The Impact Of The Repeal Of Dont Ask Dont Tell Policies On Military Families - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: POLICY REPEAL The impact of the repeal of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policies on military families Table of ContentsTable of Contents Abstract Introduction Background Don’t ask, don’t tell Homophobia in the Military Sexual harassment and the consequences The Repeal of the Policies Arguments Against the Repeal Military culture Conclusion Appendices Abstract The issue of the repeal of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy regarding the nature of sexual orientation of military personnel has created a controversy as military traditions are challenged by this action by President Barack Obama. As the military grapples with the issue of changes in policy, the sociological effects will also be an issue. The nature of the policy, however, has been a failure causing problems within the secrecy that has been created. Change has become necessary in order to facilitate a safer, and more enlightened environment in which the military can move past this issue and make it a non-issue, a standard of acceptance in which sexual orientation is a moot point, but conduct is standard for all personnel who accept that their sexual nature must be kept out of their service. Through aggressively taking down the level of sexual harassment and eliminating sexual displays of dominance, the military can become a more solid and unified organization in which men and women are safe and honorably treated with respect. The following study through secondary research will examine the nature of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy and the ways in which the repeal is a necessary measure. Through understanding the ways in which the sociological nature of the military will undergo changes, this will be related to the ways in which the repeal of the law will impact military families. Through secondary research, the sociology of integrating homosexuality into society will be examined, and then assessed in consideration of the unique environment of the culture of the military. With respect to family culture, the nature of the changes will look at any impact that might occur. The impact of the repeal of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policies on military families Introduction The following research paper will discuss the nature of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell policy, creating a background for the controversy and then relating the information to the effect that the repeal of this policy will have on military families. As the issue is intertwined with those who support political factions that support the ‘family values’ platform, the new policies and philosophies that will be included in the sociology of military life will have some form of impact on families within the military. The paper will be structured with a history of the military philosophies on homosexuality and the consequences of those philosophies. The research will reveal the way in which the policy was successful and unsuccessful, thus creating context from which to determine how the repeal of the policy will affect members of the military. Finally, the paper will make a brief exploration of the ways in which homosexual openness has affected family life in the United States, including the effects that other social policy changes in regard to homosexuality has effected sociological structures and experiences within society. The paper will conclude with a discussion of all of the elements of the research, providing an in-depth analysis of the topic. The research will be approached through secondary methods of study, the relevant literature searched in order to find contributing information to the topic. The first method of research will be conducted through Google Books, where relevant key words will be put into a the search in order to find relatable information. The nature of the discovered work will be put into context with the reliability of the information. Not all of the information that is used will be from reliable sources as some of the search will entail finding controversial opinions, but those pieces will be identified as either non-scholarly or questionable. The second way in which the research has been conducted is through internet resource searches in order to find news articles and reliable websites which outline important policies and information. Websites that are questionable have been identified as unreliable and will only be used to admit into the research concepts that are relevant because they are based on opinions that are questionable. . Background In 1992, Charles Moskos, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University who specialized in the sociology of the military, came up with the concept and terminology of ‘don’t ask don’t tell’. As the most influential military sociologist in the United States at the time, his perspective had influenced many social topics in regard to the military, including the nature of female service, racial integration, women in combat, and conscription. For forty years his opinion had held weight in discussions of defense policy as it was related to the social aspects of the military culture. With one of the campaign promises made by President Bill Clinton about lifting the ban on homosexuality for members of the military, Moskos became central to the discussion (Frank, 2010). Even Moskos was not satisfied with the solution, but it was a compromise that allowed people who were homosexual to serve as long as they kept their sexual orientation a secret. Moskos had always said in his lectures to his classes that democracy was “the worst system possible” and then qualified it by saying “except for all the others” (Frank, 2010, p. xv). He knew that this knew policy was the same - a bad solution but better than all of the others at the time. The proof of the inadequacy can be seen in the increases in the number of discharges that were done in 1993 compared to those