Support for Existing Military Homosexual Policy - Case Study Example

Running Head: Support for Existing Military Homosexual Policy Support for Existing Military Homosexual Policy BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANIZATION HERE December 18, 2007 Support for Existing Military Homosexual Policy Introduction The primary policy regarding military service for practicing homosexual men and women is currently mandated by the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation, initiated by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1993, which clearly defines that homosexuals may serve as a member of the armed forces in exchange for silence about their same-sex lifestyles. In conjunction, this policy further prevents undue discrimination against homosexuals in the military by providing a legal policy which prevents other servicemen (or servicewomen) from inquiring about suspected homosexual activities. Though there are substantial volumes of critics who chastise this policy for a variety of reasons, there is ample evidence which suggests that this policy is beneficial to all military parties, including the homosexual officers, their fellow service members, and the military organizations through which they are actively involved. This paper describes such supporting evidence, elaborating on why the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy as a quality piece of governmental legislation. Understanding Current Policy In a 2005 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office distributed a report to Congress which highlighted various features of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, including justification for its inception and current viability within the U.S. military branches. Among its highest rated rationale was the following statement within the report: “Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces…and critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community exist as a specialized society [which] is characterized by its own laws… including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society” (USGAO, 2005: 6). What the aforementioned statement suggests is that civilian perceptions about the acceptability of homosexual behaviors is currently a hotly debated topic, where no specific, cultural resolution or consensus has been determined. Active members of military duty fit within this social parameter, which implies that contemporary servicepersons will maintain these similar fluctuating beliefs, which could serve to jeopardize cohesive relationships within each military branch; in relation to social and unit relationships. Within an organization which heavily relies on the ability of its servicepersons to remain structured and driven toward similar values in order to maximize unit effectiveness and social unity, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy prevents such misgivings, thus denying any military branch the opportunity for disruption due to various animosities or disagreements (within teams or units) about the appropriateness of homosexual discussion or activity. When high levels of performance are required, such animosities can serve to seriously undermine important military activities when servicepersons are distracted from their designated tasks or assignments. This assessment is supported by Stokes, Greer & Hammer (2001) who offer that mental distraction leads to diminished focus toward safety, which is a primary concern for structured operations. Having offered the primary reasoning for instituting the existing policy regarding homosexual activities in the military, it is somewhat clear that active homosexuals maintain the ability to cause harm or injury to themselves or to their fellow servicepersons should they choose to reveal the reality of their same-sex lifestyle. Thus, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, as it currently exists, is designed to ensure that military-related priorities are the number one priority within the minds of active servicepersons. Additional Support for Existing Policy Questions of whether openly homosexual servicepersons should be allowed to reveal their lifestyle identities have been raised, citing that such practices could serve to violate the rights of heterosexual servicepersons. There have been many instances of forced homosexual intimacy in recent years within the military, thus the current policy which denies homosexual men and women from revealing their sexual preferences avoids such occurrences. This rationale for supporting existing policy is due to the lack of personal privacy which exists in most branches of the military (Carter & Kolenc, 2007), such as communal toilets and hygiene facilities. Many who support existing policy believe that openly homosexual men and women might be tempted to engage in these acts within this communal environment, thus violating the rights of heterosexual servicepersons who do not wish to partake in or witness such acts. Hence, denying open representation or display of homosexual behavior ensures that the rights and values of others are protected. Another interesting argument raised in favor of existing policy is the impact to the military that would occur in the event of a radical policy change allowing open discussion of homosexual behaviors and lifestyles. Theories of organizational culture and structure, as discussed in most business-related texts, describe the challenges of creating a harmonious organization who maintain a series of shared values and norms as a path toward productivity (Nickels, McHugh & McHugh, 2005; Landy & Conte, 2006). Much like a traditional corporate organization, these same elements apply to the contemporary military branch. Hence, effective leadership often entails adjusting one’s set of personal beliefs and values in favor of adopting those of the policy-makers in the organization in order to maintain effective leadership. Failure to do so creates division within subordinate ranks when tangible leader actions differ from policy. This assessment is supported by Herek & Belkin (2003) who suggest that the integration of new policies (such as lifting the ban on homosexual disclosures) can only be achieved if senior-level commanders and policy-makers show clear and concise support for the policy changes. Clearly, a divide would exist, creating a conflicting military culture, if a long-standing opponent of homosexuality were forced to administer and applaud a new policy which allows for open discussion of homosexual lifestyle. In most instances, body language or facial expressions would make the leader’s negative beliefs quite transparent to his or her subordinate officers when faced with such a scenario. Interestingly, up until 1993, homosexuals were barred from active service in the military until the implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. However, recent studies have indicated that homosexuals are no less competent than that of their heterosexual counterparts, suggesting they maintain the same inherent qualities as other servicepersons to perform effectively in any military branch (Evans, 2001). With this recognition in mind, current policy which allows homosexual men and women to serve has provided the military with increased competency and expertise by allowing a previously-discriminated-against group to accept assignments which allow for the application of their skills. It is relatively common knowledge that today’s military, as it currently exists, is based on voluntary enlistment, thus allowing homosexuals to serve (providing they maintain secrecy) has opened the human resources pool for recruiters (however unwittingly) to provide all branches of the military with talented homosexual men and women. The end result is a more productive and diverse military organization which maintains both productivity and innovation, stemming from the ideologies of homosexuals which would have previously been unavailable to the service due to its historical ban on the allowance of homosexual servicepersons. The prevention of disciplinary problems is also cited as a positive accolade for the continuation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, in relation to excessive fraternization and decreased focus, due to interpersonal social drives (Sullivan, 2006). There are currently military policies