic Party, which argued that
18
objection of conservatives, the new Constitution was adopted with an equality provision which read that "the state may not unfairly discriminate against anyone on one or more
rdS, including-ie, $encir, Sx,
colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language,
and
bith
Since the adoption of the Constitution, both state and non-state actors
have worked to bring various state policies and laws into line with the Constirution; the South African government has committed itself to "reform economic and social
conditions for the majority of South Africans left wanting by the apartheid regime."26
In order to bring its governing principles fully into compliance with the new Constitution,
the
input on all facets of its operating procedures and policies. Thee was one day during the review process, according to Lindy Heinecken, Deputy Director for the Center for
Military Studies, South African Military Academy, "when there was very intense
discussion about what the gay rights clause would mean in each and every sector
of
military life."z7 The issue of homosexualify in the military had generated little public
debate prior to the adoption of the new Constitution. For one thing, according to Graeme
Reid, "the terms of the debate were so different because there was so much resistance to being in the military fgenerally]" during the apartheid era.28 And despite some initial concerns, "the Department of Defence considered the fintegration of homosexuals] as a
fait accompli," according to Evert Knoesen, Director of the Lesbian and Gay Equality
Project (formerly the National coalition for Lesbian and Gay Equality).2e Thus, the
policy change came fom within the Department of Defence itself. "The DOD decided to
r9
make its own policy," according to SANDF Colonel Jan Kotze, "taking its cue from the
The policy on sexual orientation was included as part of the DOD's Equal Opporrunify
and
Affirmative Action policy, which was initially promulgated in 1998, then reviewed
and readopted again in2002.3t Under this policy, recruits are not questioned about their
sexual orientation and the SANDF is officially unconcerned about lawful sexual behavior on the part of its members. Instead, behavior by anyone that is considered sexually
atypical or immoral, and that is considered a threat to military discipline or effectiveness is subject to punishment. The policy applies to people regardless of their sexual orientation, but leaves considerable discretion in the hands of commanders.32
V. ISRAEL
Like Australia, the state of Israel did not have a longstanding, explicit ban on homosexual
service members, but used discretion to determine when commanders believed gay or lesbian troops were problematic and worthy of exclusion. For most of the country's short
history, not surprisingly, routine prejudice meant that the Israel Defense Forces dismissed known gays because leaders assumed their sexuality made them unsuitable. A 1983 regulation made clear that service members were not to be discharged simply because
they were gay, but required them to undergo a mental health evaluation and banned them
20
*-*----
Ameiicn
policy would end up, Israeli officials acknowledged that President Clinton's support for
gay service had been influential in driving debate in Israel, where the issue of gay rights
had never been discussed at such high levels of government. The discussion was also
prompted by an unusual hearing at the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, when Uzi Even,
the chairman of the Chemistry Department at Tel Aviv Universify, and a senior \eapons development researcher, told the nation he had been stripped of his security clearance
when his homosexuality was revealed. Even had supplied the government with top-notch security research for fifteen years. He was deemed a security threat even though he had
just come out of the closet, thus neutralizngany possibility of blackmail.3a 1In 2002,
Even became the first openly gay member of the Knesset, suggesting how far tolerance
has grown in Israeli society in a decade.35)
With the vocal support of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who stated, "I don't see any
reason to discriminate against homosexuals," and the military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Ehud Barak, a military committee was created to review the policy and make recommendations for change. With no military officials testi7ing against reform, the
military banned any restrictions or differential treatment based on sexual orientation, and
2t
ordered that decisions about placement, promotion and security clearances be based on
The absence of official resistance did not mean that Israel had ceased to be a homophobic
culture-founded,
as
by religious Jews, and a society enamored of macho men. A study conducted in the
i 1980s found that Israelis had more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than
Americans. Even in the 1990s, Israel's organized gay rights lobby was miniscule
compared to its American counterparts, thus limiting the strength of voices pressing for
refonn. And the military was, like in the U.S., a particularly conservative institution within the larger society. During induction, gays were referred to a psychologist for an
evaluation. "Based on the assumption, correct or incorrect, that sometimes along with
homosexuality come other behavioral disturbances, we conduct a more in-depth clinical
interview," said Dr. Reuven Gal, who was chief psychologist for the IDF.37
found marked homophobia in Israeli society, partcularly in the military. "I think there
are
still a lot of people in the psychiatric profession and in the army who still
see
homosexuality as a problem," he said, "and this policy is their way of expressing that."
Paran said Israel was a "paradox" in which the laws are "much more liberal than the general society." As in society generally, he said the military was instinctually
uncomfortable with homosexualify. "I work with a lot of teachers and parents who may
22
cognitively understand homosexuality, but in their emotional response to it are stili very
backward. The army is the same way."38
Yet as a nation with compulsory service, which recognized the formative role of that
service in creating a sense of citizenship, Israel determined by 1993 that it was unfair,
unwise and unnecessary to bar an entire group of people fom the military. Its new regulations said that "there is no limit on the induction of homosexuals to the army and their induction is according to the criteria that apply to all candidates to the army."3e
23
Research on the Impact of Lifting Bans on Service by Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Militaries
Overview
militaries that have lifted their gay bans are that the transition had no negative impact on
military effectiveness. Upon further examination, the only effects of lifting gay exclusion
rules have been positive ones. Miiitaries in Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and Israel and S. Africa have seen increased retention of critical skills, reductions in harassment,
less anxiety about sexual orientation in the ranks, greater openness in relations between
gays and straights, and less restricted access to recruitment pools, as schools and
universities welcomed the military back onto campus for dropping their discriminatory
practices. Above all, none of the crises in recruitment, retention, resignations, morale,
cohesion, readiness or "operational effectiveness" came to pass.
In 1993,
the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, commissioned the Rand Corporation
to conduct a broad study of lessons relevant to lifting the gay ban in the U.S. Rand sent a
team of seventy-f,rve multi-disciplinary social scientists from its National Defense
Research Institute across the world to study the issue. Sociologists, psychologists,
24
studied the scientific literature on a broad range ofrelated topics: group cohesion, the experiences of foreign militaries, the theory and history of institutional change, public
nd
leadership theory, public health concerns, the history of racial integration in the military,
policies on sexuality in police and f,rre departments, and legal considerations regarding
access to military service.
The result was a 500-page study, completed in July 1993. It offered assessments
of
policies on gay service in Canada, Israel, and Britain, as well as Norway, the
Netherlands, France, Germany, and others. At the time, Britain was the only nation
of
those studied to have a full ban on gay service. Of those that allowed gays to serve, Rand
found that "none of the militaries studied for this report believe their effectiveness as an
organization has been impaired or reduced as a result of the inclusion of homosexuals."