done in the year 2000 because of admissions to being gay. In 1993 there were just over 600 discharges by the military for admissions or conclusions that a member was gay, but by 2000 that number had doubled with 1,231 dismissals from the military for being homosexual (Bull, 2001, p. 26) . Don’t ask, don’t tell Title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 37, 654 is the policy section that concerns homosexuality in the armed forces. This is the policy sections that provide for the concepts of “don’t ask don’t tell” and provide a framework within which the military operates for the issue of sexual orientation. Section B (see Appendix 2) provides context for the policy. The policy outlines the ways in which dismissal will occur. The subject of an investigation who has exhibited homosexual behavior or has solicited homosexual behavior can be dismissed unless it is proven to be a one time occurrence, is out of character for the subject, the act was not coerced, his or her continued presence is necessary for the welfare of the military, and homosexuality is not a norm within the person’s sexual tendencies. A person will be dismissed for admitting to being a homosexual unless they also prove that they have no intention of engaging in homosexual acts. A person will be dismissed for trying to marry someone of the same gender. The nature of the policies are such that it requires some sort of proof of homosexuality in order to create a dismissal. Therefore, simply being homosexual is not grounds for being dismissed, unless it becomes public knowledge and is provable. This makes a fine line between conduct and existence, thus creating the nature of secrecy that is required for someone to have served under these policies. In some ways, this policy created a discourse on the topic and provided a platform from which homosexual men and women could discuss their plight. However, according to Estes (2007, p. 1), “Because military policies before and after the implementation of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” necessitated silence, the men and women most directly affected by these policies were unable to testify openly about their impact. Homophobia in the Military A good case study in which to examine the nature of homophobia in the military occurred on July 3, 1999 at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Private Calvin Glover challenged Private First Class Barry Winchell to a fist fight and lost. The camp taunted Glover repeatedly about having lost to a ‘faggot’, a term that is derogatory to homosexuals and was used as a weapon of torment by the other soldiers. After two days of this pressure, Glover took a baseball bat and beat Winchell to death on July 5, 1999. While the death is universally considered a tragedy, the nature of the cause of the death was widely debated. Winchell had been called a ‘faggot’ repeatedly by his sergeant, a term that was intended to humiliate him. No disciplinary action was ever taken against the sergeant for his behavior and inappropriate use of language. General Robert T. Clark, the head of the camp at the time, allowed his camp to be run with a tolerance for anti-gay language and abuse. Thus, some cite him as responsible for the outcome of the event (Belkin & Bateman, 2001). On the other side of the argument, it is claimed that this incident is an example of why gay men and women cannot serve in the military. Belkin and Bateman (2003) state that this opinion suggests that “the military is not a gay friendly environment, and it will never be a safe place for gay and lesbian personnel” (p. 2). There are those who have suggested that Justin Fisher, the man who taunted Glover the most and who gave him the baseball bat with which Glover killed Winchell, was actually gay and attracted to Winchell, thus creating gay-on-gay violence in which the ban on gays in the military is supported. This point of view suggests that allowing gay men in the military will set these men up for jealous and violent outcomes (Belkin and Bateman 2003). Scenarios have been created in which military service by gay men and women is termed as a threat to the structure of the military. Belkin and Bateman (2003) have suggested that the issue was one of the most reported issues during the peacetime of the 1990s, and was used by both gay rights groups and family values groups as a platform topic for major fundraising events. The policy, however, was clearly not the compromise it was intended to be and created a secret society within the military that was clearly vulnerable to poor treatment and harassment. Because of the secrecy, protections for those who were either under suspicion were not possible. Admitting that harassment was occurring because of homosexuality accusations would most often lead to a dismissal (Bull, 2001, p. 26). Sexual harassment had always been a part of military life, with women, men, and suspected homosexual men and women vulnerable to hazing and violent behaviors. The nature of the feelings that military personnel have about their fears where homosexuality is concerned are in the nature of military service and in the division that different sexual preferences might make within a fighting unit. James Wallace (1994), a person without an academic background, wrote an essay on his belief that the ban on homosexuality in the military should remain based up on the behaviors of two men in his unit who began a relationship and were living in shared quarters with Wallace. He eventually turned them in, even though he had not previously believed that he had any feelings on the topic. He stated that “The presence of known homosexuals is disruptive to the good order and discipline of military units. When my roommates became a couple, they ceased to be members of our unit in a social and emotional sense” (Wallace, 1994). One of the great fears that presents in arguments for the ban is based upon an idea that allowing homosexuals to be in the military suggests that they would be allowed to exhibit sexual behavior. The discomfort and focus on