that are in effect which discourage excessive fraternization, either between men in a particular unit or between men and women in similar accord. It is common knowledge that the majority of enlisted servicepersons in all branches of the military consist of primarily males, which suggests that most operations or special task assignments will pair men with other men, who must often temporarily abandon their social needs in favor of completing a military-mandated assignment. Hence, the current policy banning open disclosure of homosexual preferences denies the potential for excessive romantic fraternization within battlefield or special operations between any highly male-dominated unit if close proximity and excessive discussion ensues which leads to disclosure of mutual homosexual desires. It is a likely assessment that such attraction-based tensions would remove focus on the assigned military task, potentially jeopardizing a costly or crucial operation. Societal Debates on Homosexual Policy The current military policies regarding homosexuality are not only favored by members of today’s military who tout its many laurels, it is also a hotly-debated topic in the 2008 Presidential elections, suggesting that the issue is far-reaching and has touched on the social consciousness. Though many of the democratic candidates have elicited rather ambiguous commentaries regarding whether current homosexual policy in the military is appropriate or acceptable, there are others who believe it is a viable policy which protects the interest of both servicepersons and the general citizenry. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barrack Obama have failed to make substantiated support for the policies, while Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate, suggests that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has “worked well” and should not be changed in the midst of the conflict in Iraq (Solomon, 2007). In addition, Republican candidate John McCain publicly stated, “They [military leaders] tell me the present policy is working…we have the best military in history [currently]” (PlanetOut Network, 2007). These conflicting viewpoints, and the barrage of public support and criticism for most candidates’ ambiguous stands, tends to illustrate that the majority of the country is divided as to whether this is a socially acceptable method for treating servicepersons in today’s military branches. The fact that Republican candidates, primarily, heartily embrace and support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policies suggests that those who support it, from a social perspective, are those with less progressive belief systems and right-wing sensibilities. Again, it is a commonly understood principle that many Republican values are strongly congruent with traditional religious values (which generally condemn homosexual practices), thus justifying the fact that current policy is appropriate is often closely linked to religious values; especially those that are Christian in nature. Hence, it might then be argued that a strong support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is directly associated with a powerful spiritual belief that open disclosure of homosexuality in today’s military would defy the intentions of Christian values. Though the aforementioned, and somewhat subjective, assessment cannot possibly categorize to say that all Republicans or religious devotees would consider Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be completely viable and necessary, it does appear to be the trend in today’s society for those who applaud its continued usage for active servicepersons. Depending on the victor of the 2008 Presidential election, this policy which has been in effect since 1993 may either be repealed, modified, or allowed to continue as it presently exists. Hence, the future of many “closeted” servicepersons who are forced into silence by the policy are likely awaiting the results of the election with strong anticipation. Conclusion There are likely many other arguments in existence which support the current policy regarding active servicepersons in today’s military, however the majority of research evidence points toward improved unit and group cohesion, the elimination of prejudices and biases against homosexual men and women, and the satisfaction or justification of religious principles pertaining to same-sex relationships. Further, social viewpoints regarding the acceptability of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell appear to be fluctuating in generic American society, which is making this topic of concern one of considerable debate. Leadership in contemporary military organizations are bound by their obligation to ensure that these policies are enforced and recognized, thus whether they agree with its rationale is somewhat irrelevant. If the current policies are allowed to continue as they are currently mandated by legislation, it is clear that homosexuals in the military will be forced to remain silent about their sexual preferences in order to avoid reprimand or dismissal from the military. As previously discussed in this paper, the military has been able to enjoy improved productivity and innovation from the viewpoints and experience levels of its existing (however ambiguous) homosexual servicepersons, thus it is clear that current policy has at least, in some fashion, improved the stability and strength of the modern military. The evidence suggests that the policies are, indeed, working and further suggests that through allowing homosexuals to serve (despite their mandate for silence) is a sign that today’s military is becoming increasingly progressive and adaptable to change based on social or legal pressures. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell further protects the interests of serving heterosexuals who are strongly opposed to witnessing or discussing homosexual behavior, suggesting that, in some fashion, every single party who is affected by the policy experiences some sort of personal victory through its inception and enforcement. References Carter, C. & Kolenc, A. (2007). “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Has the Policy Met its Goals?”. University of Dayton Law Review. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.law.udayton.edu/lawreview/documents/31-1/Carter.pdf Evans, Rhonda. (2001). “U.S. Military Policies Concerning Homosexuals: Development, Implementation, and Outcomes”. The Michael D. Palm Center. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/u_s_military_policies_concerning_homosexuals Herek, G. & Belkin, A. (2003). “Sexual Orientation and Military Service: Prospects for Organizational and Individual Change in the United States”. Military Culture. Volume 4. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Military_05_pre.PDF Landy, F. & Conte, J. (2006). Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Blackwell Publishing. Nickels, W., McHugh, J. & McHugh, S. (2005). Understanding Business. 7th ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin, United States. PlanetOut Network. (2007). “GOP candidates support ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”. Yahoo! News Article. November 29, 2007. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20071130/co_po/gopcandidatessupportdontaskdonttell Solomon, John. (2007). “Romney Supports ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”. Washington Post Online. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801218.html?nav=rss_politics Stokes, J., Greer, H. & Hammer, P. (2001). “Combat Stress Control and Force Health Protection”. Military Preventative Medicine: Mobilization and Deployment. Volume 1. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22military+unit%22+mental+distraction&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/mpmVol1/PM1ch16.pdf&w=%22military+unit%22+mental+distraction&d=ebjNsrXiPyUw&icp=1&.intl=us Sullivan, Andrew. (2006). “Gays in the Military – Andrew Sullivan and Time.com Look In”. Black Five. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/01/gays_in_the_mil.html USGAO. (2005). “Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot be Completely Estimated”. Report to Congressional Requesters. Retrieved December 16, 2007 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf Read More