Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Essay Example

Introduction Since the earliest days of history, homosexuality has been a feature of human society and culture. As early as the Greek period, homosexuality has been recognized in militaries and accepted as part of social and cultural norm. In fact, in Sparta and other ancient Greek city states, each young warrior had to “take a lover and mentor from among the seasoned fighters as part of his military training” (Smith, 2010). However, this support for the participation gays in the military had ceased until that time. For centuries now, same-sex affairs in the armed forces remained a taboo and were heavily punished. Even now on the 21st century, our military continues to implement discriminatory policies against homosexuals who serve the country. One such policy is the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT), though on pending repeal, continues to be the current official stance of the United States regarding homosexuals serving the military. DADT prohibits any military personnel to be open about their sexuality. If this happens, he will be probed and would be barred from the service. Thirteen years after its implementation, it is unfortunate that gender discrimination still exist and continues to influence the policies of our nation. As such, this paper aims to justify and support the move to repeal the DADT as it is an unfair policy for gays and lesbians who are in the military service. The objectives in this essay are supported by the following arguments: 1.) DADT violates America’s belief for equality and freedom speech; 2.) it costs taxpayers a lot of money; 3.) it is an unpopular policy among the American public and 4.) nations, including US Allies, have successfully implemented homosexuals in their military without effect in service. Not until DADT’s repeal is officially implemented by the government, the quest to free the society from discrimination is here to remain. Background of the DADT Policy Though the U.S. military explicitly prohibited homosexuality in the Articles of War of 1916, a ban wasnt enforced until World War II (Webley, 2010). Military service units including the Navy and Army developed a method to spot and exclude homosexual draftees from serving the military. The procedure included observations feminine body characteristics, patulous (expanded) rectum, and effeminacy in dress and manner of the soldier. According to Time magazine (2010), more than 4,000 of the 12 million men conscripted for the World War II effort were rejected for being gay. In 1989, Perry Watkins, an African-American gay soldier challenged the United States Army’s anti-gay ban when he was drafted even if he openly declared that he was homosexual. After 16 years of service, the military discharged Watkins for his sexual orientation in 1984; he promptly filed a lawsuit and went on to win his case in 1990. In 1992, former president Bill Clinton, on his presidential campaign, promised to lift the ban on gays in the military which was then opposed by senior military officers and majority of the Americans. As a result, repealing the ban was compromised with a law known as Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993 or more descriptively known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. The DADT mandates the discharge of any service member who is openly lesbian, gay or bisexual because "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability”. The act further specifies indicated that military members who disclose their homosexuality or engage in homosexual conduct shall be discharged except when a service members conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (House Report 103-200, 1994, pp. 263-297). DADT Violates Freedom of Speech To retain their service, gays and bisexuals keep quiet about their sexuality as a condition for military service. This is because one soldier’s true account of his/her sexual orientation is a ground for discharge. Also, discussing homosexual relationships, marriage, and acts are also illegal. Such policies of the DADT are a clear violation of the First Amendment of our constitution which constitutes our freedom of speech. By law, an individual’s freedom of speech is the fundamental right of every citizen. One can only be denied of this freedom if and when a person shares a statement which poses “clear and present danger”. For instance, one can be jailed by shouting “bomb!” in the airport because people might panic from such statements. However, stating one’s sexuality does not present danger to anyone else, except if this is done during serious combats when stealth is necessary. Moreover, freedom of speech can be violated if a person causes libel, slander, or defamation. However, being open with your sexuality does not exhibit these prohibited acts. Nobody is harmed when gays and lesbians simply want to openly express who they truly are. This goes to show that DADT simply curtails a soldier’s basic right for self-expression which all Americans must and should have. DADT & Its Unnecessary Cost To address the problem of cost for the American people with regards to implementing the DADT policy, it is interesting to look at how many people have been discharged over the years. According to United States Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2009), there are around 620 discharged military personnel accused under DADT from 2006-2008. Most people discharged under the policy have served the military for more than two years, making it hard and costly to replace them. According to GAO (2009), it costs an estimated $193.3 million to replace the thousands servicemen who have been discharged from 2004 up to 2009 due to the implementation of DADT policy in the military (p.18). Aside from this, the personal cost to those discharged military personnel is harder. This is because most people working more than two years for the military must have chosen it as a career. To be sacked due to one’s sexual orientation is not only horrible but might also destroy these people’s financial situation and future job possibilities. It might prove hard to find a job that