their behavior would then disrupt the unit. Examples from European policies can help to inform the nature of allowing or disallowing homosexuality in the military. Britain has a policy ban against homosexuality, but it is rarely a reason for dismissal. France disallows all sexual behavior within the context of military service, thus the point is immaterial. Northern European countries have no laws that prohibit service by homosexual members of society, but provide for behaviors of either heterosexual or homosexual members as problematic. Italy is the reverse of Britain as they have strong laws against discrimination of homosexuals. However, from a sociological point of view, homosexuality is considered more detrimental than sexual interactions with minors, thus homosexual men and women experience social discrimination even if they do not experience legal discrimination. It is probable if during the events that lead to service, such as physical and psychological exams, if a tendency towards homosexuality is discovered, they will most likely be discouraged from entering the military. If during conscription homosexual nature is discovered, this can be used as an excuse to get out of service if the behaviors that are associated are convincingly disruptive (Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996). Sexual harassment and the consequences The problem denying homosexuality in the military is defined by the events of harassment that are encouraged by policies that support secrecy and use of derogatory terms as part of the military discourse. Even if one does not agree that homosexuality is a natural state, the idea that sexuality can become a useful tool to degrade, oppress, and violate others is enough of a reason to provide for sexuality to not be a purposely secret issue. Sexual harassment is prevalent in most occupations that are male dominant, but in the military with only 15% of the members being female, the domination is overwhelming, thus leading to sexual male dominant behavior (Gruber, 2005, p. 215). The ’don’t ask don’t tell’ policies set up a unique system of distrust within the military which even led to some terrible acts that were meant to ’prove’ that one was heterosexual. Women, in particular, were subject to threats of accusation of lesbianism if they did not comply with sexual favors or rape in order to prove their heterosexuality. Complaining about such treatment could result in a case being open to investigate the victim, thus the associated crimes could not be easily reported and rectified (Gruber, 2005, p. 215). The Repeal of the Policies On December 22, 2011, President Barack Obama released the following statement when he signed the repeal of the ‘Don‘t Ask Don‘t Tell‘ policy to homosexuality in the military: No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military - regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary service - because they happened to be gay. No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder, in order to serve the country that they love (U.S. Department of Defense, 2011). The original concept of the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy was to provide a compromise between those who were stalled in antiquated concepts of homophobia and those who wished to see the military opportunity opened up to those whose sexual preferences did not fall in line with perceptions of ‘normalcy’. The reasons given for the need of a ban on homosexuality were many, but were all based upon prejudices that were irrelevant to service. The nature of behavior over the sexual orientation of an individual should always be the barometer against which a person’s status in service should be measured. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates stated that “Strong, engaged, and informed leadership will be required at every level to implement the repeal… properly, effectively, and in a deliberate and careful manner” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2011). In order to prepare for the repeal of the policy, the military branches have been conducting awareness courses on how the repeal will impact their service life. Questions like “Does a straight Marine have to live with a gay Marine? Can a Marine with a same-sex partner receive housing allowance? Will being openly gay affect recruitment, assignments or promotion?” were asked during one of the first courses conducted with a group of marines (Brofer, 2011). The purpose of having training before the repeal is to have “readiness and unit cohesion” (Brofer, 2011). Through these training sessions, service personnel will be made aware of how to continue and elevate their nature of respect for anyone that they serve with, regardless of their sexual orientation. They are taught to appreciate the difference between sexual orientation and sexualized behaviors that are not appropriate for anyone during their on-duty and on military property time. During the training session, which took an hour and was focused on behavior and expectations of what might change after the repeal, Col. Bruce Nickels said to his class “In my mind this isn’t going to be much of a challenge…Why? We’re Marines and what do Marines do? Follow orders. We’ll just continue to evolve and continue to be the professionals that we are” (Brofer, 2011). According to the U. S. Department of Defense, the repeal will go into effect after a 60 day waiting period that starts after the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree that the military has met the requirements in ensuring an quality transition (Brofer, 2011). Arguments Against the Repeal The Washington Times printed an editorial on April 9, 2011 that was designed to address the repeal of the ban on homosexuality in the military from the perspective of being against the action. The claim made in the article is that “Now those who embrace traditional moral values are the ones being told to stay in the closet” (The Washington Times, 2011). According to the article, the nature of the instruction that was being given to military