2:04-cv-08425 #154

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 154 Filed 04/05/10 10 Pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DAN WOODS (State Bar No. 78638) PATRICK HUNNIUS (State Bar No. 174633) EARLE MILLER (State Bar No. 116864) AARON KAHN (State Bar No. 238505) WHITE & CASE LLP 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Telephone: (213) 620-7700 Facsimile: (213) 452-2329 Email: dwoods@whitecase.com Email: phunnius@whitecase.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity, Defendants. Case No. CV04-8425 VAP (Ex) APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: April 26, 2010 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom of Judge Phillips
-1LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Written Discovery Lay Depositions Expert Depositions
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s)
March 5, 2010 Deposition of Aaron Belkin, Ph. D. .................................0001-0019 February 26, 2010 Deposition of Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D........................0020-0034
March 18, 2010 Deposition of John Alexander Nicholson III ................0035-0050
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production of Documents ................................0051-0113
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission ........................................................0114-0158
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories .......................................................................0159-0170
Defendants Objections and Response to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Admission ...................................................0171-0189
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents ............................0190-0204
Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories ................................................. 0205-0211 -2LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Admission....................................... 0212-0217
Deposition Exhibits Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing with Homosexuals (Crittenden Report) (Ex. 4 to Frank Deposition)......................................0218-0290
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment (RAND Report) (Ex. 8 to Frank Deposition) .....................................................................0291-0838
PERSEREC report entitled Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability (Ex. 5 to Frank Deposition).........0839-0887
Defense Force Management: DODs Policy on Homosexuality (1992 GAO Report) (Ex. 6 to Frank Deposition).....................................0888-0971
Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries (1993 GAO Report) (Ex. 7 to Frank Deposition) ......................................................................0972-1024
Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DODs Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated (2005 GAO Report) (Ex. 9 to Frank Deposition) ......................................................................1025-1072
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military (Zogby Poll) (Ex. 11 to Frank Deposition) ......................1073-1099
Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces (Ex. 13 to Frank Deposition) ....................................................................1100-1128
Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer (Ex. 22 to Frank Deposition) ....................................................................1129-1280
Government Production Documents Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members (Bates stamped DMDC 000011-000022).................................................1281-1292
Memorandum from Craig Alderman, Jr., Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, to PERSEREC (Bates stamped DoD LA 2-6 042450-042451) .......................................1293-1294
September 21, 2006 letter from Undersecretary of Defense to Senator Ron Wyden (Bates stamped 13 LC 057312-312) ........................................................1295-1296
Draft Memorandum DOD/GC Homosexual Conduct Implementation Memo and Service/GC Response (Bates stamped OSD OEPM 013347-378) ..............................................1297-1328
Memorandum from Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (Bates stamped DOD LA 2-6 042466) ............................................................. 1329 -4LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Draft of PERSEREC report by Michael McDaniel (Bates stamped DOD LA 2-6 042467-042496) .......................................1330-1359
PERSEREC report entitled Homosexuality and Personnel Security (Bates stamped PERSEC 007818-007863) .............................................1360-1405
Successful Integration of Stigmatized Minorities Into The U.S. Army (Bates stamped ARI 059823-908) ...........................................................1406-1491
U.S. Army Research Institute (AIR) Research Report 1657 (Bates stamped ARI 60206-272) .............................................................1492-1558
November 1, 2006 email from Franklin C. Pinch to Paul A. Gade (Bates stamped AR 062002-04) ..............................................................1559-1561
Charts entitled Homosexual Separations by Service and Reason (Bates stamped OSD P&R Plans 007171-72) .........................................1593-1594
Memorandum to the Vice-Chief of Naval Operations (Bates stamped NAVY 058930-31) ........................................................1728-1729
Comparative International Military Personnel Policies (Bates stamped ARI 0060755-060779) ...................................................1730-1754
Future Organizational Changes U. S. Army Focus Army Task Force, Documentation Book (Bates stamped ARI 062124) ........................................ 1755
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Active Duty Separations By Service & ISC FY 2008 (Bates stamped DMDC 000003-04) ........................................................1756-1757
Hypothetical Teaching Scenarios for Commanders and Personnel Involved in Recruiting, Accession Processing, Criminal Investigations, and Administrative Separations (Bates stamped Navy 058969-74) ...........................................................1758-1763
Summary Report of the Military Working Group (Bates Stamped OSD P&R 007428-007454) ..........................................1764-1790
Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan Under Dont Ask, Dont Tell (Bates stamped OSD P&R Plans 058910-11) ..................................... 1790a-1790b
LCR Production Documents February 2, 2010 transcript of Admiral Mike Mullens and Secretary of Defense Robert Gatess testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee (Bates stamped LCR 03452-03467) ........................................................1791-1806
November 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces (Bates-stamped LCR 4706 to LCR 4775) ...............................................1807-1876
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2003 Report by Aaron Belkin entitled Dont Ask, Dont Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity (Bates stamped LCR 3367-3378) ............................................................1877-1888
September 2000 report by Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans entitled The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the Australian Armed Forces (Bate stamped LCR 4666-4705) ..............................................................1889-1928
2009 article by Col. Om Prakash entitled The Efficacy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell (Bates stamped LCR 4776-4782) ............................................................1929-1935
2010 report by Gary Gates entitled Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Men and Women in the U.S. Military: Updated Estimates (Bates stamped LCR WI 1013-1050) ......................................................1936-1973
June 29, 2009 remarks by the President at LGBT Pride Month Reception (Bates stamped LCR 3999-4002) ............................................................1974-1977
October 11, 2009 remarks by the President at Human Rights Campaign Dinner (Bates stamped LCR 3995-3998) ............................................................1978-1981
March 24, 1995 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The First Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4013-4044) ............................................................1982-2013
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1996 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Second Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4045-4080) ............................................................2014-2049 1997 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Third Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4081-4120) ............................................................2050-2089
1998 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fourth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4121-4199) ............................................................2090-2168
1999 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Fifth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4200-4284) ............................................................2169-2253
2000 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Sixth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4285-4371) ............................................................2254-2340
2001 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Seventh Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4372-4474) ............................................................2341-2443
2002 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Eighth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4475-4531) ............................................................2444-2500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2003 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Ninth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4532-4592) ............................................................2501-2561
2004 report entitled Conduct Unbecoming: The Tenth Annual Report on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Dont Pursue, Dont Harass (Bates stamped LCR 4593-4648) ............................................................2562-2617
Other Documents February 24, 2010 Los Angeles Times article entitled Navy Moves to Allow Women on Submarines ..........................................................................2618-2621
Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Regulation 500-3-3 ................2622-2772
August 28, 2000 New York Times article entitled Military Reserves are Falling Short in Finding Recruits .......................................................................2773-2775
March 31, 2010 Washington Post article entitled A Dont Ask, Dont Tell Rules Complicate Survey of Troops on Policy Change .......................................................................2776-2777
Balancing Your Strengths Against Your Felonies: Consideration for Military Recruitment of Ex-Offenders .......................2778-2820
Report entitled A Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality .......................................................................2821-2836
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence ..........................................2837-2878
March 14, 2007 Washington Post article Bigotry That Hurts Our Military ..........................................................2879-2881 Department of Defendant Instruction Number 1332.14 ..........................2882-2895
March 18, 2010 transcript of testimony given by Major Michael D. Almy to Senate Committee on Armed Services ................................................................2896-2936
January 30, 2010 transcript of CNN Interview with William Cohen .................................................................................2937-2945
September 15, 2004 report by Nathaniel Frank, Ph. D. Gays and Lesbians at War: Military Service in Iraq and Afghanistan under Dont Ask, Dont Tell ...........................................2946-2993
March 29, 2010 article in Roll Call entitled Wesley Clark Backs Cunningham in North Carolina ..................................... 2994
August 1992, Update of the U.S. Army Research Institutes Longitudinal Research Data Base of Enlisted Personnel ........................2995-3093
February 3, 1020 New York Times article entitled Powell Favors Repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell .......................................... 3094
- 10 LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)
Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 154-1 Filed 04/05/10 201 Pages
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republicans Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
LCR Appendix Pages 1-200 (Part 1 of 19)
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Reported by: EMI ALBRIGHT RPR, CSR No. 13042 Job No. 19676
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION _________________________________________________ LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. vs. ) ) CV04-8425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense, ) (VAP)(Ex) ) ) Defendants. ) ) __________________________________________________
DEPOSITION OF AARON BELKIN, Ph.D. March 5, 2010 San Francisco, California
LCR Appendix Page 0001
March 5, 2010
Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. FREEBORNE: Q Dr. Belkin, for the record could you AARON BELKIN, Ph.D., having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION San Francisco, California, March 5, 2010 9:01 a.m. - 2:53 p.m.
state your name and your address, please? A Aaron Belkin, 2208 Derby Street,
Berkeley, California 94715. Q A Q A Q witness? A like this. I testified in a case but it wasn't It is that I saw an instance of You understand you are under oath? I do. Have you been deposed before? No, this is my first time. You have never testified as a fact
harassment and I was called to say what I said. Q That was in an Equal Employment
Opportunity case? A Q No, I think it was criminal, actually. Did you testify at trial?
March 5, 2010
Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 data. there is a range of knowledge. But on the polls,
at least Zogby and Military Times, there is a distinction between people who, quote, unquote, say they know for sure versus people who suspect. So that is as fine grained an analysis as we can do because that's what the questions ask. But I
take your point that there are many different ways of knowing something. But we only know in this
case of the distinction between know -- sorry -know for sure, suspect, and don't know. Q A Q Let's take know for sure and suspect. Uh-huh. And let's put aside the actual polling But why do you believe or do you believe
that if heterosexuals know or suspect that they are serving with gay and lesbian service members, that has an impact in evaluating the privacy rationale? A The privacy rationale is premised on
the assumption that after the repeal of the ban that conditions in living spaces will change. if it is true that service members are serving with people -- sorry -- that heterosexual service members know that they are serving with gays and lesbians now and if it is also the case that that
And
March 5, 2010
Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is not likely to change or to change much postrepeal, then the privacy rationale by definition cannot be plausible because there would be no change in showers or barracks or intimate spaces. So the baseline condition of whether
people are serving with gays and lesbians now sustains that argument. That is point 1.
Point 2 is because the data to the extent that a significant portion of service members, straight service members know they are serving with gays and lesbians, that casts doubt on the heat surrounding the privacy rationale. you listen to the main proponents of the privacy rationale and the way they express their claims, their point is that there are no gays and lesbians serving -- there are no -- straights are not aware of any gays and lesbians in their units now. And If
if they were, we have a privacy disaster and the sky would fall. Well, the fact is to the extent that the data show that they are serving with people who they know to be gay, then the claim of the privacy rationale proponents is wrong because people are serving already. And also the claims
about the sky falling down are at very least cast