In Canaa, where the ban had just ended, Rand found "no resignations (despite previous
theats to quit), no problems with recruitment, and no diminution of cohesion, morale, or arganizational effectiveness." Rand found roughly identical results for Israel. Its tesearchers concluded that sexual orientation alone was "not germane" in determining
who should serve. The authors stated that the ban could be lifted in the U.S. without major problems, so long as senior leaders got behind the change and clear guidelines were disseminated throughout the chain of command. They also suggested that the
25
In1992 and 1993, the GAO conducted two in-depth studies of foreign militaries. In the first study, researchers looked at 17 different countries, and eight police and fire
dpartmenls in furU.S.'iteS, d reviewed militry nd -niilitry pll;-Studies,
legal decisions and scholarly research on homosexual service. The GAO study noted previous studies conducted by the U.S. military, including the 1957 Crittenden Report
and the 1988-89 PERSEREC studies. Incorporating these studies and its own new
research, GAO recommended in an early draft that Congress "may wish to direct the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the basis" for gay exclusion. The f,rnal GAO report,
five foreign militaries. In Australia, GAO found, "Effects on unit cohesiveness have not
yet been fully determined. However, early indications are that the new policy has had
little or no adverse impact." Research over time confirmed that openly gay service in
Australia caused no trouble. Three years later, when Britain was considering lifting its
ban, govemment researchers issued a report on the situation in Australia, which concluded that, despite an early outcry, homosexuality quickly became a non-issue: any challenges in integrating open gays were regarded as'Just another legitimate management problem." Research on Israel by both the GAO and the Rand Corporation
In 1994,
The U.S. Army Research Instifute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences also
studied the situation inCanada and concluded that anticipated damage to readiness never
26
materialized after the ban was lifted: "Negative consequences predicted in the areas of recruitment, employment, attrition, retention, and cohesion and morale have not
In 2000, after Britain lifted its ban, The Palm Center at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, conducted exhaustive studies to assess the effects of openly gay service in
Britain, Israel, Canada and Australia. Palm researchers reviewed over 600 documents
and interviewed over one hundred international experts, contacting every identifiable
professional with expertise on the policy change, including miiitary officers, governaent
leaders, academic researchers, journalists who covered the issue, veterans and nongoverTrmental observers. Palm found that not one person had observed any impact or any effect at all that "undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased diff,rculties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of
HIV infection
field commanders, and many officials who had predicted major problems if gays were
permitted to serve openly-uniformly reported there had been "no impact." Researchers
repeatedly encountered the same narrative: lifting the ban was "an absolute non-event";
openly gay service was "not that big a deal for us"; open gays "do not constitute an issue
fwith respect to] unit cohesion" and the whole subject "is very marginal indeed as far
this military is concerned"; whether gays serve openly or not "has not impaired the
as
morale, cohesion, readiness, or security of any unit"; the policy change has "not caused
any degree of difficulty."a5
27
A2002 report by the British MOD reconf,rrmed that "there has been no discernible
impact on operational effectiveness" as a result of ending the gay ban and that "no fuither
--reirewifthe
MOD reiterated its commitment to welcoming open gays and lesbians, saying "The
Armed Forces are committed to establishing a culture and climate where those who
choose to disclose their sexual orientation can do so without risk of abuse or
intimidation." That year, the service branches began working with gay rights groups to
recruit members, and over the next three years dropped rules banning gay service
members from marching in gay pride parades in uniform.aT
A 2003 study of the South Afcan military conducted by Palm scholars found that
allowing openly gay service "has had little or no impact on recruitment, retention,
morale, unit cohesion, or operational effectiveness." And in 2007 an official and former
officer from the Israel Defense Forces confirmed that Israel's policy transition had been
success, saying, "It's a non-issue.'/t In 2009, the Associated Press spent two months
investigating the experiences of foreign militaries with gay service, and reported that "Israel has had no restrictions on military service," that same-sex parbrers are welcomed to officer events, and that the new policy of equal treatment is 'onow considered thoroughly uncontroversial.
"
The updated investigations into the experiences of foreign militaries with openly gay service corroborates that none of the twenfy-five nations that dropped their bans have experienced any detriment to cohesion, recruitment, or readiness. These results do not
28
mean that everybody was happy with openly gay service. Nor do they mean that such resistance and resentment were entirely without consequence. Many people were upset
Recently, attention in the U.S. has focused on how best to implement new policies of inclusion that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has said that the Pentagon would require "at least ayeaf'to implement
repeal once the decision was made to
spend
months studying repeal and consulting the troops. Gates said that "trying to impose a
policy from the top without regard for the views ofl' those directly affected by reform
would be a "stupid" way to implement the change.ae
Yet research concludes unequivocally that such policy changes are most successful when implemented quickly. Such research is summanzed in the 1993 Rand study, which
Secretary Gates has asked to be updated. According to that report, the two most important factors in a personnel policy transition of this nature are decisive leadership and a single
29
code of conduct for all personnel. Rand found that a successful new policy must be
"decided upon and implemented as quickly as possible" to avoid an-riety and uncertainty
---in tholield:
-IT
to consolidate," and that "phased-in implementation might allow enemies of the new
possible" to avoid piling on confusing changes incrementally that would force service
members to endure new rules every few months instead of having to adjust only once.sO
New reports have also indicated that the study groups would address whether separate
facilities, such
Rand cautioned against instituting separate facilities for minority groups, citing the resentment and damaging focus on gender distinctions that have resulted fom different
standards for men and women.tt This is a point that was echoed recently by retired
Marine General Carl Mundy, former Commandant of the U.S Marine Corps, who, despite
opposing openly gay service, has said that "the easiest way to deal with it is to make it
as
simple as possible. The last thing you even want to think about is creating separate
facilities or separate groups or separate meeting places or having four kinds of showers
one of straight women, lesbians, straight men and gay men. That would be absolutely
disastrous in the armed forces. It wouid destroy any sense of cohesion or teamwork or good order and discipline."53 The idea was also rejected by Charles Moskos, widely
30
considered the intellectual architect of "don't ask, don't tell." When President Clinton
publicly considered segregated facilities in March 1993, an idea roundly cried down by
gay dv-oca.tes;Moskos mdcke-cl the-idoa:-*Nof -only would thefe'be physicl prblems;
but also the problem of labeling units. What are you going to call these groups? The
Rand's research on the importance of a swift implementation has been borne out in
foreign militaries that have lifted their bans. In the 1990s, court rulings in Canada and
Britain mandated that gay troops be allowed to sewe openly; in both cases, the transitions
were implemented in a matter of months, and uniformly assessed as successful. The
Canadian Forces announced it would accept the court ruling and end the ban
immediately. "It does take a commitment from the top," said Joh de Chastelain, then
was Chief of the Canadian Defense Staff. He directed the military to revise its harassment
guidelines, institute appropriate fraining progams, and formulate policies to address complaints and ensure enforcement of the new rules.ss In Australia, a special committee
recommended repeal and the govemment voted to move forward, with the Prime Minister
ordering the policy change be implemented immediately. It was replaced with a general instruction on "sexual misconduct policy" prohibiting any sexual behavior that negatively
impacted group cohesion and did not distinguish between homosexuality and
heterosexuality. These successful examples suggest the research is correct that swift, simple implementation of a single code of conduct, backed by strong leadership from the top, is the most effective way to ensure a smooth transition to inclusive policies.
31
Case Studies
I. BRITAIN
The earliest research on the impact of openly gay service in Britain came from the British
Ministry of Defence. In 2000, six months after lifting its ban, the Ministry of Defence
issued a report about the impact of the policy change. The docurhent was intended for
internal use only and not for public release, suggesting it represented a candid, accurate
assessment of the transition, without risk of being swayed by the requisites of politics or
public relations. In addition, it had the benefit of fulI access to ali available data.