could match what they were deemed unfit for, and the recovery could take a long time. Both personal and administrative in implementing DADT is unnecessary and burden to all American taxpayers. Unpopular Policy among American Public Unknown to many Americans, public opinion regarding the support of DADT has decreased since its implementation. In 1993, the support for the policy is at 44% only. However, in 2008, it was found out that 75% of Americans gays to serve openly in the military according to the poll by The Washington Post/ABC News. Even within the military, 70% of 115, 000 troops surveyed by the Pew Research Center (2010) believe that a repeal of DADT would have either a positive effect or no effect on their ability to complete missions (Sheridan & Sisk, 2010). This is in contrast to what DADT supporters say that, troop morale and national security is affected when gays and lesbians begin to open up their sexuality. Clearly, repealing DADT is now strongly backed by the public who wants policy change to happen in the armed forces. Arguments for DADT Strengthening group cohesion is one of the arguments being made in favor of DADT policy. Harrell & Miller (1997, p.54) describes group cohesion in the military as a bond that holds a unit together in order to have “shared commitment among members to achieving goal that requires collective efforts of the group”. In short, those who support DADT maintain that group cohesion in the military is necessary in order for soldiers to create good rapport within their group. Without group cohesion, a military group becomes weak in combat. As such, it is necessary that military personnel to be disciplined and uniformed to strengthen the group. The DADT supports this argument claiming that it is better for military personnel to be unaware of each other’s sexual orientation within the group. In this way, soldiers will have no biases against each other and order will be maintained within the group. However, the reason why this argument fails is because it is the same old argument used against women entering the military. During the Gulf war, women have demonstrated that they can coexist with male soldiers by exhibiting the same capabilities as them. In fact, on their study about women in the military, Harrell et al (2007) observed presence of women in the military does not have damaging effect in the group cohesion (p.59). Another argument against the loss of group cohesion is that many states, including US allies, have successfully adapted the inclusion of homosexuals in their military. Today, there are 25 countries that allow gays to serve their armed forces including Canada, Australia, Israel and the UK. Of all the original NATO countries, only the US and Turkey still have bans on homosexuals in the military in place. In 2000, the British Military began accepting gays in the service and Ministry of Defense officials told The New York Times in 2007 that “there had been no reported incidents of harassment, discord, blackmail or bullying, nor any erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness”. In Israel, a country with no restrictions on gays serving the military since 1993, the army magazine, Bamahane, showcased two men hugging each other on its 2009 cover (Webley, 2010). Conclusion It has been six months since the repeal of the DADT has been voted for by our lawmakers. However, its total implementation is something we have yet to see. It is necessary that the government must act without delay to permanently erase an unjust and discriminatory policy found in our laws. This paper has showed the reasons why there is an utmost need to fully execute the repeal of DADT. First, the policy is a violation of the First Amendment that protects our freedom of speech. Second, DADT is costly for American taxpayers because homosexual soldiers being discharged are expensive to replace. Third, it is necessary to repeal DADT because many nations have allowed gays and homosexuals in the military service. Lastly, DADT should be abolished because it has no public support to back up the policy. These reasons should enable the government immediately act on the repeal of DADT. As a citizen of this country, it is our duty to remain critical against policies that are unjust against homosexuals in the military. We might want to let look back and learn from the Greek society to respect our differences. For them, a hero is a hero at the end of the day. References Gates, Gary J. Effects of "Dont Ask Dont Tell" on Retention among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Military Personnel. California, USA: The Williams Institute, 2007. Print. Geidner, Chris. “GAO: 40 Percent Of DADT Discharges Were in "Critical" Roles or Spoke "Important" Languages”. Metro Weekly. 20 January 2011. Web. 16 April 2012. Harrell, Margaret C. and Laura L. Miller. New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion and Morale. RAND Corporation: Sta Monica, CA. 1997. Print. Harrell, Margaret C., Laura Castaneda, Peter Schirmer, Bryan Hallmark, Jennifer Kavanagh, Daniel Gershwin, and Paul Steinberg. Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women. RAND Corporation: Washington, 1997. Print. House Report 103-200, 1993 Law of Banning Gays from the Military. Section 654, Title 10. Washington: National Defense Authorization Act, 1994. Print. Morales, Lymari. “In U.S., 67% Support Repealing ‘Dont Ask, Dont Tell’". Gallup News. 9 December 2010. Web. 16 April 2012. Sheridan, Michael and Richard Sisk. "DADT survey reveals military is ok with gay troops, Sec. Def. Gates urges Congress to repeal policy". NYDailyNews.com. 30 November 2010. Web. 16 April 2012. Smith, Cathy Anne. “The History of Gays in the Military – The Sacred Band of Thebes”. Suite101.com. 12 December 2010. Web. 16 April 2012. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). “Personnel and Cost Data Associated with Implementing DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy”. GAO Report to the Honorable Susan A. Davis. Washington, USA: House of Representatives, 2011. Print. Webley, Kayla. “Brief History of Gays in the Military”. Time Magazine. 02 February 2010. Web. 16 April 2012. Read More