March 5, 2010
Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into significant doubt because, obviously, the sky hasn't fallen now. data are important. Q And in terms of the baseline that you So that's the reason why those
made reference to, why do you believe that the baseline would not change postrepeal? A It is two factors -- well, possibly
more than two factors, but I will start with two factors. One is that the literature suggests that what determines the level of outness, in other words, what derives a decision to reveal sexual orientation is not the presence or absence of a ban but it is the safety of the unit. is the service member's assessment of the climate -- the culture or the climate of the work environment. And not only is there scholarship on So And it
that but to me that makes intuitive sense. that's point 1. And point 2 is that in analogous
institutions that I have studied, we have not seen waves of mass disclosures postrepeal of a ban. And so that is what informs my conclusion. Q And with respect to the first basis,
when you say it is the service member's perceived

March 5, 2010
Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Under certain conditions? Yes? Absolutely, under certain conditions
private showers are not possible. Q Do you believe that would be important
to take into consideration in evaluating the privacy rationale? A I would say that if that were true --
and I have just acknowledged it is -- then the privacy rationale could be valid in those circumstances. Q Well, is it your opinion that a Don't
Ask, Don't Tell policy would be appropriate in, say, combat conditions but not in noncombat conditions where accommodations permit individual showers or more private accommodations? A The research shows that, no, a Don't
Ask, Don't Tell situation would not further heterosexual privacy in combat situations where individual accommodations are not possible. Q What is that research that you are
referring to? A Q A Well, my research, for one thing. What research? The point -- well, it is many points.
March 5, 2010
Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I will go over all the points, yeah, I will because you asked me the question. Q A Yes. First of all, because there will be no
change, no meaningful change among disclosure rates postrepeal. So whether you have -- and in
other words, even if you granted that every heterosexual person in the military is grossly discomfort in the nude around gays and lesbians, there will be no change in the privacy conditions even in combat postrepeal because again you won't have any difference in the shower because straights are already serving with people they know to be gay, and the extent to which that is true will not change in any meaningful way. that is one. Q Can I just stop? Can I stop you there So
just -- you want to finish? A Q A I actually would like to finish. That's fine. Second of all, because actually in
combat situations what we find is that you have men and women quartering together. And so
actually in combat the military realizes and in deployment situations when the bullets are flying,
March 5, 2010
Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those are the moments when the troops are most focused on the mission. And to the extent they
are most focused on the mission, other concerns recede to the background. And, third of all, because my research and others' research has shown that the level of extreme discomfort around gays and lesbians has diminished drastically, and so the percent of people for whom even in theory this could be an issue, which again would not change pre and postrepeal, is very tiny. So that is why I don't
believe that -- well, the research shows that whether or not you have a gay ban is immaterial for privacy in the shower. Q Okay. And correct me if I'm wrong.
The baseline reasoning that you just set forth that there would be no change in the percentage of acknowledged gay and lesbian service members between a prerepeal environment and a postrepeal environment is based upon your research of foreign militaries; correct? A I actually wouldn't say that. I
wouldn't say that is totally the case. Q A What would you say? I would say that it is based on -- it
March 5, 2010
Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is based on a range of data analogous in the institutions in the U.S. We did not have reports
of mass disclosures in police or fire departments, the CIA, basically any organization that changed from a discriminatory to an inclusionary policy. So we have never seen that. be Point 1. Point 2, in the U.S. military itself when the ban has been relaxed or softened, we did not see any change in disclosure rates. have evidence from our militaries. of all is the foreign militaries. And then fourth of all is the theoretical point -- it is not empirical but it is theoretical, but consistent with all the empirics, that what drives disclosure is not the presence or absence of a ban but the service member's read of the climate in the unit. Q And that finding applies across foreign So we So I guess that would
And then third
militaries that you studied, paramilitary organizations such as police departments, federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA, that permit the disclosure of one's sexual orientation? A Q Yes, and the U.S. military. Right. And describe for me the context
March 5, 2010
Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Okay. Anything else?
Yes, but I'm not recalling off the top But if I remember later, then I hope
of my head.
I can say it later. Q A Q You can absolutely say it later. Okay. The third factor you set forth in
evaluating the privacy rationale was the counterfactual. on that one. What would be in the example of a counterfactual of the complete ban that you were referring to? A The counterfactual is a hypothetical. And I have to admit you lost me
It is a claim about something that never happened. And so if you made a hypothetical or counterfactual claim that God came in and told the military who every gay person was, even if they are closeted, have never -- they might not even know themselves they are gay, but just identified every person with a gay or possibly gay identity and just got them out of the military so the military was 100 percent straight, 100 percent straight, no gays whatsoever, no closeted gays, no future gays, what would happen in privacy
March 5, 2010
Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 settings, in intimate settings in the shower in the barracks. experiment. And my argument is that to the extent you believe that the shower and barracks are places where privacy violations take place because of gays, then that hypothetical counterfactual world with no gays would still have just as many privacy violations involving just the same kinds of things that people who articulate the privacy rationale worry about now. And the reason for that is because straight service members have sex in the military with each other. And even if there were no gays, So that's the hypothetical
they would just go right on having sex with each other. And so to the extent that that's what you
are concerned about, kind of looking and sexual play and sex itself, that is actually not about gay people being in the military. That is a
phenomenon that is independent of whether or not gays are in the military. reasons why I know that. Q A What are those three reasons? There is statistical evidence, And there are three
ethnographic evidence, and legal evidence.