The conclusions were definitive. The lifting of the ban was "hailed as a solid
achievement" which was "introduced smoothly with fewer problems than might have
been expected." The MOD found that all three services "reported that the revised policy
on homosexuality had had no discernible impact, either positive or negative, on recruitment."56 The review concluded that the new Code of Social Conduct had been central to the success of the new policy. Its emphasis on behavior now meant that commanders could make sure that the problematic conduct of any individual,
if
and when
commanding officers in dealing with all issues surrounding personal relationship and
behavior, going wider than just homosexual issues."57 There was "widespread acceptance
32
of the new policy" and military members generally "demonstrated a mature and pragmatic approach" to the change. There were no reported problems with homosexuals
off limits
because of opposition to the ban from students and educational establishments. The
report concluded that "there has been a marked lack of reaction" to the change.ss
consistently confirmed the military's findings that lifting the gay ban had no negative impact on performance. "At the end of the day, operational effectiveness is the critical
matter, and there has been no effect at all," reported a high-level official. Just nine months after the new policy was instituted, this off,rcial told Palm Center researchers that
"homosexuality doesn't even come up anymore-it's no longer an issue." One lieutenant colonel reported that "there has been absolutely no reaction to the change in policy
regarding homosexuals within the
emphasis on fair treatment and personal responsibility meant people had ceased to focus on sexual orientation and cared far more about individual performance and responsibility
to the team. Even the very vocal worries about privacy and sharing showers and berths
official at the Ministry of Defence said that "the media likes scare stories-about
JJ
body heat in close quarters or see two men being affectionate, and they would feel
uncomfortable. But it has proved at first look that it's not an issue."5e
Experts repeatedly expressed surprise at how little the change had meant, and how much
easier the transition had been than what they expected, given the vocal resistance before
the ban ended. The military's director of personnel said, "'We've had very few real
problems that have emerged, and people seem to have, slightly surprisingly, settled down
and accepted the current arrangements. And we don't really have the problems that we
thought we'd have." An off,rcial of the Personnel Management Agency said, "The
anticipated tide of criticism from some quarters within the Service was completely
it in stride." He concluded
"it's
In2002, the MOD revisited its new policy on sexual orientation and the Code of Social
Conduct "in light of thirry months' experience since both were introduced." Officials
concluded that "there has been no discernible impact on operational effectiveness," that the code had been "well received," and that "no further review of the Armed Forces
policy on homosexualify" was necessary.ul This is not to say that there were no negative
outcomes associated with the policy. For example, the Army reported in2002 that "homosexuals are not readily accepted by all, and this may influence an individual in
62
MOD's initial reviews and the systematic appraisal of the evidence carried out by Belkin
34
and Evans confirm, is that for all three services of the British
miliiry"s b..ility
to fulfill its function to defend the United Kingdom and its interests.
Recently, some opponents of gay service in both the U.S. and the U.K. cited the 2002 study as evidence that Britain had suffered negative consequences as a result of lifting its
gay ban. They referenced an article published in2007 by the conservative
Daily Mail,
entitled "Lifting Ban on Gays in Armed Forces Caused Resignations, Report Reveals"
which claimed that the 2002 study showed that "Britain's armed forces faced a spate of
resignations in protest when the government lifted the ban on homosexuals serving in the
NaVt: "'When f,trst announced the change in policy was not openly welcomed by many,
but reaction was generally muted. Since that it has been widely agreed that the problems
initially perceived have not been encountered, and for most personnel sexual orientation
is a 'non-issue."'
Arm)t: "The general message from COs lcommanding officers] is that there appears to
have been no real change since the new policy was announced."
35
Air Force: "411 COs agreed that there had been no tangible impact on operational
effectiveness, team cohesion, or Service life generally."
Regarding the "spate of resignations," what the Ministry report actually says is that,
"there remains some disquiet in the Senior Ratings' Messes concerning the policy on homosexuality within the Service. This has manifested itself in a number of personnel electing to leave the Service, although in only one case was the policy change cited as the only reason for going. Nonetheless, homosexuality is not a major issue and, to put the effect of the policy change into context, the introduction of Pay 2000 and pay grading
caused a far greater reaction."u' We sought comment from the Directorate of Service
Mail afcle. In
response, we received an email stating: "'We were irritated by the article because it put a
The Royal
Air Force
it
has worked
with Stonewall, the largest gay rights group in England, to help it attract gay
"Workplace Equality Index," a list of Britain's 100 top employers for gays and lesbians,
and that Stonewall provides training about how to create an inclusive workplace
environment with greater appeal to gays and lesbians. The Air Force also agreed to provide equal survivor benehts to same-sex partners and to become a sponsor of the Gay
Pride festival. The MOD endorsed the policy in 2006 saying, "The Armed Forces are
36
committed to establishing a culture and climate where those who choose to disclose their
sexual orientation can do so without risk of abuse or intimidation."65
The
Air Force action was prompted in part by recruitment shortfalls. But the move
also
makes clear that the British Forces believe that a climate of inclusivity and equal treatment makes for a superior military, fi.lrther evidence that the only impact of gay
inclusion is a positive one. At the 2007 British gay pride parade, a Royal Navy
commander made this point, stressing that what mattered to military effectiveness was
a professional
fighting force,"
.We want individuals to be themselves 100%, so they can give 100% and we
value them 1009/o." Background, "lifestyle" and sexuality were not a part of the equation,
he said, addng that the armed forces recruit "purely on merit and ability" and new members become a "member of the team and are valued as such."66 As the MOD's 2000
internal assessment had suggested, the replacement of a group-specific ban with a policy
of equal treatment had helped to shift focus away from sexual identity, precisely the aim
of the new policy. Because the British Code of Social Conduct emphasizes good behavior and fair treatment for all, sexuality has come to be regarded as a private matter
and service members have been freed to concentrate on the duty of each member to behave in ways that are benef,rcial to the group. The report indicated that the policy
change had produced "a marked lack of reaction. Instead of focusing on sexual identity,
discussion is concerned with personal responsibilily across the board, and on proper
JI
The MOD report also indicated that, because colleges no longer banned the military from
campus, recruitment prospects were brightened by greater access to potential recruits:
Fairs' are now allowing access to the Services because of what is seen to be a more
enlightened approach." Indeed, the MOD called recruitment "quite buoyant" in the year after the ban was
the policy change
and after
Recent Evdence
This section updates research conducted in the early stages of Britain's policy change to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall impact of the transition to full equality for gays and lesbians. It adds recent testimonies of serving military personnel
and experts on the hansition and its long-term implications. The additional research
shows that the British Military's post-2000 measures on sexual orientation have been successful for one reason above all: instead of building policy around assumptions about
what impact the presence of sexual minorities in the military could have, the MOD prioritized the impact of actual behavior on operational effectiveness. Though sexual
behavior has always been important to British Military judgment on sexual orientation,
the recognition that anyone can engage in behavior that could harm unit cohesion is
highly signifcant. Moreover, it more accurately reflects the situation on the ground
where the older notion that unit cohesion requires soldiers to develop deep interpersonal
38
bonds has been replaced by the recognition that soldiers bond through shared
commitment to tasks. As such, a// soldiers are now judged on their behavior, on their
All
the evidence indicates that the conclusion of the British Military's own internal
reviews of the new policy, conducted both six months and 30 months after enactment,
still applies: the transition has been characterized by a "marked lack of reaction"
throughout the ranks.68 A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence reiterated in 2010 that