personnel on how to behave in regard to homosexuality silenced those who would speak out against homosexual behavior. There are those factions who have issues with the concept of homosexuality and believe that it violates natural law. Thus, the nature of being forced to give respect to homosexuals seems to be in violation of that belief system. One of the areas of service within the military that could find profound issues with the repeal of the DADT policy would be within military chaplains. Retired military chaplains organized and wrote a letter to President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates imploring them to reconsider the repeal. They state that if the repeal went through, many of the sponsoring denominations would pull their support of chaplains in the military. If a chaplain were to preach against homosexuality during his service, he could be dismissed because of bigotry, according to the new rules that will go into place. Without the endorsements of their churches, military service would be impossible and anti-homosexual rhetoric is part of the sermons of some denominations. However, Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation states “My heart doesn’t bleed for these chaplains…If you don’t like it there is a simple solution: Fold your uniform, file your paperwork, and find something else to do” (Breen, 2010). Another plausible reason to not repeal the policy at this time is because of the military engagements that are currently being undertaken in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world where focus is needed on the military leadership of well organized units, rather than a diversion that means some restructuring of how military life is constructed. Marine Corp Commandant James F. Amos quoted from a letter he received from one of his lieutenants in Afghanistan that “Despite differences, we are so close that we anticipate each other's next move in garrison and in combat. Our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship. If you were to add any element of sexual competition, inter-unit sexuality, or hesitance in trust, it would unquestionably prevent those bonds from forming or immediately destroy them if introduced” (McCormack, 2010). The issues with trust and the need for a unit to have its continued continuity is a vital part of military life. In December of 2010 John McCain was given the opportunity to speak against repeal of DADT in front of congress. His feelings were very clear that he was against the repeal, suggesting that he was in agreement with the military leaders who felt that it was a potential distraction that might create problems within the cohesiveness of the units (Rayfield, 2010). The nature of a change that affects, not only the military operations, but the culture of military life would lead some to believe that there would be an effect that might create a profound shift. However, this suggests that the minute the policy is repealed and homosexuality is a freely expressed state within the military that large groups of homosexuals will suddenly appear in recruiting offices, filling the ranks and creating a military heavily loaded with homosexual recruits. The nature of the change is only in that those in the military and who wish to enter the military will no longer be at risk for losing their jobs should they reveal the nature of their sexual orientation. Respect and behavior should remain the same. Military culture According to a report done on the American military culture for the government, “there is a direct link between military culture and effectiveness” (American, 2000, p. 3). Thus, there is some merit to the discussion about changing the nature of the military culture during a period of high conflict as is being experienced currently. Military culture is unique, the pressures and structures of U.S. military life very different than civilian life. The values are different and more extreme, which presents the nature of acceptance of new concepts a difficult topic. However, one of the main resources of pride is the ability to follow orders, thus the comments made by Col. Bruce Nickels are accurate - the military will survive any change as they always do, by following orders. One of the ways that military culture is distinctively different than civilian life is that action against a service man is at the discretion of commanding officers. Therefore, the nature of a crime, its validity or the dismissal of charges, is dependent upon the beliefs and considerations of a variety of different leaders. Therefore, justice is not blind as it is in civilian life. The crime of one may be nothing at all in another command. As racial integration became relevant, the prejudices of commanders of the armed forces were still given leave to punish those who would dare to participate if it offended them (Hillman, 2005, p. 92). This is what lead to the nature of the Winchell murder. The commander of the base had no problems with anti-homosexual messages in the ranks, one of their marching songs prominently using the words and derogatory tones associated to the word ‘faggot’, which was the word that got Winchell killed (Belkin & Bateman, 2001). Effects on the family of the DADT repeal The question of this research was to discover in which ways the repeal of DADT would effect military families. The fact is that there is no evidence and no opinion that suggests that military families will be affected by the repeal of the DADT. The expected behavior of members of the armed services will not change. This repeal does not suggest that rampant homosexual behaviors should be allowed in the barracks. This repeal does not mean that rhinestones and pink scarves will suddenly emerge as proper military wear. This does not mean that homosexual behavior will be encouraged in military personnel, threatening the marriages of military men and women as they area lured into a military life of homosexual freedom. All it means is that sexual harassment and lying to everyone known to a service person who happens to be