March 5, 2010
Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And take me through each of those
pieces of evidence. A Well, the legal evidence is the queen
for a day exception, which has this lengthy history, that the military itself knows that this is going on which is why they need a queen for a day exception. If it wasn't going on, then they So
would not need a queen for a day exception.
the very fact that this regulation has lived in -well, in regulation and in statute for most of the last century is evidence that the military itself knows quite well that this is going on. The ethnographic evidence is just descriptions from the literature. wrote a whole study on this. I actually
But, for example, a
marine chaplain who says something to the effect of, oh, yeah, marines are always jacking off together in the showers, that is very common from what I have seen, so things like that. A unit of
navy seals that I know of where the seals all in a unit in a circle masturbate together, so things like that -- straight seals. And then the statistical evidence is that the best available evidence we have is that the percent of men -- gay men in the population
March 5, 2010
Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the percent of gay men in the military is just about the same, very close to each other. However, if you look at statistical evidence about the frequency of male/male sex among veterans, it is much higher than in the general population. And what that -- it does not prove that the veterans are having the -- the straight veterans are having gay sex in the military because it is possible that veterans have more gay sex than civilians because they have their gay sex after their military service; that is absolutely possible. But I would say at the very least it is
not inconsistent with the notion supported by ethnographic and legal evidence that straight people are having gay sex in the military. And
even if you could get rid of all gays, they would just keep right on having that sex. It is kind of
like a fraternity ritual, I mean, some of the hazing rituals you hear about. So I actually make this argument at military academies when I go speak there. And you
get a perplexed look from some people, but a lot of people kind of nod and smirk and they know what is going on. Q The fourth factor or fourth layer of
March 5, 2010
Page 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q All right. And what specific questions
did she say to anticipate in that regard? A I don't think she specified anything,
but she said that that was -- my memory is correct, she said that was an area where your side, the Government seems intent on trying to make a point. Q Okay. With respect to we talked
earlier about the privacy rationale, did the Israeli defense forces make any special accommodation for gays and lesbians or heterosexuals postrepeal? A Are you talking about special
accommodations in terms of systematic policy law or regulation or are you talking about special accommodations in terms of micro-practices, discretionary practices on the ground? Q Let's start with the latter. What I am
thinking of is either in terms of facilities or allowing heterosexuals, for example, to serve, to live at home if they had a particular privacy interest that they felt was being infringed upon by allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve. A I believe we found one case where a
commander had allowed a straight service member to

March 5, 2010
Page 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 back. You have looked at the Canadian, Australian, Israeli, and Great Britain examples; right? A Me personally or the center?
shower at different times.
So I believe it was he
would not have to be in the shower with other people. And I believe we found one case where And I am
someone was allowed to live off base.
sorry I don't remember if that was the same person or not. Q member? A Q If my memory is correct. And the special accommodation that was So that was a heterosexual service
provided for that heterosexual member or members was based upon a privacy concern expressed by the heterosexual member? A I don't know the details but my strong
suspicion would be yes. Q A What is that suspicion based upon? That they wouldn't have done the --
they wouldn't have made the accommodation if there wasn't a concern. Q Did you find any other -- well, step
March 5, 2010
Page 209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the pluralistic ignorance hypothesis. get you references of that. And I could
It is a well
established hypothesis in the psychological literature. Q I only have one more question. You
submitted your report -- or we submitted your report to the Government on January 15th 2010. Has anything happened since then that either bolsters your expert opinion or is relevant to your expert opinion in this case? A Well, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff said that he thinks the policy compromises the integrity of the forces by forcing service members to lie. And a currently serving
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has never said that. And he said that our troops are pretty
robust and professional and that they can make the adjustment to an inclusive policy without problems. So I would say that that testimony
bolstered the research. And I would say in terms of the conviction, that people who express reservations about unit cohesion and privacy and things like that are not coming from a place based on evidence but are coming from a place based on moral
March 5, 2010
Page 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
intolerance.
I just found out that, in fact,
General Conway of the Service Chief of the Marines is coordinating opposition to repeal efforts with Peter Pace. And Peter Pace is the former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was honest enough to admit when asked by the Chicago Tribune editorial board why we have a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, he was honest enough to admit it is because homosexual conduct is immoral. Now, he was rowdly criticized for that, but I was actually happy he said that because for the first time we had a military person being honest about the policy. So the fact that he is
back in the quarterback seat tells me -reinforces my conviction that this policy is not and never has been about cohesion or privacy or any other rational military ends but it is about promoting the moral convictions of a particular group of individuals. MS. FELDMAN: questions. MR. FREEBORNE: further questions. (Deposition concluded at 2:53 p.m.) Thank you, Doctor. No I have no other
March 5, 2010
Page 211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:

CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
I hereby certify that I have read and examined the foregoing transcript, and the same is a true and accurate record of the testimony given by me. Any additions or corrections that I feel are necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet of paper to the original transcript.
_________________________ Signature of Deponent
I hereby certify that the individual representing himself/herself to be the above-named individual, appeared before me this _____ day of ____________, 2010, and executed the above certificate in my presence.
________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
________________________ County Name
March 5, 2010
Page 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss County of Alameda ) )
I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: That the foregoing proceedings
were taken before me at the time and place herein set forth; that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim record of the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate transcription thereof. I further certify
that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any party to this action or relative or employee of any such attorney or counsel and that I am not financially interested in the said action or the outcome thereof; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed my name. Dated:____________________________
EMI ALBRIGHT, CSR No. 13042
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION ----------------------------LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Plaintiff, vs. No. CV04-8425 (VAP) (Ex) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense, Defendants. -----------------------------
February 26, 2010 10:02 a.m. Deposition of Expert Witness NATHANIEL FRANK, Ph.D., held at the offices of White & Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, pursuant to Notice, before Theresa Tramondo, a Notary Public of the State of New York.
February 26, 2010
Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
N A T H A N I E L
F R A N K,
P h. D.,
called as a witness, having been duly sworn by a Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. FREEBORNE: Q. please. A. Q. A. Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. What is your address? Home address is 118 Gates Avenue, State your name for the record,
Brooklyn, New York 11238. Q. A. Q. Dr. Frank, good morning. Morning. I introduced myself this morning, I'm an I am
but my name is Paul Freeborne.
attorney at the Department of Justice.
counsel of record in the case captioned Log Cabin Republicans versus The United States. The action has been brought against the United States and Secretary Gates. As you
know, it involves a facial challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. To my left is Ryan Parker. He's
February 26, 2010
Page 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mean -Q. A. As an expert in this case. You mean LCRVUS or in this issue Frank irrational in a legal sense, but go ahead answer the question. Q. Are you entering any legal opinions
in this case? A. No. When you say "in this case," do you
we're discussing? Q. I see them as co-extensive, but in
"this case" being Log Cabin versus United States, as an expert, are you rendering any legal opinions? A. have -Q. I just note that because I am not Well, I am not a lawyer, so I
asking you for a legal conclusion. A. Q. Okay. When I use "irrational," I mean it
in a -- from the vantage point of expert opinion as a factual matter. A. this way: Let me try to answer that question Some people in the military have a
February 26, 2010
Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank desire not to serve with gay people because they feel that it is an invasion of their privacy. I'm not comfortable concluding that
some people's feelings and desires are irrational, that those people's desires and feelings are irrational. Q. that? A. Q. Do you have anything else to add on I don't want to cut you off? No. Have you ever been involved either
as an expert or a nontestifying expert in any other challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? A. Q. A. Legal challenge? Legal challenge? I was involved as an expert witness
in a case -- a military criminal case of nonconsensual sex. My understanding is that
was not a challenge to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Q. Is that United States V Sergeant
Dale Boldware? A. Q. That's right. What did you do in that case?

