Hello Friends:
The following excerpt (it's real long, so feel free to skip over it if
you have no interest) deals with military discrimination and ROTC, incl.
the address for the national day of action against discrimination. Having
been a former service member myself, I have a personal interest in this
subject. The report which follows is quite informative. Enjoy.....
- ----- Forwarded message -------
Overview of the Armed Forces Discriminatory Policies
Against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People
Prepared by Marc Gunning
Coordinator of the National Day of Action Against Discrimination
January 17, 1992
NDAAD
P.O. Box 751
East Setauket, NY 11733 - 0751
Based on figures quoted in a report commissioned by the
Pentagon (Sarbin and Karois, 1988), it is estimated that the
United States Armed Forces employs over 80,700 service people,
making it the largest employer in the United States. Despite this
distinction, it is allowed by federal mandate to discriminate
against approximately 25% of its employees: those who are lesbian,
gay and bisexual.
It should be noted that the figure 25% is a more conservative
figure than percentages afforded to us by studies conducted by
Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940's. [Kinsey, 1948; Kinsey, 1953] In
these studies, Kinsey found that of his sample population of 5,000
white males, approximately 10% had little or no heterosexual
experience, nearly 20% had at least as many homosexual experiences
as heterosexual experiences, 37% had at least one homosexual
experience to orgasm, and 50% had at least one homosexual fantasy
to orgasm. The percentages for the same experiences among women
were roughly half that of men.
The question immediately arises, however, that given the high
degree of intolerance towards those who are sexually attracted to
their own gender, would that not preclude many gay, lesbian,
bisexual people from entering the military? A study conducted by
the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center that
was commissioned by the Pentagon addressed this question.
Harry (1984) found that homosexual and heterosexual
men were equally likely to have served in the military.
Homosexual women were more likely than heterosexual women
to have had military service. Weinberg and Williams in a
sworn affidavit state: "the vast majority of homosexuals
in the Armed Forces remain undiscovered by military
authorities, and complete their service with honor."
[Sarbin and Karois, 1988; p. 23]
As the authors of this report point out, these statements imply
that a large number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people have served
honorably in the United States military. For the purposes of this
paper, a conservative estimate that 25% of armed forces personnel are
lesbian, gay or bisexual seemed appropriate. Using that estimate,
current Department of Defense policies call for the removal of
approximately 20,190 service women and men.
Department of Defense directive 1332.14, issued January 28,
1982, states:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
The presence of such members adversely affects the ability
of the Armed Forces to maintain discipline, good order, and
morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among the
members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and
command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment
of members who frequently must 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
circumstances, to prevent breaches of security.
[Sarbin and Karois, 1988; p. 19]
Richard Mohr, author of Gays / Justice, points out that the U.S.
military was racially segregated until 1948 on many of the same
grounds as those purported for barring lesbian, gay and bisexual
people, "...especially the ground that whites could not work with
blacks." [Mohr, 1988, p. 196] The policies that were used to bar
women from active service also made allusion to the close proximity
that men and women who have to live and work under in a manner very
similar to directive 1332.14. Despite the military's
predilections, Blacks and women have been successfully integrated
into the armed forces, and the United States military is considered
by some to be a model in affirmative action.
Taking the seven rationales of directive 1332.14 as a group, it
becomes apparent that lesbian, gay and bisexual people do not have
to engage in homosexual behavior in order to be removed from
service. While consensual homosexual activity is also forbidden by
military policy and has been used as grounds for dismissal, DoD
directive 1332.14 is unique in that it asserts that the condition
of one's sexual orientation may be grounds for discharge. In other
words, the mere feelings of attraction towards one's own gender is
sufficient for dismissal from the armed forces. As such, many
lesbian, gay and bisexual activists point out that this intrusion
on the thoughts and feelings of service men and women is akin to
establishing a kind of "thought police".
Prior to the institution of directive 1332.14, the military's
policies related to this issue focused on the acts of homosexual
activity. In his book Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay
Men and Women in World War Two, Allan Berube notes:
Traditionally the military had never officially
excluded or discharged homosexuals from its ranks. From
the days following the Revolutionary War, the Army and
Navy had targeted the act of sodomy (which they defined
as anal and sometimes oral sex between men), not
homosexual persons, as criminal, as had their British
predecessors and the original thirteen colonies. Any
soldier or officer convicted of sodomy, whether he
was homosexual or not, could be sent to prison.
[Berube, 1990; p. 2]
This policy has also served as a source of embarrassment for the
Armed Forces, as they have been criticized a number of times for
the manner in which they conduct investigations.