ending the gay ban in Britain had "absolutely no impact at all on operational effectiveness."6e ln 2006, the Nur.y became the first to allow troops to march in uniform
at the annual Gay Pride parade in London in, and the Royal
Air Force
This is not to conclude, of coutse, that no one reacted negatively to the change; some
members of the force complained about the new policy. But according to all available evidence, the transition has had no negative impact on the overall effectiveness of the
British military. Because the policy change has had no perceptible impact on unit
cohesion, morale, or operational effectiveness,
it is widely regarded
as an overwhelming
success. In addition, there is no indication that the policy change has had any effect on
In short, the hansition from inclusion to exclusion has been a smooth one. The section
39
concludes with a short discussion of the implications of the British experience for the
The Code of Social Conduct does not offer an exhaustive list of unacceptable conduct,
and it does give military commanders some discretionary authority in determining the
with the spouses or partners of other service personnel, overt displays of affection which
might cause offense to others, behavior that could damage the marriage or personal
relationships of service personnel or civiiian colleagues within the wider defense community, and taking sexual advantage of subordinates. While lesbian and gay
personnel could behave in ways that breach the code, none of these behaviors are
exclusive to them. The code could equally be breached by heterosexual personnel. That
the code applies to all sevice personnel calls affention to the fact that there is no clear
correlation between a person's sexuality and how he or she behaves. Indeed, the amount
of time and resources that the MOD has spent tackling endemic sexual harassment of
servicewomen by servicemen in recent years suggests that sexual relations between heterosexual personnel may be far more problematic for operational effectiveness than
those between homosexuals, and that the social code is an important tool for commanders
40
tw
social cohesion that overwhelmingly reflects the realities 'on the ground' among soldiers serving in Western Armed Forces.73 Following World War II, many argued that "social cohesion" was the key determinant of military readiness, and that effectiveness is facilitated by "intimate interpersonal relationships" between military recruits.74
Nonetheless, the second position, which arose from doubts over the reiiability of social
factors as a causal indictor of cohesion, suggests that "task cohesion"-a "shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of
the
group"-is
elsewhere,T6
while the idea of social cohesion is still promoted in some British military
doctrine, research with members of the British Armed Forces (2003- 2006) supports the claim that "military performance depends on whether service members are committed to
the same professional goals."TT Consequently, task cohesion is far more important than interpersonal relationships for developing relationships of trust with fellow service personnel. The Code of Social Conduct reflects this fact by acknowledging that
it is the
conduct of individuals that can undermine the cohesion of tight-knit groups, not the
identity of individuals per se. Thus in their 2000 review of the initial transition from
exclusion to inclusion, Belkin and Evans found that behavior, rather than sexual orientation, is what ultimately matters to the men and women in the Armed Services:
As long as people do their jobs and contribute effectively to the teamwork of their units, individual differences in opinon or in their personal lives
4T
are not considered relevant. The new policy's focus on behavior rather than on personal attributes has allowed heterosexual and homosexual soldiers alike to maintain their focus on the jobs at hand.78
Evidence seems to suggest that ending gay exclusion policies may be the best way to move beyond the worrisome focus on sexual identity and its effects on military cohesion. This is certainly true for the gay and lesbian service members themselves, who generally "breathed a sigh of relief'7e when they leamed they no longer had to lie to serve their
counfries. But the effects of liberalization go beyond just the obvious impact on gays, to
impact straight people too because they reach to the heart of heterosexual anxiety about their own role in the military, about how they should behave with respect to homosexuality and how they should interact with those they suspect or know to be gay.
Chief Petly Off,rcer Rob Nunn was discharged from the Royal Navy in 19921or being
gay, and re-joined the British Forces after the ban was lifted in 2000. The response from
his comrades was overwhelmingly positive when he came out, and he was even asked
casually
if his partner would be accompanying him to the Christmas Ball. But what's
most instructive about Nunn's experience is the impact of the new transparency not on
him but on his straight comrades. Immediately after his re-instatement, Nunn found his
colleagues were unsure how to respond to
sa!,"'he explained in
an
decided to guide him to a place of greater comfort, now that he could take advantage
of
the option to speak freely. This "one guy that I talked to who couldn't sort of talk to me,
I said, 'Right, I'm going to ask the questions that you want to ask, and answer them.' I did." Nunn reported that the greater openness, whether it came from him or from
So
42
others, allowed any remaining discomfort to evaporate, and gave him the chance to counter stereotypes, expose friends to greater understanding and put people at ease. After
-.
Patrick Lyster-Todd agreed that strong military leadership was essential to the success of
Britain's policy reform. An officer in the Royal Navy before the ban was lifted, LysterTodd later became head of Rank Outsiders, a group dedicated to lifting the ban. "Our
MOD and serving Chiefs take Equality & Diversity issues-including the rights of
serving gay personnel, whether out or
approach is that
not-
if you want to be a capable force for good in the 21st century, then you
need to be of that century and its people."8l Again, this observation is corroborated by
research showing that controversial new rules are most effective when top leaders make
their genuine support absolutely clear, so that the next layer of leaders, those who actually must implement the new rules, come to identify their enforcement of the new
Recent accounts of the transition of military policy on sexual orientation further attest to the importance of focusing on the impact of behavior on operational effectiveness, rather than assumptions about sexual identity. In recent correspondence with the MOD's
Diversity Team, officials made it clear that "the change of policy was achieved with no
tangible impact on operational effectiveness, team cohesion or service life" and that
service personnel "accepted the change in policy and business continued
as
normal." They also emphasized that, within the British Armed Forces, "an individual's
43
sexuality is considered to be a private life matter" and that sexuality alone is not viewed
as something that inherently undermines trust and cohesion among service personnel.83
- -- -eommanderDebbie
Whittingham;thecommandant-of the-rnilitary's-Jont-Eqi.rI1fy
-amd
that service personnel were aware that they may have served with gay and lesbian
soldiers for some time, with or without knowledge of their orientation, and that disclosures by close colleagues of their sexual orientation after the policy change had
little effect. Sexual identity in no way undermined those service members' history of
commitment to their units.84
policy change was characterized by the exclusion and removal of lesbian and gay
personnel from the armed forces. Perhaps for this reason, initial indications of the
likelihood of a policy change were met with hostilify by some in the armed forces.
Lieutenant Commander Mandy McBain worked at this transitional time in the Directorate of Naval Maruring.ss Tasked with addressing the views and concerns of personnel on the impact of lifting the ban, she reported that she initially encountered "a general
assumption amongst my seniors that they did not work with arry Eay people and therefore
their homophobic comments were acceptable."s6 She found it exhausting to conceal her true identity. "It's quite incredible to look back and see how much time and energy I spent leading a double life," she recalls. She even had to process the paperwork of homosexual
discharges for peers.87 Echoing McBain's remarks, Craig Jones, a retired lieutenant
44
cornmander in the Royal Navy, recalled in 2009 that "the Ministry of Defence fought the European Court of Human Rights to the bitter end." Yet he noted that "as the smoke
twenty years of pointless rhetoric-fueled arguments" because from that point on, "admirals, generals and air marshals dusted themselves down and returned to the important business of national defense and the men and women of our armed forces
returned to their daily lives freed from almost daily vacuous discussions about 'gays in the military."'8e Indeed, Jones pointed out that in his experience the 1990's debate over service by gays and lesbians was perceived by many of his fellow colleagues, regardless
of their personal views, as "an unwelcome distraction from the important business of
ensuring fighting effectiveness."
leaders were more concerned
It felt,
military
ensuring that military personnel "were well motivated and well equipped to do their
jobs."
e0
distraction to the focus on mission, not the actual presence of gay or lesbian personnel.