February 26, 2010
Page 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Frank Do you believe that General
Powell's testimony in that record was based upon a moral animus towards gay and lesbian service members? A. Q. Based on that assertion, no. Do you believe that he was
motivated by an animus towards gay and lesbian service members in providing the testimony he did before the Senate? A. What I say in my report is that
Powell is one of the people who argued for the band based on personal reasons. I don't
know that that rises in his case to moral animus. I believe that he believed that open
homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military but didn't base that belief on military necessity. belief. Q. It was a personal
I am not calling it animus. Do you agree or disagree that his
concern with privacy was based upon his professional military judgment? A. His concern with privacy as a
general matter may certainly be based on his professional military judgment, but what he
February 26, 2010
Page 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank says here does not constitute an argument for keeping out open homosexuals. Q. A. Why is that? Because what he says here is that
service members are required to serve with very little privacy, so it doesn't make any sense to me to conclude from that that there is a justification to exclude open homosexuals since he's just acknowledged that part of being in the military means sacrificing privacy. Q. Isn't it fair to say that the
concern that he was expressing is that if the military were to permit gay and lesbian service members to serve openly that that would infringe upon the privacy interests of heterosexual service members? A. No. More than all of the other
infringements of privacy he just said service members would have to endure. Q. privacy -A. It is consistently infringed in the Right. He's recognizing the
military; hence, my interpretation when he

February 26, 2010
Page 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank draws a line in the sand around gay people, that reflects a personal basis because it's inconsistent with his acknowledgment that military service requires that privacy be sacrificed. Q. I direct your attention further This is in reference to The sentence that
down that same page.
the sexual tension point.
reads "The separation of men and women is based upon the military necessity to minimize conditions that would disrupt unit cohesion, such as the potential for increased sexual tension that could result from mixed living quarters." Powell. Then it goes onto quote General
He states, "Cohesion is strengthened
or weakened in the intimate living arrangements we force upon our people. Youngsters from different backgrounds must get along together despite their individual preferences. Behavior too far away from the In
norm undercuts the cohesion of the group. our society gender differences are not
considered conducive to bonding and cohesion within barracks living spaces."

February 26, 2010
Page 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Frank Do you see that? Yes. Then he goes on to -- well, do you
have any reason to question the testimony he gave as it relates to the accommodation we must make for men and women? A. If I could have a second to read it
over again. Q. A. Sure. Again, you ask me if I agreed with It's a contradictory
his assertion there?
statement as it relates to -- as it relates to an argument in favor of excluding open gays. He says "Youngsters from different
background must get along together despite their individual preferences." And then he
says "Behavior too far away from the norm undercuts cohesion of the group," having just said that youngsters must get along despite individual preferences. confusing to me at best. Q. Do you take issue with the separate So the assertion is
accommodations that the military provides for men and women?

February 26, 2010
Page 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank according to this concern if it were to be fully honored, you couldn't put individual gay males together either because then they could be uncomfortable undressing in front of one another. Q. Beyond the financial cost, what
other costs are you referring to? A. Costs to cohesion; for instance,
General Carl Mundy, who is former opponent of allowing open gay service has said nevertheless that if open gay service is to be the new policy there should not be separate facilities, a finding that echoed in the RAND study, because that breeds resentment and undercuts the cohesiveness of the force by separating people out that need to be training and living together. Q. Part three of your report you
attribute certain statements to Senator Nunn. If you could return back to your expert report and look at part three, I ask you where I could find the statements that you attribute to Senator Nunn? page 5.
I am sorry.
On
February 26, 2010
Page 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Frank Well, I would recommend looking in
my book where I believe those quotes appear with footnotes. Q. Okay. Describe for me the conversations you had with Professor Moskos? A. I first interviewed Professor
Moskos about this issue in the year 2000 for an article I wrote. I focused in part on the
question of unit cohesion and began examining what, if any, evidence there might be for the argument that open homosexuality creates a risk to unit cohesion. I spoke to him and
e-mailed him across a period of months probably at that time for that article, and subsequent to that I had several conversations, again e-mail, phone and in person, over the course of another eight years. Not frequent but from time to time.
You know, a couple of years -- a few years. In one of the early conversations in 2000 for the article I was writing at the time, I asked him about the role of unit cohesion in this argument and that's when he
February 26, 2010
Page 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank dismissed unit cohesion saying "fuck unit cohesion, I don't care about that," and told me instead that his argument for supporting a band on open service had to do with a moral concern about the right, as he saw it, of straight people not to have to share intimate quarters with a gay person. Q. It's the privacy concern that we
have been discussing that Colin Powell expressed for one? A. That's right. But Professor Moskos
didn't always rely exclusively on the privacy argument alone. Q. Based upon your interaction with
Professor Moskos, did you have any reason to believe that he had a personal animus towards gay and lesbian service members? A. Q. A. Yes. What was that based upon? He often used to joke that he knew
he served with gay people, but it worked out because they didn't hit on him, which implied to me a personal belief that gay people were more likely to be sexual predators than
February 26, 2010
Page 192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Frank proximity' and soldiers 'are told whom you're going to live with' and because it is such an important institution of American power Powell said, 'We have to be careful when we change the policy.'" Q. The quotes that Dr. Frank -- those
are from Colin Powell, correct? A. Q. Yes. Why are you being critical of Colin
Powell here? A. Because in my view he's -- these
assertions are irrelevant to the question of whether openly gay service undermines the military, so to repeat assertions that are not untrue necessarily but are not relevant to the question at hand in my view in order to make a reform in policy seem difficult and dangerous is arguing in bad faith. Q. A. Why is it arguing in bad faith? Because he's saying these things as
though simply by saying them people should understand that there is great risk to letting gay serve in the military when, in fact, in my view there isn't.
February 26, 2010
Page 193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Frank Because you believe the privacy
rationale to be irrelevant? A. The privacy rationale to propping
up the policy? Q. The privacy rationale that we
discussed earlier that Colin Powell espoused during the Senate hearing? A. I believe that people's genuine
discomfort in terms of the impact of known gays on their privacy does not rise to the level of undercutting military effectiveness. Q. Dr. Frank, I would like to now mark
as Defendants' Exhibit 17 another opinion piece that appears in the Huffington Post on January 22, 2010. (Defendants' Exhibit 17, opinion piece appearing in the Huffington Post entitled "Refuting the Latest Arguments Against Gay Troops," marked for identification, as of this date.) Q. This article is entitled "Refuting
the Latest Arguments Against Gay Troops." Again, it appeared in -Let me step back. We have a posted
February 26, 2010
Page 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
I hereby certify that I have read and examined the foregoing transcript, and the same is a true and accurate record of the testimony given by me. Any additions or corrections that I feel are necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet of paper to the original transcript.
_________________________ Signature of Deponent
I hereby certify that the individual representing himself/herself to be the above-named individual, appeared before me this _____ day of ____________, 2010, and executed the above certificate in my presence.
________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
________________________ County Name MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
February 26, 2010
Page 234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss. COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
I, THERESA TRAMONDO, a Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: That NATHANIEL FRANK, Ph.D., the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of March, 2010.
_____________________ THERESA TRAMONDO
(,,
IOR
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APORT OF TIIE DOARD
.ArcIlrGD O rnrptq- ArfD s0Bt{IT nEcor+fErfD,rrors
ro
1tr8 SECBSTARY Or
rW$E*
DIRECTI1ES
IUR lEE BErIoty oF pol,rclEg, tBosEDuREs AID

DEAI,TNO
I{.rX
Lgl6
ECIOSfiJAIA
er DEqnlMR
15
MARcH
r95T
TOR (]FFITIAL IJSE ()NtY
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL
INIffi
DOND NPORT
Psrt I
A' troduction
1. 2. B'
Genera,I.
ObJectlvee ard
tets of, reference.
Reeent edv&tces 1 }.tovlecte concernlng tha problem of
1. hequeucy of 2, fell-eclsg 3. l+.