attracted to the same sex will come closer to an end. Just as it was when racial integration occurred, the nature of sexual orientation will have little bearing on the nature of a man or woman’s ability to serve. How a soldier conducts his or her self will be the only measure from which to assess proper military readiness. The culture of the military is vital to the effectiveness with which it performs. While the chiefs and John McCain implored congress and the president to not repeal DADT for reasons of maintaining cohesiveness, the nature of the secrecy that some military personnel must maintain, the way in which this secrecy is allowing for hazing and dangerous engagement between soldiers who are plagued by the mistrust that this secrecy breeds, will soon find that the tension those secrets cause are relieved. In trying so hard to make sure no one finds out or that no one ever believes that someone is gay, whether they are homosexual or not, will no longer exist, wiping away this distraction and opening up dialogue that can provide for trust to be built. The fact is, when a secret like this exists it is likely that members of a group will suspect. In suspicion there is mistrust that may not have anything to do with being homosexual. As long as behavior is conducted with respect at all times and sexual behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual is kept out of the nature of service, then sexual orientation is a non-existent issue. One of the ways in which families will be relieved is through the release of the mistrust and secrecy that the DADT policy breeds. As the families of military personnel are able to learn to adjust to embracing the non-issue state of sexual orientation as it is taken from a subject of secrecy and made into a topic that has no bearing on service or job performance, then other more important issues can take precedence. Even if a family chooses to believe that homosexuality is immoral or outside of nature, they can learn to tolerate differences of opinions in the public sphere, and thus become more enlightened in the process. This was accomplished as racial differences became a non-issue within the military, the barracks becoming co-habited by men and women of all ethnic heritages. The nature of sexual orientation will eventually become the same type of non-issue. Religious belief within the military has been shown to be threatened by the repeal of DADT. This type of thought is contraindicative of the purpose of having clergy available to the military personnel. The point is to religious availability to all who worship some form of religion, thus since DADT, there have been homosexuals within the military who have had to hide how their sexual orientation is not an abomination to then, but that they embrace it along with their spiritual beliefs. In this lie, a sin has been perpetuated that the clergy must be happy to be able to see an end. Despite all fearful and prejudice thoughts to the contrary, opening up the freedom to not live in secrecy is not the same as suddenly seeing a great tide of homosexual people entering the military. These changes will have a small affect, but will safe lives so that people like Barry Winchell will not have to live under a threat of suspicion, which may or may not have been an accurate portrayal of his nature. Women will not be put into predicaments where rape or dismissal threats are their only options. The lives of men, the security of their families, and the threat of the tide of secrecy that breed mistrust and dangerous dominance games will be gone, thus leaving a stronger military focused on their tasks, obeying orders with honor, and coming home to families who believe in the honest, cohesive unit. The threat that secrecy held over their heads will no longer be relevant. References American military culture in the twenty-first century: A report of the CSIS International Security Program. (2000). Washington: CSIS Press. Belkin, A., & Bateman, G. (2003). Don't ask, don't tell: Debating the gay ban in the military. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Breen, Tom. (29 October 2010). Retired chaplains come out against DADT repeal, citing ‘religious freedom’. The Huffington Post. Accessed on 26 May 2011 from Brofer, Jennifer. (29 April 2011). Marines conduct DADT repeal training. U.S. Department of Defense. Accessed 25 May 2011 from Bull, Chris. (17 July 2001). Barry Winchell’s legacy. The Advocate. Accessed 25 May 2011 from Estes, S. (2007). Ask & tell: Gay and lesbian veterans speak out. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Frank, N. (2010). Unfriendly fire: How the gay ban undermines the military and weakens America. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Gruber, J. E. (2005). In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press. Herek, G. M., Jobe, J. B., & Carney, R. M. (1996). Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hillman, E. L. (2005). Defending America. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press Legal Information Institute. (2011). Title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 37, 654: Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. Cornell University Law School. Accessed 24 May 2011 from McCormack, John. (3 December 2010). Army, Air Force, Marine chiefs against DADT appeal. The Weekly Standard. Accessed on 25 May 2011 from Rayfield, Jillian. (29 December 2010). McCain rants against DADT repeal: ‘Today’s a very sad day’. TPM Media, LLC. Accessed on 24 May 2011 from The Washington Times. (8 April 2011). Editorial: Obama’s new ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy. Accessed 24 May 2011 from U. S. Department of Defense. (2011). Don’t ask don’t tell. U. S. Department of Defense. Accessed 24 May 2011 from Wallace, James. (25 July 1994). The military’s ban against homosexuality should remain. Matt Wallace’s the compleat heretic. Accessed 25 May 2011 from Appendix 1 (Bull, 2001, p. 26) Appendix 2 Title 10, subtitle A, part II, chapter 37, 654 part B (Legal Information Institute, 2011) Read More