After the policy change, personnel involved in tracking, investigating, and dismissing
sexual minorities "turned their attention to retaining and recruiting talent rather than searching it out and dismissing
inclusive policy characterized by the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct gave back to
our servicemen and women the freedoms of life which they may one day be asked to lay
'Where
45
how to manage applications for married quarters from same-sex couples who have
entered into civil partnerships, these have been overcome through clearer guidance and
implenrentationtrining. The MOD'sapproach tolhefovisionf Serviee Fmlly Accommodation (SFA) has been to treat same-sex couples in civil parlnerships in the
same way as married couples on the grounds that, like marriage,
civil partnerships
unmarried heterosexual couples or to same-sex couples who are not in civil partnerships
because those relationships are not legally recognized. The MOD has also made
it clear
that while personnel are entitled to decline the provision of SFA on the grounds that they
might end up living next door to a same-sex couple, they have no legal right to demand
altemative accommodation. By clarifying their position in clear guidelines for
commanders and personnel, the MOD has thus tried to ensure that all its personnel have the right to a private life.ez The British military has been so pleased with the success
of
the transition that it has taken steps to promote its new policy and demonstrate its success publicly.e3 According to Commander Whittingham of the military's Joint Equality and
Diversity Training Center, all thee services are now part of the "Diversity Champions"
program run by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual rights group, Stonewall.
All
permit their soldiers to march at gay pride events in uniform, and various forums and
focus groups supported by the military have been established for serving gay and lesbian service personnel.eo As Jones put it, "the minor transitional bumps of implementation had ten times less impact than defending against this policy."e5
46
British military experts unifonnly continue to pronounce the inclusive policy a success.
Lord Alan West was head of the Royal Navy and is now terorism minister for the U.K.
sf served-both-before and aftef the-b-art vvs-litred; and fe-orfd-tif"ft'S muEh bttei
where we are now. For countries that don't lallow openly gay service], I don't believe it's
got any'thing to do with how efficient or capable their forces willbe. It's to do with other
prejudices, I'm afraid." Peter Tatchell, a London-based gay-rights activist often critical the government, praises the military's handling of the change. "Since the ban has been
of
lifted, there hasn't been a word of complaint from senior military staff," he said. "They've
said that having gay and lesbian people in the services has had no damaging effect at
a\l."96
Military expert and veteran Amyas Godfrey now works for the Royal United Services
Institute, a think tank in Britain. When the British forces lifted their ban, he was serving in Northern Ireland, and he recalls: "I remember our commanding officer at the time
called the entire battalion together and said, 'This is how
not going to discriminate. We are not going to bully. If someone in your $oup says that
he is gay, you treat them as normal.' And that, really, was the implementation of it. For
47
Conclusion
'- ---Important lessons arise from the-British experience for other militaries-considering a transition from exclusion to inclusion of sexual minorities. As with any transition, there is
scope for improvement. For example, an overemphasis on sexuality as a "private matter,"
taken from the ECHR ruling, may reaffirm, rather than displace, the idea that sexual
nefworks by senior officers, as well as through task cohesion on the ground. Soldiers
have quickly come to realize that their colleagues are no less effective than they were
prior to the policy change and that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual does not affect a
person's ability to focus on, commit to, and complete the mission at hand. In the event
a shift to inclusion
of
sexual orientation a "private matter" does not mean that "telling" is considered
inappropriate or threatening to unit cohesion. It will be essential to focus on actual behavior and to draw links between behavior and military capability rather than identity
and military capability.
Aother issue is that the initial success of the Code of Social Conduct depended in part
"on the leadership style and view of the off,rcer or off,tcers delivering the message."ee
What this means is that "strong leadership is absolutely vital" along with "a deeper
understanding by those delivering the message" that "may enhance understanding" such
48
as information on "why the rules have changed, the cost to the military for additional
see
the benefits of a policy change. Similarly, senior military personnel need to be very clear about how, and whether, entitlements and allowances applied to heterosexual service personnel such as family housing, travel warrants, and schooling for children, apply to personnel in same-sex partnerships.'ot The British approach has been to offer such
incentives to those in civil partnerships. But the federalist system in the U.S. differs in important ways from that of the U.K. and currently the American Defense of Marriage
Act bans federal recognition of same-sex couples. Finally, a zero-tolerance approach to bullying and harassment, in addition to training on this approach, would be necessary in
the U.S., although
ask, don't
tell"
regulations already provide for this, despite uneven enforcement.lo2 Any accommodation
of such discrimination based on status instead of conduct could send the message that identity continues to be the main focus instead of behavior. A uniform code of conduct for all service members, aiong with sufficient training, guidance, and leadership about
that code, is the most effective way to ensure that behavior is the proper focus of both
The original ECHR ruling about the U.K. policy did not suggest that homosexual
behavior could not, or would never be, a possible source of tension among military
personnel. However, it did find that by assuming that all lesbian and gay soldiers---or
potential soldiers-would undermine unit cohesion, regardless of how they behaved, the
49
military had violated the rights that lesbians and gays have to a private
1ife,l03 as
well
as
their right to be judged on their merits. The most important lesson from the British
- -- experienceof
n-e
olifclusion
m---
importance of focusing on the problematic behavior of any service person, that which has
the most impact on operational effectiveness. By addressing behavior rather than relying
on assumptions about how a member of a specific social $oup might behave, all behavior that poses a threat to military readiness and capability can be managed
effectively without having to exclude specific members of the forces who may be
contributing to operational effectiveness in significant ways. The above testimonies
demonstrate a clear consensus within the British military, shared by the wider British society, that the policy change has had no clear impact on military effectiveness.
systematic study of the impact of the policy change, rather than a focus on military
judgment, would still be valuable,l0a but all available evidence supports the conclusion
that the policy change was a success: allowing open lesbians and gays in the military has had no adverse impact on military capability, and the new focus on a uniform code conduct appears to enhance the professional climate of the armed forces.
of
II. CANADA
The earliest comprehensive assessment of the impact on the Canadian Forces of full inclusion was conducted by the Palm Center in 2000. The key conclusion reached by
50
Palm researchers was that the 1992 decision was seen as a "non-event," with neither increased deparlures by heterosexual members nor signif,rcant numbers of complaints
According to their report, "Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the
Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performancel'and GLBT personnel
"who have served since the ban was lifted describe good working relationships with peers in supportive institutional environments whee morale and cohesion are maintained."lO5
Palm researchers identi$i three key factors that likely contributed to this success, The
first was the CF's decision to focus on behaviors rather than attempt to shift attitudes.
The second was the decision to address behaviors through broad harassment training that
neither singled out sexual orientation nor ignored it as a potential source of conflict. The
third was the clear leadership exercised by the CF Chief of Defence Staff and the most
senior leadership cadre in announcing and implementing the policy change.