Ubder8tsndlg
baooeerual- bebevlor
i ttte
generaL po!'ltjor.
cobce:o{ng hoeexualfty.
of the ne81!g of of
h@osexual lrebavlor'. persons exhibltl.ng
Xbeafuent ancl relrsbllftatlor b,osexu.Bl bebevior.

knovledge.
5. Deficleuciee of 6. Srluary,
C. Specf.ffc ftegos,.of_:CoEcer. 1. One-tfuoe ffendes. 2. Voh:atary confeesloaa. 3. |[Ye of cllocharge. l+. lreatent of eo celled 5. cufcel eralustlon. 6. Revle procedurea. 7. ReopoDsfbulty to the el.tri1ln comunlty. B. Screentng of apIlcants. 9. Teetent of vcnen. IO. Educatfon and tdoctrlatlon
CIse
flf offender,
DoD LA 7-10 049669
\r'
FOR OFFICIAL UST ONLY
Lt. SecurftY.lnpllcotloae.
w. fnveotrgttt* B*""cLu. 13. Deterseqte. 1l. Stat1etlca.l analyele. 15. Follclee la otJrer'gowent 16. ttttudo etl rollclee. torsr
of eociety at
J-arge.
ageDcles'
bcaoeexuIs rrepreeentatlve
L7. D. l. 2. 3. E. I. 2. 3.
Fos-serylse adJurtaent.
ffiC't{AV
nSrnWrIOn 16:}
NaYy
Dlflorencee fn pollclee and procedures beteen Ary, ard A1 Force.

Deflcfensfea ,f-n aubJect Inebuctlon.
Recc@ended, chages.
Ag+yBeg
of Rral
gf reyy Dl8ghefqe- Aeyres. Bos$ asd. qgardJf.of Eecord.s Inettrctlone

fn
gultlance.
loffgctton
Gtrr'ent 1st'1,ct,fone.
Dcflclenctea.
Recc@nde
ad.illtlooal gulaffice.
F. rmary of Fec@end.e,tione
cloerre
(f) - Stua':f of tcstlony (e) - LrEtfe of bter'tel'osfds:red by the Boord (S) - nrcffEfn8ry atatletlcal ardy (l+) - lropoeed rerrrslo ot'dfgflAvmf f62o.I EIt II - Ccnpllatloq of source terlEl - Dlectlws, latrrctlons f verbotln testLnony rsed by the Boaril durrng tbe couae of tho stuy. 4u{t' III- Confldentlâ.t S$4lrent
f1
FOR OFFICIAI USE ONLY
DoD LA 7-10 049670
TOR OFTICIAL UST ONL'

PART T
A. ftroductfob 1. GeBeral
llxe Boardl nae a4nf:rted by Secretery of tbe trlavy pr:ecept datd 2I Decer f956 (PBrt II, Appentllx 1). the nrrnse of tbe Eoertl va^s etated to e "to renrc entl eututt to the Secretary of tbe ltlevy r.ecend,tlors for the rgvlslon of present Deparlent of tbe Nav pollcleg, procedlura acl (llrcctlvee da.l1g ylth bcnooexralo," [b, Board. vee dlrectd to, deterole t o nocedurea sd lor of report nd to b Eulded. lD tbe ertet of, the etudy by the ccr!ert l ta euql.ogurc to tha p.ecet. Ibe Do8rd vas furter euthorfged to catl rltocaaoa and, eubJect to the &prrra'l of the Secrety of the neTt, t e!4Floy cfirljll.aa coasultsnts, ft nae dlrectert tbt tt rec(-nelgtlos of tl Boerd be eutmittcd oo or before 28 Februgry 1957.
heusat to tbe above l-oetructlons tbe boad lnltleted e etruly of the probl,m, uder the fol-lovfirg general areea! tlore.
e.
Backgroud and. develouent
f preoent pollcfee and lnst.tucfn force 1 tie t{tlltary of the :ol1cleo.
b. Curert polfclee aril proqedutes Denrfuente otber goveruooeut agenclee. c. .
Staxdss eud, oethods ueel 1:r tuplementatlon
Detennl.etfon of evdffele toorlocl8e ad fect6 coucernlDg hoeexral bebavlor oxd tteabet.
of reva.I Intelllgeace, nd rereeentatfree of tbe Cblef of ludrstrla} Beltfoua e Cfv-J.L Serrlce Clealoa bearing oD the nobleo vaa obteled aD recordeil. ArI rltneeees re uoot cooeratlw and help.rr. lfot of rrltoeeees andl brlef B.@rarJr of tbe teetlrcny ls ettchea as eactoeure (t). co1eB of the verbEtf testf.uoqy f eech cae ar c()taled gs eppeDcllcee to part II of the renrt.
Accortlfly teetony frm repr-eoeutatfvea of the uecllcal er peroonnel braches of tbe A:ruy anal Air. Ibrce, eelected el\rll'faE lsycblatrlete, repegeatotlrres of the Chtef of [eyBI Feroonuol, Ccsdant of th l,farltc Corpe, Chlef, Bueau, of Mectlcte ad Srrgery Dlrector
EeIV 1 lte dellbelatlon th.e Boo,rd, forsd tt there vrû l1tle refe.eace or backgror:nL l-nforustlou a t.o f,be derlberetlons i recffieclBtloao of ,x.evlor:o board.o stuytuig tb16 6@e aubJect. Tbe-fore to Fsrt rr of tbis report le appendted. alr tbe backgrun Jfo.tlo; docr.uents, verbstlm testxroay, ad. nsrygeo u6eal by tbe Borrl durln8 te coree of the study. For conveulouce f brrndllng, all conflctenilal
t,
(]NLY Tf]R OFII(IIAL IJSI
DoD LA 7-10 049671
]R OFFICIAL USE ONLY
coD5ldar th16 E\bJect. (e" cofU 1e efrg tole f the Errearr of [aval Fereonnel for fiturelr:eference;) ' flbe Eoad, ote tbet fn the aea of sexu!,I perelon oely hsexualft'y 1a covereit by aclflc tllrectXvee, al-tbougn oter categorleo re equU vlolatlrre of ora codee, Ievs ad eccepted ataarls of, condluct. 't'he Boer belleree that tbis speclal treahent raay placo au uEva.Erartecl o on\y oEe trtfoD of, tbe ovem.Ll Brobteu. It ls tJrerefore-fo1e ecc"*enail tbs,t prlor to. tbc conveafag of futu.e boards Dectflcelll to revLev gollcLee asd l'ocedl.r.les ,.lth rEt*ct tO hcmoee:cua-la, contlileretlo be gfyer to extendJ.g the ocopc of the ttlreclve to cover e]l. aspecto gf Eexu.I IrversLon.
a Fert III to tblo report. to B lr-oler uneretauill.ug of tbtr report. Eorerer rt i.s #ctide tbat nait f ad Psrt m b ola vqu! a.E bsckgrqrlat naterfal to aqy fuFe Boads colrens to
ntrlal- bas beeu segrebatc a fornadetl NettJrer Pa.t II nor PErt III ae DecessarJ
tble reort
DrrIS the. course of lts fudl. the Boertl coneldereil the speclfic Iteus of eoncern refe:re to the Boertf by the Secr.etory of the Navy (enclooue to trle Icecet) s deve].opeit other eleoenti uhlch vere dtemle to bave e beerlng o tbe overg:Ll reBpon8lbltttles assfgnel tbe Boar. A all'oc\asfon of tbe6e ites le conteled fn Sectlon C of
. prolrose revlslon of SEC'wAV IDBtr'lrctlon 1620.1 ls sutnlttd as escloeure (b) tor eoslcleratlon of the Secetary. Thle rylslon facorrretes 1 go far es rractlceble tbe eccruiend.atlons deveLotrEcl ln gectlos C aial D of thfe relort,
fbe deflcteeles 1rr guldsnce aal lrstructlons to tbe Nerrr Dlocbarge Revles Boercl auil Boardl for Cor.ectfqn of Neval Recorils are dllacuseedl fx 8eclotr E. oFoged gufrence to tbsse Boards for consfcleretlor by the SecrtrJr of the NaU'' 1e'i:Iuded. l tbie sectjou.
.
not lorId arrant cho'?ge or Secret{irfl uottce. Accordlgly u reccuendtfone are sr*qttfpfl oq tble aspect of tbe report.
The EoBr bas rerlrrre s iliiJorlty of tbe crrrent practfcea coveretl 1n SCtrAY rntngtJs 16.1 anrt has not for:nct aqy tht
t t't
:r.!
2.
ObJgctle
arxd,
tegn. of rfernce.
XIhe Eoard too&, cognlzece1 of the basic obJectives ae Btotd. by tbc Secretary qf tire nevy tn the enclosure to the rrecept, i.e.;
ttl&e Neryt" beale obJectt\res 1 hBnd.IlDg hcsose)rBl behvlor ee;
a. o rld the [avy of hsbltul lroee:<ua,la, b. to prcvle a tteterrent to'bcooee)<ual scttvlty