For example, in a report issued by the Senate with approval by
the full Naval Affairs Committee on July 19, 1921, Secretary of the
Navy Josephus Daniels and Assistant Secretary Franklin D. Roosevelt
were among a number of people who were strongly criticized for their
role in what became known as the Newport Scandal. Newport, Rhode
Island, was at that time the home of the Naval Training Station and
Naval War College (which later became the Naval Academy Preparatory
School). It was also the site of an officially sanctioned investigation
which involved, according to the report, the use of young servicemen to
"go forth into Newport and to allow immoral acts to be performed upon
them... for the purpose of running down and trapping certain alleged
sexual perverts." [Murphy, 1988; p. 263]
The committee went on to say that any government officials who
allowed such actions were "absolutely indefensible and [were] to be
most severely condemned." [Murphy, 1998, p. 263] Many activists
maintain that more recent "witch hunts" which have occurred around
the country, most notably at the Parris Island Marine Corps station in
which many women were arrested and interrogated on suspicion of being
lesbian, are also sources of embarrassment for the military.
Taken individually, there remains no evidence for the seven
rationales established by this policy. At the 99th annual
convention of the American Psychological Association on August 15,
1991, social scientists revealed research that concluded that the
DoD's policy is not based on scientific data, but on prejudice.
The APA Council, in its August, 1991 meeting, passed a resolution
which called the discharge of lesbian, gay and bisexual people
"unfair" and resolved:
...that the APA opposes the DoD policy which finds
homosexual orientation "incompatible with military
service"; and be it further resolved that APA take a
leadership role among national organizations in seeking
to change this discriminatory policy.
The Council also resolved that unless the military changed its
policies concerning this issue, it will not permit its publications
to be used as advertising media by the Department of Defense. [APA
Monitor, 1991]
The American Psychiatric Association passed a similar
resolution in December of 1990, which clarified its position that
it has formally opposed all discrimination, public and private,
against gay and lesbian people and that it opposed the exclusion
and discharge of people from the armed forces on the basis of
sexual orientation. It further asserted "...that no burden of
proof of judgment, capacity, or reliability should be placed on
homosexuals which is greater than that imposed on any other persons
within the armed services." [American Psychiatric Association,
1991]
The realization that no evidence exists for the military's
rationales is not new. In 1957, the Crittenden Report, officially
labeled the 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,
contained the following statements:
The concept that homosexuals pose a security risk
is unsupported by any factual data. ...The number of
cases of blackmail as a result of past investigations of
homosexuals is negligible. No factual data exist to
support the contention that homosexuals are a greater
risk than heterosexuals. [Sarbin and Karois, 1988;
p. 29]
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, several federal
district courts have found in the late 1970's and early 1980's that
the military's exclusionary policy against lesbian, gay and
bisexual people is arbitrary and have ruled against it. The only
appellate court to have considered this issue, however, ruled that
this policy was within constitutional limits. [Boggan, Haft, et
al, 1983]
The lack of evidence, however, has not hampered the military's
efforts to investigate, interrogate, and discharge people who are
sexually attracted to members of their own gender, or those
perceived to be such. The latter consideration is important, as
many activists maintain that because women in the military are
considered "mannish" by some military personnel since they are in
a traditionally male field, they are discharged at a rate that is
almost ten times that of discharges for men. [Lewin, 1988] In 1990
the Village Voice reported, "Some feminists charge that military
women who don't respond to sexual responses from men may find
themselves accused of being lesbian." [Wilkinson, 1990]
The effects of the military's efforts can be devastating and
long lasting. The New York City Human Rights Commission's Gay and
Lesbian Discrimination Documentation Project issued a report which
included a number of incidents involving the military which were
indicative of the lasting effects these actions have on people's
lives:
Nov 84 Perceived as a lesbian/employment/army
A married heterosexual woman called. She was discharged
from the Army several years ago because she was perceived
to be gay. She came back to the base after a "night on the
town" and was so inebriated, she passed out in another
woman's room. The next day she was brought up on charges
of homosexuality. She related that at her trial the "proof"
they offered of her lesbianism was the night in the other
woman's room (she too was accused of being a lesbian); the
way she smoked cigarettes; and the fact that she was from
New York City. Since her dismissal, she has been denied
several jobs after potential employers saw her military
records. No jurisdiction. [p. 43]
Apr 85 Gay/Employment/Military
A 24 year old man called. He said that he'd had an
excellent service record while in the Marines. However,
he was harassed and dishonorably discharged after six
years of service because it became known that he was gay.