In 1986, six
years before the Canadian Forces lifted the gay ban, a survey of 6,500 male
service members found that 62Yowould refuse to share quarters with gay soldiers and
45Yo would not
work with gays. But by several accounts following the transition, the
change had no overall impact on the effectiveness of the military. "The nine months since
a court case induced Canada's
soldiers-not only those who have concerns about gays, but also those who do not-say
51
they have accepted the new regime."r06 More than two years after gay exclusion ended,
according to a Canadian Forces assessment, there was no mass exodus and no indication
reviev by a
bureau of the Canadian military found that, "despite all the anxiety that existed through the late 80s into the early 90s about the change in policy, here's what the indicators
show-no
effect."l08
This section provides additional commentary regarding the context of the 1992 decision,
and then provides an overview of subsequent developments in CF policies, doctrine and
programs, including consideration of the two key issues that are implied but not
examined in the 2000 study regarding changes in attitudes over time and combat
effectiveness. [n addition to reviewing the 2000 study by the Palm Center about the
successful transition by CF to
that can help explain the "non-event," and particularly to help observers understand why the problems predicted in the 1986 survey did not occur. In particular, we address two
fundamental questions that arise out of the experience of the CF. Given the negative
attitudinal f,rndings of the 1986 survey, the first question pertains to whether, by choosing
to focus on behaviors and not attempting to influence attitudes, the CF has allowed the dominant culture to remain strongly heterosexist, thus diminishing the opporlunities for
gay members to integrate their personal and professional lives to the degree that their
straight colleagues can. The second question arises from the central argument previously
presented by the military regarding the possible impacts on morale, cohesion, combat readiness and operational effectiveness. That argument went as follows: although the CF
52
was engaged in a number of complex missions in the 1990s including in the Balkans, Somalia, Rwanda and East Timor, the Canadian military had not been tested in the heat
of battle to the level tharthsU:S. mifitry has bn; thus,lhe fIIeTfTs Irh-e I99t
decision had not been assessed where it counted the most. Skeptics of
full inclusion
used
this reasoning to argue that the data on lifting the ban was insufficient to pronounce it a
success.
In order to fully appreciate the policy changes implementedin 1992 regarding gays
serving in the military and the perceived "non-event" in the years immediately following,
it is necessary to consider the other policies and programs that were also under challenge,
review or amendment during the period from 1986 to 1995.10e As with many other
changes in broad government legislation and evolutions in societal nonns. Further, the
military was going through signif,rcant shifts in understanding its role and missions given
the end of the Cold War and the emergence of new forms of conflict.l
l0 Finally, the CF
had received marked negative publicity because of an incident during its 1993 mission in Somalia in which soldiers beat to death a Somali youth taken into custody; the event
served to focus extemal public and political attention as well as CF senior leadership.r
II
53
----
in
1978,
a series of research trials and suits against the CF culminated in a landmark Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal decision in 1989. The Tribunal stated, "The issue is: does 'operational effectiveness' constitute a bona fide occupational requirement of such a
nature that the exclusion of women from combat-related occupations is justif,red, even
though it is, on its face, a discriminatory practice." It found that the CF had not made the
case to retain the exclusionary policy and directed the CF to achieve
full
and complete
gender integration in all occupations and all roles except submarines by 1998.113
1,992
in the military, the issue of the employment of women, particularly in combat roles, was
of high visibility across the CF from 1979 through to the mid-9Os, with commensurate
visible leadership from the top to set the tone and ensure success. The changes incurred
the same core concerns as the 1992 policy change for gays in uniform, that is, concern
Employment Equity Act: A further catalyst for proactive programs in the military was the
passage by the Canadian Parliament of the Employment Equity Act (EE Act)
in
1986.
This legislation requires that federal government agencies take steps to address the
54
minorities and persons with disabilities, with the goal of achieving equitable
representation in all areas and at all levels of employment.
policy of multi-faith service with all Chaplains to minister to members of all faiths to
Defence Ethics Program'. The final program development that occurred concurrently in
the 1988-1992 period was the implementation of the Defence Ethics Program (DEP). The
DEP presents a values-based framework centered around three ethical obligations:
respect the dignity of all persons; serve Canada before self; and obey and support lawful
authority. The perception that the lifting of the ban on gays in the military in 1992 was a
"non-event" is rooted in some part in the first prong of the DEP focus: respecting the
incorporated into professional military education (PME) across the CF. A series of
55
surveys was conducted during the 1990s to assess the ethical climate in the CF and a
range of resource materials were made available.
Somlia and Canda's 'Blae Beret' Imge: No summary of the evolution of CF policies, programs or culture during the 1990s can be complete without a consideration of
the events surrounding the deployment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment to Somalia n
1992-93
death Shidane Abukar Alone, a 16-year-old who had been taken into custody when found
in the Canadian compound. The subsequent outcry among Canadians and criticism of
senior military leadership by politicians led to the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment
in disgrace and to the firing of the Chief of the Defence Staff, General John Boyle. Some
years later,
in
1997 , the
of
Canadians.l
l6
Among other concerns, the events surrounding the Airborne Regiment prior to and during
the deployment to Somalia highlighted concerns regarding racism, prejudice, and a
"rogue" culture that was at odds with the more respectful and ethics-focused norms of the
Canadian military and society. The death of Shidane Aone struck a deep chord with Canadians as the vast majority of the citizenry had viewed their military as "Blue Berets"
conducting random acts of kindness in far-off places.ttt While Canadians are not naiVe
and most recognize Canada's war fighting contributions in the First and Second World
Wars and the Korean conflict, the dominant view among citizens is that Canada should
56
the Somalia incident had far greater consequences for Canadians and the CF than appears
This overview of changes occurring in the CF around the time of the 1992 decision to
remove the ban on gays serving in uniform reveals that the institution was engaged in addressing a number of concurrent issues related to changes in civilian culture. To some extent, the observed "non-event" was due to the fact that the decision to
lift
the ban on
gays was seen as a rather minor issue in comparison to these other concurrent changes.
While Palm researchers identified the role of senior leadership and the decision to
address behaviors using broad programs rather than implementing initiatives to change
attitudes or single out gay members, there are two more fundamental explanations as to
how the CF was able to implement the wide range of policy changes needed to address all
of the social evolution. The first was that the senior leadership recognized that the central
issue in all cases pertained to culture and identity and, in particular, the requirement to ensure that key aspects of the CF culture reflected that of Canadian society. The second
was to artculate the requirements, objectives, and desired ends using shared, key
principles that underpinned how the military (collectively) served the nation and how
each individual served the
of
talented individuals who want to serve their country in uniform and transform them into cohesive, effective teams.
57
It should
also be noted that, when taken together, the issues presented in this section
military culture was fine as it was and senior leadership needed no outside assistance to
create a more dynamic, adaptive culture; and second, that the military alone should be the
final arbiter of balancing operational effectiveness with individual rights- a view the
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal clearly dismissed when it concluded that "the risk to
individual rights is high when women are excluded from any occupations, and the risk to
national security is, by comparison, low."l
l8
Finally, while this update confirms that the cancelation of the previous policy was
event from the perspective of the CF, not all agreed. A minority of politicians was
a non-
opposed to some of the related policy changes and ciearly dismissed the legitimacy of, or
need for, the CF to address the requirements of gay communities.
Until recently, no systematic research had been conducted to specically examine the
experiences of gays in uniform after the ban was
impact of changes in Canadian society and the CF on the experiences of gays in uniform.
Same-sex Marriage: The legal recognition of marriage between same-sex partners occurred over the course of several years as provincial govemments amended statutes,
and culminated with the federal government doing so in 2005. This measure has
58
generally had broad support as illustrated in a September 2009 public opinion poll in
which 610/o of Canadians supported same-sex marriage and only 11% indicated that
--same'.sex'couples-should-havelo
moved quickly to amend a host of related policies including those regarding pay, pensions, married quarters, relocation benefits etc. As an example, Interim Guidelines
for CF Chaplains for same-sex marriages were issued in September 2003 and the frst publicly acknowledged same-sex marriage of two service members took place in May
2005.11e These guidelines address key principles, and clearly highlight the importance
of
the Defence Ethics Program's focus on the obligation to respect the dignity of all persons.