pereouel rot hebituaLy hmoeernral,
aatl
by
Da\a-I
c,
Eo nreveut evasloo of nllftarr serylce by fdlrtdrale feloely dlttlng hoeenr.Bl acts or tendencles FOR OFFCAI. USE ONIY
11,
DoD LA 7-10 049672
fon
oFFrcrAr
usr oirv
1 order tg trelntef the dlociplfne, moral stardarils orcl ffglrtlng efflciecy of the nav4l servfce.'l
To
tbfs the
Secretany addecl:
"Wtbl tble fraeork, thb Navy nuot eLeo be concerned rrltl the preservatlon of the rl8ht of the lndLvldual and hl6 cbnce .for rehabllitation sE a uoefirl al}ltary a ol prlurtc cftlzen. t'
Cognlzace vas aJ"oo taken of tlre erpresscd ob.Jective of Llc of Defense to lnrlant arrd develop jl merberc of tle rre(l Fprcee edherence to tbe hlehea etrd,rile of pereona,L cond.trct.
Deps.rbent
Dlce balace must be tts,fxed 1n changes of olfcy to ensru.e tbat publfc .eenelbllltles a.re not offend,ed 1-o any attenpt to prcorote r fornard looklg progra r rcogBltfos of the advencea tn the larovledge of hcmosexua.l behavlo ad. treatnent, nor ca there be ay l-utlqatlou tbet bmosexual conduct Ie concloireal. It is not conelalered to the be6t ltelest of tJe I'flllty Depertnents to l-iberalfze stsrd.arcl ahearl of te ckll-Ia cllate; tus J.n s.o'far. e6 pracLceble ft j. reccmenctc-d tbet, the Na\rJ keep abre.st of develoipenlo but not attcnpt to take ll poeltlon of leederehlp.
reccr.endtions Bet etendrale
l{1tb1
heEe
forth lr thls eport - i,e.r
corflee, the Boarcl ha etteopted to reconcll.e
i,iu:
to rote the hlglrest disc1pllne, moral ntegrlty Bqd of couduct -Ithfu the nsval serrlce tirrough o fort'brlght, but Just and equltable polfcy with r.corect to the 1xd.1vldua.l. B,
Recent Advancel_1n l(roylettge Co+ceqilrg .the l-rrablelJ of-:llqrggs5,g.Il_ry
l[he tern 'rrecent adraceg" sfo,ifd not be lntrpreted to eeen ary , etertl-lg erd sudd,enly aliscovered nev dereLouent. Adyancco ln thfs fleld bave of a ' the yearg, been occaslonecl by ofpulf.g togetherthe date coLlected over rrlth .eexaaietfo[ lts nalne 1n llght of lrcrealns lovledge ln releted aoclal sclence flelda, I tbe psst ten Jss there hes een nucb eore profeselonel discusslon of the probleu of bcgoexu.a,llty uore atentlon pald to theoretical conelcleretlDs of lts derrel,olDetrt, eDal more therapeutlc attpte nede sfth dlfferent opprôaclreo. I addltlon, the otetletlcal stutliee of Klnsey hsve provlded reveallrrg lmovledge cotrceffIlg the lnclence of boo6e)ilI bebvlor. .46 e result of nl.l, of tbeee factors, hoovlefue ha been advarce!, fn the followJng four genere' greaa:
l-. Fquency of .hcosexuglbehvlor 1n the'gene:'al rlpuirJ:jr/, 2. feda,cfee cohcetri^b hcuosenratlty, 3. tJhiteretsnatlng of the Fea1ng of hcosexual behavtor. +. Tratnet and rebtiflltatlon of pergon exhibitlng hcnocexturL
behavlor.
,3
FOR I)FFICIAL UST [)NI.V
DoD LA 7.10 049673
L,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
1. r:e
Klnoeyte etr{y reves,Ie t the ienelel nrbJ.fa a fact loug accepted by peychletrlets, :Deely, trur*t hdoeexual tehavlor f both al-es a.adl feaLes 1 Duch lore @on;tax'bas tleen generolly bellev' AccoraUg to Kfnecy, epproxJmetdl;y'|.5 of nieten year old Aerlcen na-Lea bave hp4 one or Eorre bqoeexusJ. err(petses, Eoflser, only abJut l+S of Anerfcab EaLs bec@,e exclusfvel,y bcrose:<rg,J. 1 later llfe, I!1s ltter ffsqe ou4nrte tJre peychfetrlc concept tbat bcooeeoal beba,vlor Dy occur Bs IE,r of the aorsa,l ntur{ng grocess Httbout hvlg eeclal slgn1cacc fot tbe fitrre. ftpugb Klneeyro flgures have been h'lle'\8edr no ot&e studfes apl'roech{ng tbot qf Klneeyre f ocfeatfflc
' '
value b.a\, been nado, Bd tbere sre other studiee vhicb tend to fitfcete t'bat l$aaeyre flglroe robebly are eosentl*r.Iy correct. For exco1rle, one Bltfsh a'thor hrs lolted out tbat, ileoBlte the fct tat hosiexqa'llty et oae tlDe becqe r@pqt l certel Brltleh ocboo for boyar tbc graduetee.of theee achoolb a-Eoe vltout $ceptfon, latr ra"d.e E norl eteosexuar ad,Juotneut; grd the freguency of excluslve\y h@o8xls.l persotrB 1n the Brltlsh populatlon dld not seetr to rlse neasureb. lfo accurete ffguee cocerofg the frequency of hcoose<ul behsvlor f tbe Davar serrfce a.e ara{L8bre. ltre onJr gtstletlcs cptlptl to dat ae beseal on tbe ntber of b<ose:q,Ls tbo sre actuolly all8cloeeal. Epr.e\er, tbere fs eoqe lstllcatLo that tbe hoeexua.la ctlscloee rpreBet on\y e arer msll proportto! of bcaose:nr.ls 1 tJxe lfBvJ, al tbEt bcuogexl bebsvlor by pereoniro are ct exclwlwly boeenul fE ertr Eort co@on. For e:<mpLe, of, 1l! exehreively cuosexul trErsone ercenfEd y tbe Pg}rcbletrlst of e Phltadel1e Colrt, 5a bsd bad active uflftary serrlce dr{-g Worlrt Ha II. Of the6e, only ? vee lgchnrged for hcooceua1fty, 5 rere dlocbarged, for.other reaaons, egd +5 Berved qut telr pertorl of eulfEfueirt qndi'ei honoably,dlecbarge. Tlre rst naJorfty ol tueee fdtr4drare u-roA f! the'Atqy; tr-fieutuu Irot be dllrectly er1e to tbe tgvy;; ,nolrer, i! "" quite 1lleJ.y thet "uo aeeue tere srte n-ny Eoe hcmoae<ta.ls eei+lng out te!;r en}leente ad rcefvlng h<rnoria'blc clfscbrges tbau s b{ng caqght. tr.ry rlor.tert e itll-ed 8l-ver of IB3 en hor. fcco renar studles to i)e roee)ua.I. Of tbsBe, IJQ ecnc ahrlg Horlil Wer II. oaly 1+ rere fecbeed (fo for conttfooe oter tb hoEoxral bebavlor), IlB servlng frc! I to ! yeere, fffyelgbt percent rBre offlcerE. lxhe cases rre d,lstrlbuted errculy eoug .Ey, lawr atl A1r Force. llheae reporte cofnclale .th the eqerlence . of lE]b1arfets lbo baw tr.eated hosearale gfrrlng e bfstory of bavJrrg eeTf a filr e.llseut l tbe ntlte.rry ylthout belng deteeted,. No accrrate eetlate of 6uch cases q8n be obtefetl et the preeent tlue. Elts f.f,oatloa ts r,ugeutly reeclel to glve a et,t1etleel norr egalnst tblch fo rlergh ErJ othe lteooe. .
?.
Faq,a,c1e
s concern1nL.bgposerus!{,
'fany
beccng exaggereta ao perpetuatecl orer tbe
crF?u Efsconcegtions pertalalS to raose).lfty
yearo.
heve
Ae a1t1onal facta
FOR .OFFJCIAI] USE ONIY
:i.i
#
i
,j
,
DoD LA 7-10 049674
\
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY have been gtbered i recet years, the fLl14c{.es lnherent jn tlet;t-i concepts are being deoonstrated uith lncreaslng frequency. sone ,.:o'. ceI'b stlll, rsfa.l vbich ciu be rplouely queetfoned, bttt not, at
preeeut, d.feror.
overt behavlor, patteros of rtr6t, or 4aeris, el-thowh sone do cbveJ-op feaffe cbsrscterfetfcs. It ca aLeo be Belal tlret hmosexua.lo are nelther Ere or Lese telentd tban tlle generel rlr of tle g)pulrt' ' t1on. A snpl1g of excluslvely hosenel peroons wlI[ shov rouglrly the op"r.e lnteIl1gece quotfent, GCT, afft eucetlon-l dlstriiutfon a.g does tbe genera]. tr$rf-atoB. Shey rnay be marrled, a6 JeIt rs 61n{l'3, aal ere foutd l nll.oupatrfons oncl Iyrofesalong
[boee vbo enage f hcooee)El behevlor on occaslone, but o-r't: Dot e)rclusfrtly booaexua,l, are even less lclentffleble by any other characterlEtle of pereoiu,Uty thn ere tose vho ae'excluotrtely honoeercu.,l. Since thie erup .y con'stttrt aE Euch ss B thircL of tte
It le os geuerally accepteil tbat evtr e(cluslvely bNo6X1o. . trErsoua csnn be ldeqtlflect solely htprrgh pbyslcal clraracterl5tlcst
general FeIe lotrntlou lt,ls apr.rent tbat tJrey sould bve to ex:[rJ.l eesentlelly te s@e cbaracterlotlce a.a the noru of ttat populatlon. Emosexual bebav-lor cnot be corr].ated trfth any other 6lg1e pear)nall Ll tret, qd. ca e !nrleretood in eny glveu lstace, only by a cqpletic e'aluatlon of tbe preonallty end of the envror@entaJ- clrcr&Etance under vhlch tbe h@ooexts,l behvfor gccutg One hcopsexual act, or' etd & Eeries of tben, iloee not constltute houoeexu"s.l1ty, an ls of tlo \lue 1$ predlct{ng the futrre rtthout the cmplet etucly rnentfoned. X,t caot be oafrl, es a generallzatlon, tbat oue or more lnstarceo of hqaecua"l bebtrrfor nacee a,r lndlvlduel elther ao.e llkely or leofr llkely to partlclpete 1n lonosexu&l acte ln the fiture. I4ach cae nr,.rt. beYe ca0plete 1d,lvldusJ. Btuqy to d.ete]rtfe ttre roeaning of tte homosexue'l belrlorr
One
t-cg
concept rirlch
lets vltbout vlsfble

