Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy - Research Paper Example

?Contents Contents Introduction 2 The policy 2 Agenda Building 3 Policy Formulation 4 Policy Adoption 5 Policy Implementation 6 Policy Evaluation 7Policy Change 8 Conclusion 9 Works Cited 10 Bibliography 12 Introduction It has always been challenging for governing authorities to face and solve the problems faced by society. The public policy approach of democratic setups has a number of challenges such as time taken to implement policy, etc; however, history has proved that it is one of the most successful methods of consensus building. Apart from involving a number of stakeholders in the administrative process, the approach has so matured that it has a definite structure to it. This helps in tackling with its limitations and at the same time enhancing its advantages. Therefore, in the below sections, the various phases through which a public policy passes are looked at, thereby analyzing the involvement of various stakeholders and the effects of the policy on each. This will help establish the effectiveness of this approach in relation to this case. The “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” (DADT) policy of the US military is studied (Harrop 1). The policy The 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy came into effect in 1993 when President Clinton signed it into legislation. The main clause of the law states that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of military capability." While this constitutes the ‘don't tell’ clause of the act, the ‘don't ask’ clause is not really a clause, rather an indication to commanders in the military that they must not initiate investigation into the sexual orientation of other personnel. However, there is an exception clause to this which states that if the Secretary of Defense deems that such inquiries are required for the implementation of the policy or if the person being investigated is done so as a result of his behavior, then such investigations can continue. Therefore, the policy heavily weighs in favor of cornering people from the LGBT community by restricting their powers of freedom and enquiry. However, the policy as it was introduced was a compromise between the President Clinton's election promise to lift the ban on homosexuals and the position of the military which maintained that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that personnel who declare themselves to be homosexual must be discharged from military duty (Feder 1). Agenda Building The subject of homosexuality has long been a subject of contention in the US military. However, there has not been much debate until the latter half of the 20th century. A majority of the cases were dealt using the legislations Articles of War (AW) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both the laws did not tolerate homosexuality. In fact, sodomy was criminalized using through the AW. Homosexuality was seen as a psychological problem and hence people with the 'condition' were seen as sick. Expert psychologists and psychiatrists were used to build public opinion. The policy continued through the Second World War until the years of Ronald Regan during whose tenure the defense directive was issued stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" ("History of 'don't ask, don't tell'" 2). However, this signified a change in the rationality of the policy. This was facilitated by a number of cases in federal courts which ruled against the policy implementation. For example, the Watkins v. United States Army case in which Sergeant Perry J. Watkins sued the Army after he had been discharged. Watkins case revealed that he had declared his orientation early on in his career and that he had made no attempt to hide it. Subsequently, after a number of years of court proceedings, the court found that the reasoning behind the provisions of the law was unsatisfactory. These developments forced the Army to change their approach towards the legislation moving from a position earlier stated as a medical problem to one that interferes with the discipline and structure of the army. A big boost to the LGBT community and its supporters was provided by the presidential campaign of William J. Clinton who promised to lift the military ban on homosexuals in the army (Borch 189-199). Policy Formulation In the previous section, we have noted the development of the issue into a matter of debate among various stakeholders. It is important to look at the various active parties that helped formulate the strategy. The general anti - homosexual attitude until the Second World War was strengthened in 1950 by Congress. Soldiers previously convicted under the law were tried in civil courts since it was a thought of as a civil offense. The code of 1950 changed all that and adopted a uniform civil law for the Army, Navy and the Air Force. In addition to reiterating the old directives of discharging known homosexuals in the armed forces, the code stated that it was the duty of soldiers to report any such activity and also developed a three tier system of punishment for those who were involved in such cases all of which were to be carried out at general courts-martial. The court cases of the 1970s forced the Army to bring in a number of amendments to the code so that its various provisions were clear, however, discharged personnel found various grounds that found agreement with district judges that the policy was in opposition to fundamental and other rights. Moreover, the traditional law is mainly concerned with action rather than speech. This has been evident in the details of the law as well as consistent