Outrech and Community Enggement: Over the last few years, the CF has also
developed more proactive approaches to engage with the gay community. One example is the creation of a Facebook site for the Canadian Forces Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Heterosexual Group.l20 Although the posting states
it
is not an
presence of the CF logo, the use of military ranks, and the identification of both a Group
institution. While this site provides an accessible means of social support, members of
the gay community have requested that the CF appoint a formal senior "champion" (at
the LGen or MGen level) as has been done for the four EE designated groups. To date,
59
members of the CF, permission was given in 2008 for CF members to participate in Pride
Parades in
which is intended to raise awareness of, and garner the support of Canadians for the CF by showcasing the men and trvomen of the CF. This initiative is seen to support recruiting
and diversity efforts with clear statements of the principle that "embracing diversity
contributes to the relevance of the CF as a national institution in that Canadians see themselves when looking at the
because
it acts
as a force
theatres."l2t For a number of Pride Parades this year, volunteers from across the CF were
on duty participating in the parades in uniform handing out promotional items to those in attendance and at an official recruiting booth.
Reserch'. As mentioned, relatively little research has been conducted in the CF that is
specifically focused on issues related to the inclusion of gays in the military. One area
that has been examined pertains to legal proceedings. In an update to a comprehensive analysis of CF cases, the author of that work confirmed that, as of summer 2009, there have not been any courts martial since 2000 for either sexual misconduct involving gay members or for inappropriate behaviors directed at gay members.l22
60
To retum to one of the original areas of research, little has been done to re-examine the
1986 survey that was interpreted to reveal strong opposition to removing the ban on gays
-=----servingin-uniform:-As-the
attitudes, a major question that remained unanswered n the 2000 report was whether the
provides apafal answer and, with some time lag, apafal cross-national comparison. As part of a comprehensive research program examining the "civil-military gap" in the U.S., a team led by Dr. Peter Feaver analyzed attitudes of mid- to senior-level officers
which was replicated in Canada.t23 215 senior CF officers (Major to Colonel) attending
Canadian Forces College (U.S. Staff and War College equivalent of Professional
Military
Education) completed a detailed suwey of attitudes and opinions.l2a The following three
paragraphs were presented in the report comparing the responses of the senior CF
Officers to their U.S. colleagues of the same ranks: The two groups fCanadian and American] provided rather different perspectives on a number of items related to diversity and gender roles. Only a minority (21%) of Canadian survey respondents embraced the idea that "the military should remain basically masculine, dominated by male values and characteristics" whereas 4IYo of their American peers had agreed. Very few believed that military effectiveness was greatly hurt when women entered the workplace (3o/o), due to the military becoming less male-dominated (3%) or due to bans on language and behavior that encouraged haditional patterns of camaradene (7%).
The divergent views of the fwo militaries were evident in responses on the roles of women in uniform. 78% of Canadians agreed that women should be allowed to serve in combat jobs while only 38% of Americans supported such a policy. .. 8l% of Canadians reported that they would be equally confident with a female as they would with a male Commanding Officer (CO) (vs. 67% :.lr,the US).
61
The differences between Canadian and American respondents in openness were even more marked regarding the employment of gays and lesbians in uniform. While 68% of the Canadian respondents agreed with the CF policy allowing gay men and lesbian women to serve openly in the
87oof theirAme-rieancolleagu-essulp-ortdadoptingsuehonly 28o/o of Canadians indicated that they would be more comfortable with a straight CO than with a gay CO, 65% in the US preferred a commander who was straight.
Although the sample is small and clearly not representative of all ranks, it is seen as an
indicator of a significant shift in attitudes and opinions regarding both gays and women tn
uniform since the 1986 study that was reported to reveal strong opposition. Further, in
comparison to the general CF population, this sample over-represented older males,
operational occupations (MOS), and those on a command career path, all factors that would predict a more conservative outlook than expected from a broader cross-section of
the CF.l25 Not all of the attitudinal responses of this cohort of senior CF Officers were
seen as positive, however. Note, for instance:
In particular, although this group did not oppose the inclusion of individuals on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, they were somewhat complacent in assessing that the CF had achieved what is required to fuliy accommodate these groups. Some of their responses represented a latent resistance with perceptions that standards were easier for women and that the initiatives to integrate women had eroded military performance. Of more importance, the assessment of the CF's progress was rather optimistic and over-stated... Thus, while there were not signs of overt resistance, there appeared to be a 'perception gap' between what these military leaders believe had been accomplished and what may actually be required to achieve CF diversity objectives.
Doctrine nd the prototype "Combt MaIe Wnior": One of the initiatives that came directly out of Somalia but was also informed by the other events identified in the
previous section's decade of social evolution was a signif,rcant effort to establish and
update CF Dochine. The most important of the doctrine manuals produced was the 2003
62
publication, Dty with Honour; The Profession of Arms in Canada.l26 This manual
"presents the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the profession, shows how in ------ .--praetiee-it serves eanada-and eanadian-interests; and; codif,res;-for
the-firsftime;whatir-
means to be a Canadian military professional."i2T Key in this articulation was the view
that the CF should predominantly project values rather than force, and its military ethos should reflect both martiaVwar-fighting values and broader Canadian values
of
acceptance and inclusion. Martial values, uniquely emphasized in the military to ensure
liability, fighting/warrior spirit, teamwork, and self-discipline. Civil values that were
given prominence included notions of rights and freedoms and the obligation to respect
the dignity of all persons.
The language chosen and the symbols used to communicate the intent of the manual were selected so as to carefully balance the fundamental role, character, and nature of the
profession of arms as responsible to the state for the defense of the nation with the evolving, broader, and more complex expectations particularly for the CF as a partner
with allies and other agencies in achieving integrated security solutions under
comprehensive approaches.
The related doctrinal change was the subsequent publication of Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations. Drawing on the central concepts in Duty
63
the institution," highlights the individual and collective responsibilities of leaders at all levels to set the conditions for small unit/team success in operations. The unifuing theme
-
philosophical, sociological, and ethical framework to enable the CF to evolve to meet both emerging societal expectations and to achieve complex (human) security missions. Of particular relevance for this review, Duty with Honour strove to retain the concept of the "warrior's honor" while shifting away fom the dominant prototype of the "combat
male warrior."l2e The (gradual) acceptance of a redefined model soldier- one who values
a range
Combat and Opertional Settngs: This brief section addresses continued reservations by
those who consider the 2000 report to be an inadequate assessment of the CF's 1992
transition to fulI inclusion since it had not yet been engaged in major combat missions at
the
time.
well
as engaging
in
naval interdiction and counter-piracy off the Horn of Africa, the CF certainly believes it
has answered the general question of its collective combat capabilities on land, in the air, at sea, and in special forces contexts. In doing so, the CF has sustained significant losses
(relative to the size of the CF) as well as standing its ground in the face of a rather
detennined insurgency. Our observation, based on extensive discussions with military
64
leaders, is that the CF believes that soldier-for-soldier, man or woman, gay or straight,
it
is capable of punching above its weight. Although there has not been any systematic
----_-research to speeifically-examine
'
women or gays, Dr Anne Irwin, an anthropologist who studies the CF, recently spent
several weeks with combat solders in Afghanistan. Extending the key conclusion
reached by Belkin and McNichol, she stated:
My intuitive feeling was that it was a non-issue. Sexuality to a large degree is irrelevant; what matters is whether someone is reliable, loyal and hardworking. Good sense of humor, a joiner, rather than a loner. Beyond that, I don't think anyone really cares.t'o
Voices nd Perspectives: Key themes that emerge from Canadian scholars' work on the perspectives of gays in uniforml3l, as well as from service members' comments to the authors of this study, are as follows:
1.