r>f
the
hary borlD lstsrces fdlvtduIs ro have eerved, bonorebly Bnd FIl, deaplte belng excluslvely hcloeexua.l. An Ary ltleee efqr thls Cc@lttee reported ou ?5 rdxvlrale nbo hd reported thenservee a.s h.arrr lqnoeexuar tendencier: adl tho nonetheLese eie contlnued on duty. Of theoe, 5O geve very nor eerv'lce ard rJe.e dlacbarged. nior to the ccrupletlon of thelr enllahent. These flgu,res 6eeE to d.lco.te thet hcmocextaLg cann<t effectlvely 6erve ln tbe- AmTr, but it nlret be rberedl that Io :tu e blgbly selected goup:r lhee'e lndiwlclbIs hed reportccl theoeelves under category III of tlp Aqy d.ritl.y,e, anci lud erl,rrssed a ulrllr\guess to take an tDdeslrbledd.scha,rge to get out of .the :ory. Obvf()us.Iy, tbey vere hslrfng adJuaoeut dltflcultiea vhlctr mq) or nar not hve hud souetlrlfg to d.o v-lth thetr hDoecue.llty. Fr.ctn thle s ft cn b sg,tq tbrt a bcroeexual carnot oerve accffiIfTf-E-{E B.r o that be turns hlne
IIIE'I
l@osexu8J- behav canot , tbere
nllftary,
F()R 0FFl(ll/,l tJS[ 0l\lt.Y
DoD LA 7-10 049675
TOR OFFICIAL USE r]NT