court rulings that favored personnel who had declared their orientation but had not conducted actions of such a nature. In addition, the law became increasingly debated since it was not in alignment with changes in the constitutional laws which increasingly embraced the existence and protection of homosexuals in civil, organizational as well as public life. Therefore, the traditional laws found increasing opposition mainly as a result of individuals rather than public opinion although it proved an important factor later on in the introduction of the new policy (Gilreath 956-957). Policy Adoption Despite the changes in public opinion and the losses suffered by the military, the main challenge to traditional military homosexual laws came suddenly with the election of William J. Clinton who promised to scrap the old law. However, similar to other developments regarding the issue, the implementation of the new policy was not without drama. When it became increasingly realized that President Clinton intended to act as per his promises, a significant amount of criticism began to grow against the change in the policy. Such criticism could not be ignored since it came from retired army officers and other retired personnel who had occupied significant positions in the Army previously. The opposition gained such momentum that even the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, General Colin Powell advised the President to withdraw the changes. However, the President was intent on changing the policy and asked the military to take steps to decrease the effect of changing the policy on the effectiveness of the army such as combat efficiency, etc. Congress finally entered the picture and implemented legislation based on Ronald Regan's defense directive, which amounted to superseding the authority of the Commander - in - Chief of the Armed Forces and the legislation "Don't ask, don't tell" was born (Borch 204-205). Despite the similarity of the new law to the traditional laws, it continued to be challenged by discharged personnel such as Col. Grethe Cammermeyer who was allowed to serve in the Washington State National Guard in addition to being open about her orientation ("History of 'don't ask, don't tell'" 5). Policy Implementation For the most part, policy implementation has to do with the direction taken by the courts with regard to the law. In this regard the case of Lawrence v. Texas proved very significant in changing the application of the policy and paving the way for changes to it. It was significant since it provided the basis for a number of subsequent cases of a similar nature and the rationale for cases that were different. Lawrence and Garner who were found by the local police to engage in consensual sex were charged under the sodomy laws of Texas. Lawrence and Garner claimed that they were protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing all arguments, the courts declared that the Texas Law was unconstitutional and freed the convicted persons. The Courts also stated that the government had no right to determine the actions of individuals in respect to their private lives and that personal liberty ensures that individuals can engage in such activity (Feder 3). It is also important to look at the implementation of the policy with respect to its impact on the military. More than 365,000 American forces are deployed in nearly 120 countries as part of the defense of the country and its allies. Since the introduction of the law alone, over 10,000 people have been discharged from the Armed Forces. Accompanying such discharges is also a number of cases of violence. This has influenced a new name for the law, "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass". Although, initially designed to allow persons of the LGBT community to serve in the army as long as they did not engage in homosexual activity, the exception clauses in the law gave commanders a free reign to carry out investigations as they saw fit. Subsequent to the death of PFC Barry Winchell which was revealed to be an anti - gay hate crime, investigations discovered the true nature of harassment faced by homosexuals in the army. It seemed as if the policy had failed in all its purposes. However, the post September 2011 phase which created a huge requirement for skilled military personnel significantly brought the number of such cases down (Alexander 417-418). Policy Evaluation The policy was a compromise to start off with and therefore, it is of little surprise that it has been under review ever since. The situation is also enhanced by the developments in the civilian sphere. The acceptance of the LGBT community has been more encompassing with organizational standards also being established. The evaluation of the policy has also been dictated by certain events or series of events. The death of Winchell initiated investigations that revealed the extent of the harassment faced by homosexuals. However, instead of developing action plans to tackle the problem, the military stood still in the face of the worsening situation (“Homosexuals in the military” 105). In spite of this, there has been a greater understanding of the problems introduced by the law. The effectiveness of the law, rather the lack of it was also demonstrated during the discharges during the war on terrorism. It gained media attention when 37 high - profile linguists were discharged from the Defense Language Institute in California. The debate was sparked since the public viewed this move of the military as giving more attention to the implementation of its internal policies over national security. A number of newspapers started to call a ban on the existing