BACKGROUND PAPER SUPPORTING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S POLICY TO LIFT THE BAN ON GAY PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY Not everyone in the military establishment believes that the military's policy excluding gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from the armed services is justified. Two recent internal military reports prepared by the Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSERE-C) questioned the need for the policy. The first report, "Nonconforming Sexual Orientation- and Military Suitability," issued December 1988 (PERSEREC I), determined that the military's assertion that "homosexuality was incompatible with military service" was invalid. The second report, "Preservice Adjustment of Homosexual and Heterosexual Military Accessions: Implications for Security Clearance Suitability," issued in January 1989 (PERSEREC II), concluded that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in the military do not pose increased security risks. The military's policy embodies the purest form of unjustified discrimination: it establishes a blanket ban on the basis of a characteristic that has no proven relationship to the ability of an individual to perform a job. The anecdotal record is replete with incidents of servicemembers with exemplary records, distinguished careers, and high military honors discharged simply because they are found out to be gay. Like all unjustified discriminatory policies, this one is based on myths, fears and stereotypes about gay people. Indeed, all of the military's rationales assume that a significant majority of today's Americans still fear and hate gay people. The policy further assumes the only way for the military to continue function-ing effectively is to cater to and accommodate such prejudices. Catering to prejudice has never been a good reason for a policy and, indeed, is probably unconstitutional. (See "Recent Legal Cases: Constitutional Analysis" in CMS Briefing Book at Tab 6). This concern for tolerating prejudice, however, is not new. The military echoed the same concerns regarding the integration of African-Americans in the armed services. The same concerns regarding the effect on "morale" and on "unity and esprit-de-corp" were voiced in 1941 with regard to "admitting Negroes." A Navy Department memorandum, dated December 24, 1941, outlined the basis for the military's exclusion of African- Ameri-cans: The close and intimate conditions of life aboard ship, the necessity for the highest possible degree of unity and esprit-de-corp, the requirement of morale - all demand that nothing be done which may adversely affect the situation. Past experience has shown irrefutably that the enlistment of Negroes (other than for mess attendants) leads to disruptive and undermining conditions. Doesn't that sound familiar. The successful integration of African Americans into the military gives testimony to the military's system of discipline and order and its ability to overcome personnel prejudice and build unit cohesion. As the 1988 PERSEREC Report notes: The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions have come true. 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 applying the experience of the past forty years to the integration of homosexuals. (PERSEREC I, at 25.) The devastating effects feared by the military did not occur with the integration of African-Americans into the armed forces, and will not occur when the ban on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals is lifted. The irony of the military's position is that the majority of the American public does not harbor the degree of repulsion, hatred and fear of gay people presumed by the military, nor did they about African- Americans in the 1940s. The "dire consequences" predicted by the military as rationales for excluding gay people exist without any empirical basis. Over the past years, particularly as more and more gay men, lesbians and bisexual people have become more open in workplace and family surroundings, a significant percentage of the American public has found working, studying and living with gay people is not uncomfortable or emotionally devastating. Indeed, the level of public acceptance of gay people in this country now is higher than it has ever been. In its March 5, 1993 issue, The New York Times published a poll conducted with CBS News. The results showed: The majority of Americans (78%) believe lesbians and gay men should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. The military's policy has devastating consequences for individual lives. On the purely practical level, the military's policy means: if a gay person who has graduated at the top of his or her class from a prestigious school wishes to serve in the military without hiding the fact of his or her sexual orientation, he or she is precluded from such service. On an emotional level, the military's policy forces thousands of qualified and dedicated gay, lesbian and bisexual professionals to live in constant fear of being exposed. A policy that forces people to lie does little to establish or maintain morale, trust or confidence in the ranks. The exclusionary policy itself breeds fear, mistrust and low morale. Gay people suffer through periodic "witchhunts," are subjected to pressure to "name names" of other gay members, and are inhibited in their ability to talk about anything remotely connected to their personal lives. The chilling of free speech and association among all servicemembers is one of the more invidious ramifications of the military's sweeping exclusionary policy. * * * * Prepared by the Legal/Policy Department of the Campaign for Military Service. 2707 Massachussetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009. (202) 265-6666.