He said they had no actual evidence that he is gay, and he
stated that the pivotal factors at his hearing were the
testimony of a man whom he did not know, and the mention
of "the type of clothes" he wore. He was extremely upset
because he had dedicated himself to the Marines, had
intended to make it his life career and now had to abandon
that hope and was unable to obtain another job because of
the dishonorable discharge. He also lost all eligibility
for benefits which otherwise would have been his right
because of his years of service. We could only give the
man referrals for support since the military is outside
the jurisdiction of the Commission. [p. 62]
This also affects students enrolled in Reserve Officer Training
Corps (ROTC) programs and military academies. James Holobaugh, an ROTC
student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was kicked out
of the program when it was discovered that he was gay. Adding insult
to injury, the Navy attempted to bill Holobaugh over $35,000 for his
tuition costs until several congressman openly criticized the Navy for
its "mean-spiritedness". [Holobaugh, 1990]
Joseph Steffan, a senior cadet at the United States Naval Academy
had an impeccable academic record and was one of six battalion
commanders. He earned his qualification pin in submarines, was
accepted into the exclusive nuclear power program, sang the National
Anthem on nationwide television for the annual Army-Navy game and
performed as a solo tenor for the President and distinguished guests
at a Christmas concert. Six weeks before graduating from the Academy,
he was dismissed after he revealed to a friend that he was gay.
Steffan estimates that the Navy spent in excess of 100,000 tax dollars
to educate, house, feed, clothe and equip him, only to discharge him
for his sexual orientation. [Wilkinson, 1990; Steffan, 1990]
The issue of tax dollars being wasted is an important one to
consider. According to a report obtained from the General
Accounting Office by the American Psychological Association, an
estimated 5,000 service members were discharged between 1985 and
1987 for homosexuality. Taking the average of 2,500 service members
discharged annually, if one were to assume that the average expense
paid per service member for housing, board, medical benefits,
salary, and other expenses to be $60 thousand per annum (author's
estimate), one arrives at the estimate that the U.S. invests $150
million each year on people who are systematically removed from
service, unable to provide a return for that investment.
There are additional costs involved: U.S. tax dollars pay the
full costs for investigations, legal expenses, and all other
administrative expenses to carry out this directive. While exact
numbers are not readily available on these additional costs, Miriam
Ben-Shalom, a Staff Sergeant in the Army Reserves who was kicked out
for being a lesbian woman, estimates that it cost U.S. taxpayers over
$1 million for all the expenses incurred to keep her out of the
Reserves. One example expense that Ben-Shalom detailed was that each
time her court case was heard, the military had to fly in a battery
of lawyers from around the country at the taxpayers' expense.
Changing this policy is apparently not as difficult as the
Pentagon would have the public believe. Either President Bush or
Secretary Cheney could issue an order to countermand the DoD's
discriminatory policies. As was done when the order was made to
integrate African-Americans into the military, social scientists
could institute proactive educational and support programs to ease
transitions and change prejudicial attitudes. The aforementioned
Pentagon-commissioned study makes such a recommendation:
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 40
years to the integration of homosexuals. [Sarbin and
Karois, 1988; p. 25]
In a letter to Secretary Cheney dated November 6, 1990, Stanley R.
Graham, president of the American Psychological Association, wrote:
Furthermore, we are aware that the policy decisions
to integrate African-Americans and women into the military
were not based on court orders, but were executive decisions
that reflected both advances in social attitudes and the
practical personnel needs of the services. For these same
reasons, the American Psychological Association urges you to
reverse the Department's discriminatory policy against
homosexuals and begin the process of integrating openly
lesbian and gay persons into the U.S. military, just as
your predecessors undertook the process of integrating
African-Americans and women. We understand the seriousness
of such a decision and offer you the Association's support
and assistance in making this important and just transition.
It should be noted that there are a number of inconsistencies
within the Pentagon's enforcement of the its own policy. Perry
Watkins enlisted in the Army in 1968 and checked the "yes" box
on the induction form asking if he had homosexual tendencies. He
was questioned by an Army psychiatrist about his homosexuality,
who determined that he was homosexual and suitable for military
service. He officially requested three times to be let out of the
army and was denied. On the fourth occasion that his homosexuality
became an issue, it was the Army who sought to remove him. After
convening a board of four officers, it was decided that there was
no reason for Watkins to be discharged. Watkins then decided to
continue his career in the Army, and was later denied. He sued and
after a number of court appearances, on May 3, 1989, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army must allow Watkins to
reenlist since it had always known about his homosexuality and had
officially commended his performance throughout his fifteen years
of service.
