BACKGROUND PAPER THE MILITARY'S JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ITS EXCLUSIONARY POLICY The military's entire justification for its exclusion of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals is as follows: Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate the assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security. Extract from DOD Directive 1332.14. The military's stated justifications for its policy illustrate graphically how fears and stereotypes of gay people underlie the policy. The following sections offer a detailed examination of the military's justifications and an articulation of arguments against the policy. 1. DISCIPLINE, GOOD ORDER AND MORALE CURRENT POLICY: The military believes the presence of people who are gay, or show a propensity for being gay, "seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission," because the "presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Armed Forces to maintain discipline, good order and morale." ARGUMENT: The military does not spell out the connection between the presence of known gay men, lesbians and bisexual people in the military and the anticipated result -- in this case, a decline in discipline, morale and good order. The only possible explanation is that the military assumes that heterosexual members of the Armed Forces have such hatred, fear and disgust regarding homosexuals that the presence of known gay people will result in morale plummeting, discipline disappearing and good order becoming impossible to maintain. In other words, the policy is designed to cater to an assumed fear and prejudice instead of eradicating it. The assumption also runs counter to the extensive historical, anecdotal evidence that has been gathered -- which indicates that straight people in the military have been able to live and work with people they knew were gay. (See Shilts, Randy (1993), Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military; Berube, Allan (1990), Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II.) (See also attached piece on Unit Cohesion). 2. MUTUAL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE CURRENT POLICY: The military believes the presence of gay servicemembers will "adversely affect the ability of the Armed Forces . . . to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers." ARGUMENT: This rationale assumes that most heterosexual individuals cannot imagine having a relationship of trust and confidence with a gay person. It is akin to arguing that known gay students should not be allowed to participate in athletic or debate competitions, that gay people who acknowledge they are gay should not serve as police, fire, paramedic personnel, nurses or doctors, or in any situation in which members of a team must have trust and confidence in each other, since straight "teammates" would have difficulty trusting such gay personnel. More and more these days gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are acknowledging their sexual orientation in today's workforce and straight co-workers are adjusting to that change without difficulty. People with different attributes mix successfully in all professions and schools. There is no reason for the military profession to be any different. (See also attached piece on Unit Cohesion.) 3. INTEGRITY OF RANK AND COMMAND CURRENT POLICY: The military believes the presence of gay servicemembers will "adversely affect the ability of the Armed Forces . . . to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command. ARGUMENT: As with the other rationales, this argument is premised on the assumption that a straight servicemember would be unable or unwilling to accept orders from a superior who is known to be gay, thus undermining the integrity of rank and command. There is absolutely no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, the strength of the military's system rests on the incredible authority that being a commander brings -- simply by virtue of his or her position. An analogue in civilian life would be to say that students will not listen to or learn from professors they know are gay, or that medical residents would not listen to physicians they know are gay. This is simply not true in the civilian world -- where the authority of the position is what commands the respect. There is no reason to expect the military to be any different. 4. CLOSE LIVING QUARTERS CURRENT POLICY: The military believes the presence of gay servicemembers will "adversely affect the ability of the Armed Forces . . . to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy." ARGUMENT: This rationale assumes straight servicemembers would be repelled by the thought of living in close quarters with servicemembers who acknowledge they are gay. This ignores the fact that unit cohesion usually brings disparate individuals together in a bonding process of trust. This trust allows servicemembers to function in the face of bullets and severe conditions. The bonding, according to military experts, begins at basic training and continues through the service. No one asks the recruits who they like or what prejudices they might have brought with them into the military. Rather, differences are ignored and prejudices rooted out so that all may serve as equals, with equal responsibility. Since trust is built among individuals, prejudice and exclusion against a group is totally irrelevant and antithetical to the military mission. Again, the historical anecdotal evidence counters this concern: there have been hundreds of examples of straight servicemembers who knew their co-servicemembers were gay and who had no problems with privacy issues. (Shilts, 1993). Successful integration of known gay people in police departments and fire departments, where individuals work and/or live in conditions affording minimal privacy, also supports the proposition that privacy issues will not be a major hinderance to the successful integration of known gay people in the military. It is true that some straight servicemembers do feel uncomfortable with having to share close living quarters with gay people, including showers and bathroom facilities. This discomfort stems largely from unfamiliarity with gay people and from many years of socialization resulting in deeply held feelings of discomfort against gay people. It would be absurd to deny the existence of such feelings. But those feelings should not dictate a policy of excluding an entire category of people from service altogether (or forcing such people to live lives of deception) in order to accommodate some feelings of discomfort on the part of others. Rather, heterosexual people who have these feelings of discomfort will ultimately adapt to the situation -- just as heterosexual people adapt to such situations in paramilitary organizations and, in fact, in various civilian activities such as exercising in gyms and health clubs. To the extent the privacy concerns relate to fears that gay people will actually harass or "come on" to straight people, the answer is simple: there should be strict codes of sexual misconduct enforced against gay and straight people alike. The truth is that, as a practical matter, there probably is (and will continue to be) a greater problem of heterosexual misconduct in the military rather than homosexual misconduct. 5. RECRUIT MEMBERS AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY CURRENT POLICY: The military believes the presence of gay servicemembers will "adversely affect the ability of the Armed Forces . . . to recruit and retain members of the armed forces [and] to maintain the public acceptability of military service." ARGUMENT: Like the other rationales, this one assumes that significant numbers of straight people who would otherwise have joined the armed forces (for financial, training or other reasons) will not do so if they know they will meet and serve with known gay colleagues. It also presumes that public acceptability of the military will decrease significantly because of the presence of known gay servicemembers. Like the previous assumptions, there is no hard data to support these presumptions. In fact, it appears that younger people today are much more tolerant of gay people than twenty years ago -- and more tolerant than their older counterparts. This apparent greater tolerance among younger people was noted by Senator John Warner during Senate hearings. This tolerance and opposition to discrimination on the part of young people is evidenced by the extensive efforts on hundreds of college campuses across the country to ban the ROTC program because of its discriminatory policy against gay students. 6. SECURITY BREACHES CURRENT POLICY: The final military rationale is that the presence of gay servicemembers will impair the military's ability "to prevent breaches of security." ARGUMENT: There is absolutely no evidence to support this rationale. Indeed, the 1957 "Crittenden Report," conducted for the military, concluded "no factual data exists to support the contention that homosexuals are a greater risk than heterosexuals." (PERSEREC, p. 29.) In 1975, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution stating, "homosexuality pre se implies no impairment of judgement, stability, reliability, or general or vocational ability." A similar resolution was adopted by the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC) titled "Non-conforming Sexual Orientation and Military Suitability," confirmed the results of the "Crittenden Report." The study concluded, "the preponderance of the evidence presented in this study indicates that homosexuals show preservice suitability- related adjustment that is as good or better than the average heterosexual." The National Security Agency has dropped "homosexuality" from its lists of excludable conditions for a security clearance. The military has essentially dropped the security clearance rationale as a basis for its policy -- acknowledging that if a person is willing to acknowledge his or her sexual orientation, it is the existence of the ban that makes the person subject to pressure and potential blackmail, not the fact of the person's sexual orientation. * * * * Prepared by the Legal/Policy Department of the Campaign for Military Service. 2707 Massachussetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009. (202) 265-6666.