Invisible ldentity. Several academics and some serving members have commented that
gendered and sexual identities invisible.l32 By adopting an approach of "benign neglect," the CF has prevented members of the gay community in uniform from engaging in
meaningful dialogue about their identities. This issue appears to be of significant importance for those who are transgender, as was indicated in the legal proceedings by
Micheline Montreuil.
2.
65
each person has to deal with the issues that confront them on their own, with
little or no
institutional support. This experience contrasts with that of others in uniform who have
had to deal-with issues,that were either not common or-not
forma
acknowledged, but
--
-,
--
for which programs were developed to provide them with support, such as single
parenthood, elder care, learning differences, PTSD, and mental illness.
full
access
to the available procedures such as filing formal complaints in the event of wrongdoing.
individuals must have confidence in both the results of filing complaints and the
processes used to adjudicate them for such procedures to accomplish their stated goals
of
justice. One service member commented, "Most queer people do not believe that going
through the harassment complaint process is anyhing but a way of painting a big rainbow
target on our heads." One result of the absence of complaints is that leaders wrongly conclude that all is well or that the CF is doing as much as is needed.
4. Career Implications. The input received suggests mixed results about the effects that
open homosexuality can have on one's career. Some feared that declarjng their identity
would indirectly have career consequences while others perceived and experienced no problems. From the background research and some comments received, it is plausible
that a differentiating factor may be the role that different individuals take on or the degree to which they make their identity
that some of those who were open about their identity felt an obligation to put in extra
66
5. Ignorance and Prejudice vs. Acceptance and Belonging. From comments received,
it
is evident that the time period during which individuals joined the CF shapes how gays in
uniform experience daily life: those who joined pre-1988 still recall the "witch hunts"
and need for secrecy, while those who joined more recently did not experience this
treatment. An additional theme that emerged from respondents was frustration with the
degree of ignorance demonsfated by a minority of their
misunderstanding of key facets of the gay community, conflation of gender identity with sexual identity, and assumptions about gender or sexual identity based on certain
behaviors clearly lead to actions or statements that are received as harmful or prejudicial,
with the sense that better education could prevent such problems. Conversely, several
respondents commented on growing acceptance by their CF colleagues as gay members have "earned" the right to serve through their performance and professionalism.
In their 2000 review of the perspectives of gays in uniform, Palm researchers quote a
comment by CF member Michelle Douglas that "gay people have never screamed to be
really, really out. They just want to be really safe from being fired."l33 This update would suggest that their perspectives have evolved to the point that gays in uniform
would appreciate greater factual knowledge and understandingif and when they choose
to come out. Above all, they want to be judged on their performance, not their identify.
Thus, the main shift noted among gays in uniform is that their expectation has grown
67
from merely hoping to hold onto their job to aspiring to have a full career, which allows
them the same balance of work and personal lives as their heterosexual counterparts.
Conclusion
This report, which updates previous research on gays in the Canadian Forces, confirms that the transition to full inclusion remains a non-event, and it supports the finding that effective leadership, a focus on behaviors, and the use of a comprehensive program to
prevent personal harassment contributed to the smooth transition. It also provides some
additional contextual factors that help explain the social evolution of the CF throughout
the 1990s and 2000s, including effecting policy and program changes to address
employment of women in combat roles; increasing representation of women, Aboriginal
Peoples, and visible minorities at all ranks; accommodating a range of religious belief systems and associated practices; and confronting the fallout from criminal behaviors
during the Airborne deployment to Somalia. Underlying these changes were the beliefs
that the central issues pertained to culture and identity, key principles mattered more than
rule changes, and leadership would play a strong role in realigning existing military
culture.
Culture, principles, and leadership have retained their central importance as the CF has continued to evolve from 2000 to 2009 in response to broader social trends and internal expectations. A signif,rcant illustration of the development of CF institutional approaches
68
toward its gay members can be seen in the formal outreach initiatives with gay and
straight members in uniform representing the CF in Pride Parades. Research about
cuTrent attitudes suggests-a signifieff shift from- those-reporref 5 yeais--ailei;-wth
general acceptance of both the policy and gay members in uniform, although a degree
perhaps premature complacency was noted among some older CF members.
of
The final updated information provides some glimpses into the views and perspectives of
the gay community within the CF. The issues that were raised were related to: dealing
with identities that the institution has made invisible; feeling isolated
as a
minority that
does not have the same status or supports afforded other sub-groups; lacking conf,rdence
in the current mechanisms of procedure for complaints in the event of wrongdoing; and diffculties confronting the minority of colleagues who do not, willnot, or canot
understand the nuances of gender or sexual identity or the privilege given to the dominant heterosexual community to define what is "normal." Conversely, there are indicators that some are having success in their careers, and there were no significant indications that the CF was lagging behind society as a whole. While some are still reluctant or cautious in
bringing their personal life into their professional domain, the comments by researchers
and some gays in uniform suggest there is an expectation that all individuals should be
judged solely on competence and performance and that identity should not be a factor. Using a common model for assessing inter- and intra-group relations, this expectation reflects a desire by gays in uniform to move from marginalization to integration rather
then assimilation (loss of meaningful personal identity) or separation (loss of meaningful
institutional role). I 3a
69
In assessing the continued evolution of the CF, it would appear that the institution is
factors: the continued evolution of broader social norrns and expectations within
Canadian society; the scarcity of talent and need to be more proactive in recruitment and outreach; the implications of new security missions in nations such as Afghanistan; and
the continued redefinition of the ideal soldier, from "combat male-warrior" to "soldier-
"
TII.
AUSTRALIA
In June 1993, seven months after the Australian ban on homosexual service was lifted,
the U.S. General Accounting Office conducted interviews with ADF off,rcials to document early outcomes associated with the change.t" The short overview of the policy change concludes with a summary statement based on comments from an Australian
no reported changes have occurred in the number of persons declaring his or her sexual preference or the number of recruits being inducted. Effects on unit cohesiveness have
70
not yet been fully determined. However, early indications are that the new policy has had
Australia to meet with representatives of the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Army, and Royal Australian Nuty, as well as with Dr. Hugh Smith of the
ADF Academy, and service psychologists at ADF headquarters in Canberra. The British
team reported that service staffs believed the change had not resulted in any notable
problems for military functioning. Following an initial outcry, said the report, homosexuality became a "non-issue" and the diff,rculties of integrating open homosexuals were described as 'Just another legitimate management problem."l37
In 2000, the Palm Center reviewed all available data pertaining to the lifting of the ban in
Australia. It found that the hansition did not lead to "any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of
military performance."l38 Some evidence suggested that the policy change may have
contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service
members. Key findings included the following:
Prior to the lifting of the ban, ADF service chief argued that allowing
homosexuals to serve openly would jeopardize recruitment, troop cohesion, and
71