Additionally, it has recently been revealed by the Advocate that
a top spokesperson for the Pentagon was gay. Despite the revelation,
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney has stated that this spokesperson
will remain in his position. Cheney has stated that he sees no
discrepancy with this, since the Pentagon spokesperson is a
civilian and not a service member. He has also indicated publicly
that he feels the policy is "a bit of an old chestnut" which he
"inherited".
Currently activists have been targeting the discriminatory
policies of the military on a number of levels: letter writing
campaigns to the President and the Secretary of Defense; protests
at the Pentagon; petitions; campus protests targeting ROTC and
military recruitment; and other actions are just a few examples of
the mobilization that has been and continues to occur. Activists
are also lobbying Congress members to support a Resolution
introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (H.Res 271) and a
companion Resolution introduced by Senator Brock Adams (S.Res. 236)
which urges the President to take action an issue an Executive
Order to rescind the military's discriminatory policy.
Additionally, the second annual National Day of Action Against
Discrimination (NDAAD) has been announced and efforts are underway
to coordinate activists across the country to fight discrimination
against lesbian, gay and bisexual people in education, employment
or provision of services. Formerly called the National Day of
Coordinated Action Against Discriminatory Policies in ROTC, the
NDAAD will take place on April 10, 1992, and will focus on three
levels of discrimination: the military; colleges and universities
that do not have sexual orientation anti-discriminatory policies;
and businesses that discriminate against lesbian, gay and bisexual
people. Over 125 campus organizations participated on April 10th,
1991's National Day of Action, and a target has been set for 200
organizations participating nationwide in one of the largest such
projects to take place in the lesbian, gay and bisexual civil
rights movement.
Further information regarding the National Day of Action
Against Discrimination can be obtained by writing or calling:
National Day of Action Against Discrimination
P.O. Box 751
East Setauket, NY 11733 - 0751
Attn: Marc Gunning
(516) 632 - 6709
Bibliography
Bales, John (1991). DoD policy excluding gays blasted. The APA
Monitor. 1 - 30.
Berube, Allan (1990). Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay
Men and Women in World War II. New York: Free Press.
Ben-Shalom, Miriam (1990). Personal account given at the "About
Face: Combating ROTC's Anti-Gay Policy National Organizing
Conference." Minneapolis: November 9, 1990.
Boggan, E. Carrington; Haft, Marilyn G.; Lister, Charles; Rupp,
John P.; Stoddard, Thomas B. (1983). The Rights of Gay People.
New York: Bantam Books. 32 - 48.
City of New York Commission on Human Rights. Gay and Lesbian
Discrimination Documentation Project: Two Year Report on
Complaints of Sexual Orientation Discrimination. November 1983 -
October 1985.
Graham, Stanley R. (1990). Letter to Secreatry of Defense Richard
Cheney on behalf of the American Psychological Association.
November 6, 1990.
Greenberger, Phyllis (1991). Letter to Congressman Gerry Studds
explaining the American Psychiatric Association's position on
homosexuality and the armed forces. October 24, 1991.
Holobaugh, James (1990). Personal account given at the "About Face:
Combating ROTC's Anti-Gay Policy National Organizing Conference".
November 9, 1990.
Humphrey, Mary Ann (1988). My Country, My Right to Serve.
New York: Harper Collins Publishing.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. and Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in
the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders and Company.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. and Martin, C. (1953). Sexual behavior in
the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders and Company.
Lewin, Eric (1988). Gay groups suggest Marines selectively
prosecute women. New York Times. December 4, 1988. 34.
Mohr, Richard D. (1988). Gays / Justice. New York: Columbia
University Press. 194 - 199.
Murphy, Lawrence R. (1988). Perverts by Official Order.
New York: Harrington Park Press.
Sarbin, Thomas R. and Karois, Kenneth E. (1988). PERS-TR-89-002:
Nonconforming sexual orientations and military suitability.
Monterey: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education
Center.
Steffan, Joseph (1990). Personal account given at the University
at Stony Brook. October 11, 1990.
Wilkinson, Francis (1990) The gay cadet. The Village Voice.
24 - 31.
.
4 - 31.
- ----- End of forwarded message(s) -------
John E. Cereso **********
Chairperson, GLBSU * PINK *
SUNY Fredonia ******
****
CERE5447@FREDONIA **
"Life is like a urinal, first it pisses all over you, then it
flushes you out of existance"; JEC