law and support for homosexuals in the military grew. High ranking retired military personnel had an influence again, this time in favor of the homosexual community by calling for a ban on the law. The political parties also exercised their influence over the issue. Although the President during this period of evaluation, for 8 years has been in support of the law, a number of parties from both sides began to oppose the law in its current form. They acknowledged the contribution made by the community and stated that they deserve protection. Whatever the course the bill would take, by the end of 2004, it was clear that the policy had to be changed (Alexander 432-434). Policy Change The changes or the proposed changes to the DADT law received sudden attention with the election of President Barrak Obama who made promises similar to those of President Clinton more than 15 years ago. While he has expressed his dissatisfaction over the bill, the repeal will require that it meet a number of criteria. Firstly, it is important to arrive at a mutually satisfying set of terms that will detail the changes for the military as well as the LGBT community inside the military. The military is also concerned about the effects of such a sudden change in policy although the attitude in the military over homosexuals has considerably improved (Alexander & Westcott 143). Therefore, it is required that the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all certify that such a move would not harm the efficiency of the military in addition to a 60 day transition period to analyze the effects of the new law (Associated Press 1). However, such delays are making future changes inevitable and increasing the readiness of the army in accepting change. The future course of action is certain although its time of implementation is not. Although the law can be repealed through judicial or legislative means, it seems that due to an initiative from the top, the President, the most likely means of repeal is through the legislative method. Conclusion Despite the structure and evolution of the public policy approach, it is still a new one when considered to traditional methods. Political scientists are still in the process of understanding the carious nuances of the methodology. However, it has already been successfully applied in a number of areas in various democracies around the world. Through a greater understanding of the underlying concepts, it would become possible to achieve benefits in multiple areas. The public policy approach has implications for other areas as well, such as social initiatives and even the industry which is also looking at innovative solutions to existing problems (Harrop 2). Works Cited Alexander, Sharon, E. D. “A Ban by any other name: Ten years of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’.” Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal. Vol 21:2 (2004). 403-436. Print. Alexander, Sharon, E.D and Westcott, Kathi, S. “Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell:" A Smooth Transition”. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice. Vol 129 (2008). 129-144. Print. Associated Press. “House passes repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'.” msn.com. MSNBC. 16 Dec 2010. Web. 12 May 2011. “A history of 'don't ask, don't tell'.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. 30 Nov 2010. Web. 12 May 2011. Borch, Fred, L. “THE HISTORY OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" IN THE ARMY: HOW WE GOT TO IT AND WHY IT IS WHAT IT IS.” MILITARY LAW REVIEW. Vol. 203. (2010). 189-206. Print. Feder, Jody. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Legal Analysis. USA: DIANE Publishing, 2010. Print. Gilreath, Shannon. “Sexually speaking: ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the First Amendment after Lawrence v. Texas.” Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy. Vol 14. (2007). 953-976. Print. Harrop, Martin. Power and policy in liberal democracies. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print. “Homosexuals in the Military”. Congressional Digest, Vol. 89 Issue 4, (2010) 103-107. Print. Bibliography Alexander, Sharon, E. D. “A Ban by any other name: Ten years of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’.” Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal. Vol 21:2 (2004). 403-436. Print. Alexander, Sharon, E.D and Westcott, Kathi, S. “Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell:" A Smooth Transition”. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice. Vol 129 (2008). 129-144. Print. Associated Press. “House passes repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'.” msn.com. MSNBC. 16 Dec 2010. Web. 12 May 2011. “A history of 'don't ask, don't tell'.” Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. 30 Nov 2010. Web. 12 May 2011. Borch, Fred, L. “THE HISTORY OF "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" IN THE ARMY: HOW WE GOT TO IT AND WHY IT IS WHAT IT IS.” MILITARY LAW REVIEW. Vol. 203. (2010). 189-206. Print. Feder, Jody. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Legal Analysis. USA: DIANE Publishing, 2010. Print. Gilreath, Shannon. “Sexually speaking: ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ and the First Amendment after Lawrence v. Texas.” Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy. Vol 14. (2007). 953-976. Print. Harrop, Martin. Power and policy in liberal democracies. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print. Hill, Michael, J. The Public Policy Approach. Longman. 2009. Print. “Homosexuals in the Military”. Congressional Digest, Vol. 89 Issue 4, (2010) 103-107. Print. Read More