Do Tell

This week, several pieces of news hit me in succession.

On Monday, the NY Times announced that a study was to come out the next day saying that gay soldiers in foreign militaries do not cause disruptions, so long as the transition to full integration was swift. The study pertained to militaries in Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries.

I was interested in this, so I followed the link to the think tank that would be issuing this report and signed up to receive notification when it came out.

I got the notice on Tuesday. Here's the report.

The think tank is the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Since 1998, the Center has been a leader in commissioning and disseminating research in the areas of gender, sexuality, and the military.

Here are the study's major points:

• 25 nations now allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
• Although controversy preceded implementation of the policy changes, and polls indicated massive resignations would occur, in Britain and Canada, only 3 people resigned when the policies were implemented.
• "No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military."
• "Evidence suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment,retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy."
• These successes persist over time, and no delayed problems emerge.
• "A quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success. Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that the process will go smoothly, while a 'phased-in' implementation can create anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism."
• "Two main factors contributed to the success of transitions to openly gay service: clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation. Also key are simple training guidelines that communicate the support of leadership, that explain the uniform standards for conduct, and that avoid 'sensitivity' training, which can backfire by causing resentment in the ranks."
• "None of the countries studied installed separate facilities for gay troops, nor did they retain rules treating gays differently from heterosexuals."
• "Lifting bans on openly gay service in foreign countries did not result in a mass 'coming out.'"
• "There were no instances of increased harassment of or by gay people as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied."
• "Informal discrimination in treatment and promotions have not been wiped out, but evidence suggests that formal policies of equal treatment for people equally situated helps reduce discrimination and resentment, and helps keep the focus on behavior necessary to complete the mission rather than on group traits that can distract from the mission."
• "The U.S. military has a long tradition of considering the experiences of other militaries to be relevant to its own lessons learned."

On Wednesday, the NY Times covered the testimony before Congress of two generals who expressed "serious concerns" about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell law "on a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight-and-a-half years," in the words of General George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of Staff. His colleague, General Norton A. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff "cautioned that there was little research [my emphasis] on how the policy change might affect Air Force personnel deployed for combat, surveillance and support missions around the world."

The Times then reported, "Both expressed reservations about moving too swiftly to change the policy [my emphasis], and both endorsed the decision by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to deliberately review the issue before acting."

Then, later on Wednesday, I got another notification from the Palm Center, this one a grim reminder of the sad toll these wars are taking. A gay soldier had died in Afghanistan. Tragically, soldiers are dying every day in Afghanistan and Iraq, so why should I call out this soldier's death? Consider this:

Because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, this soldier's partner was not informed of his death (except incidentally). Needless to say, his partner was also not able to make decisions about the disposition of his remains. Because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, an injured soldier's partner would not be able to make emergency decisions on his or her behalf.

And of course, because of a whole host of other discriminatory rules, regulations and laws, the deceased soldier's partner will not be eligible for survivor's benefits, just like the partner had not been eligible for any benefits during the soldier's lifetime.

This situation is appalling beyond words. The idea that these men and women are putting their lives on the line for a country that does not respect them enough to treat them as full citizens with equal rights under the law just makes me sick.

Congress must make a start toward changing this situation by repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell law and demanding a swift transition, as research in 25 nations shows is the best way. Please follow this link and contact your senators. Demand action now while lives are on the line.