concet:
rs?f
cb cont'i nesl trtgg!
of thfg sort bve rxfy ra;cos'e of pt r lt seels oe tba llkety tbat any fndllvldral. bo rorld, no {ger bcnosecallw to escale servlce ls otbenalse uneuitedl .for serrrlce, s tet caefu.l etudy of a serles of euc caoee, lf tbey t<t occurr Toulil flcete tbat the qua}lty of gervtce glrren va lDore of I ].lablLfty. then aseetrl.even lf te lndllrlduaJ. rBr retsletl.
hcmoee:nrale
Tt
18
agalnet ecurlty brnJra by non-bcogEexu8'la, antl egetuot tre ptoper obeervace of eecwlty by hmooeirr.le. It eppeag tbt a cLasgfcal ermple ftclo l{oLd Wsr I of a hcmosexual s.ffalr betreen e Grra offfcer arcl gerbls offlce nhtcb led to a eecurlty break ls often cttd. Eovever t'h1o aLug1e lnataDce le not rmlghed agetnst the actlvltles of tbe fuons I'f4te Earl of Wolcl Har I hoee activltiee could not by atry 8trtch of tbe lnqgl.nef,{eri be.ca11ed bonosexua.l. Dtrrfng loId r fI, OtI lvestlgatedt hcdosex,s es securlty rleke, but thts vs^ apalently cloue only becegse th aency'hd no otlrer Buthorlty to couduc such a! fvegtlgetloq.. ,'fhe,p '18 tBsiderable info:tfon t1cl oul ,d,lct that other fadprel ln f,bet peroonallty constltute the securlty rlek rather than ttre;fac or of hounosexus,llty alone. Oe Buch 1t@, for exmB.Le, tluld. be feeIlngc of Lnadequecy rttch (trl.e a nal to.boast of te eecrets he pooeesees. Such boaetlng rolght very reL! be dlone to any sexuel lartner, vbeter the partrr be hooe:anal or beteoEens,I. Sooe lntIlfuerrce offfcers consld,er e senlor off,lcer h8vfr llllclt heterosexual reltloDs wlt tbe lrlfe of s Jl,Eltor offfce or eDlfgted, ns, ucb t[o:e of e Eecurity rfsk ttan the ortllnoy hcuoexus-l. Ibe uatte of 1cllecretlon rmu]-dl appear to be gf uore Irportance tha tbe guestion'of, tbe ngtre of aay eexuel actlWty. tere 10 s@e lnfonettoq to ldfcate thet et ]east ecee hcqosexuals are qulte gooil ecurfty r16k. Ou rn sxmp]-e, elgbt enI16ted men st one etstion Jere ille cloeeil to be egagins fD hoserual actfvllee, .AIt had Top Secret cLearsce ar there sas no evlalence that ry of theu bad b-oken ecurlty. Inveetfgatloa la tbl eea is rrrgently needeil. Scme fee] ttet certsln hqosexuLs mlght be better secutty rieks tbn beteroeexuale, and, hcnoeecrr,Is bve been usecl by sme J"rtetllgeuce ,enqies to lJ.ltclt ffottlon throwh thelr hcaosexual pontactE. Obvlously, 1n Buclt B bcoosexua.l relatlonshlp, oe hcooeexua.l ms e good, oecurlty risk end
It ffret eppeared la goverrunentaL dlrectl.\e8 l I95O, J-u tbe eport pf the Eoey Cco@tttee, lbfs Cqlttee, borever, baoed. fte recencletlon. on I'the oBlnlonn of those beet qus-Uflert to lcuor, nely, e lntelllgence aencles of tbe Goverrnent.'r Eovver, Do lte]-llgetrce ageacy, ae far aa ce be learatl, adducecl aay fectuâl dt before thet CcGfttec r1t vhich to aupport these opl-n1ots. Ieoleted eeaes re DeDttoned., but to de@ulne tet e honooexral l Eore of.e oecurity rlek tban B 1on-hsoaeru.81, teee letsrces oul beve to be nea^6ure
FOB ()FFICI/{L USE
Offlr
'.
i,
'il
'
DoD LA 7-10 049676
\-
'lr
.,
TOR OFFICIAI. USE ONLY
e poor secu1ty ri8k. Tbe hcnoeexu.allty ftself had. no relatlonohip to the secu1ty claselflcetlon. On the contrery, there fs no factuet eyldence to lnaucete,tbet bogeruE-lB do not FrBent e serlou seurlty roblen. In vle of t'be leck of etatistlcsl date to prove or cllsprove thls theEls, the Boa bell.eves thet e f,actr.l oturly of tlre probleu
oD,e
ahoul-il be cond.ucted.
3. Untleslndlng of the nqanlg o.f bgloeexu+ belavlor, b concept of hcrloeexuallty, as a cllnical entity hes bcen diecarded. E@osexus.l behavlof oov is cb.sfile,red symptcmattc bebevior, tbe r:.atlerlyrng dtlaords ranglng fircm e erionafity dlsorcler to e I)sychosls, efther firILy devIotrctt,or'ineJ-p1ent. Jt roy also occrr'us a phese of psychosexual develolEent vithout sry gllcsE dj.sturbance of
peroDeJ-lty.
tbe cllsorcler 1e f\rlly deveLoped, tlre hoooenral 1p obvlou.sly on].y one of a nultltude of )rEp@s and 16 ,r'ecogllued as ouch, eveu by tbe J.emon. llowver, in the early stsge Of echlzopbrenc lilnesa hcnosexual actlvity may be one of the f1r6t elg of .te diEorder sal arlted.a,te tbe appearance of f\rther ),tlptomo by nonthe. Scue cases of schlaophreula reveal thenselves .s tllanoeable psychotlc process onJ.y ef,ter yeare of a Echlzohrenfc o{Jusbent vlch 1clude6 h@osexual betavfor.'
sch
fte
tlons
r Ecuoeexual bebevlor nay be smptatlc of a poychoneuroolo {nd occurs part,lcularly frquently 1n oboeoolve crulefve reactfon8. fn tblo ttleorder, vhlcb tn na^ny lsteces 1 closely rel-ated to schlzofircrric peychopatholory, obeesslve tborgbts about hoeexu,I1ty and ho,mosexual_ "tenenc1ee" atre er/en Eore cct@on thar the honosexual behevlo lteelf, 3y the treatoeat of tbe psychoneuosls rxderlyfng tlre hcuosexual preocculntlon, the letter dloappeer, a$d ttese ldlv-iuals ane frrll, f1 L for nllltary aervlce. Thls 1g e partlcularty lrnfortslt cstegory, because the absesgfve cculpu].E1ve reactlon occure uuch Bor cuonly 1n offfcefs thsr ln en-116td nen, ancl thefr selvage for servfce ls of consddrable LEportsnce. It shouLd. be entlonerl thet ot tle prercrt tluer'rooet of, tbege lndlylduals probebly ilo ot get lnto o.fr:lstratiw' shnnne|6, beceuee tbey,Beek peychlhtrlc help for their obeeeelv rr@f.nrr
an other oyroptcuis o,{ tb neyctioneurosla.
Ecqoee:<ua-l eUavfo'"can
brel tliseese a^B the
daease, r?ether thls be cerebrs-l ertrloc1erog iE orGFf-Tre-?trgtr &fi-_eneretr braLr diseaêes. ft 1s nov recognlzecl tlat vlen hcnooe:na]behavfor AptrEaxs for the flrst tle (after sdolescence) ln an ind.lvldual. over forty, flrst tbought 6hou.lcl be 6fven to tb.e presence o:f organfc
.rnilerLtr{Fg cause.
""G' as a synptm ofcganic brain
Excludfng tbose lneta.nces in w1ch honoeexusl behav.lo' occrl'u as a m8ll1f,e8tatlon of llJaeee, es outllneil bove, lt ls now poaolble to understad the rnear:fng of bcnosexuaL behsvl.or ln other fnd.lvlctaI.
FOR
0FflctA[
t,,q;
flNly
DoD LA 7-10 049677
;i
lr
: .,:
t'. tOR
0tfl0lpl"*:.::::""rr
anrt poycboanal]rota,
of the concept tht there exe co[stltutlonel dfects or a tbeient pereonalfiy quallty 1 tboee vho exblblt hcmosenuJ. bebavfor. fueuilra coacept tbat e certel Portlon of percblc ensrgy aa fherently boua bcrnoeeflr,I feelfge hae been greetly noctlflodl, a ln operetlou 1ns6l clfecrtlail. loee uho heve been succeefrl 1D tbe b,adlrg of bcooEexul pobleq.s h8\re apPros,ched tbese lrobleos frcq an tntrpeTeoal and adefvtetlonal Bolrrt of v1ev. Esch of t'heae thort1cal conetructs ca be tralsltal fn tbe tets8 of tbe other, but for brevlty only the a-daptattonal theory of bunar
bctylor r11I bs utll1zedl here.
tbe recent abantroruent, by trsly povchletrlste
U looketl uPon as tbe resultaDt Baslc+lrV Fll behvlo" "u,lr of tro forcee, (f) tfre needg of the 1dlvfduat, srd (2) the dcnn418 of soclotr. ['bus, ar lcllvlilua].te behavlor conetLtute t'he trDE by vhlch be odapte to hla Eocl-l ervroroent, aeek'a to fsure bfe eurrlval, atl grstlfles hls ueeds. T thlB Bt]fggl-e, the lndlvfrlual bfge h1s aeeeto, sucb s lntelltgeace auil tralxing, otrtl hie 1febllftlea, eusb s naLous enotloual lrrobleus oreEte clrr{ng b1s ea:cly ltfe clevelonent. Beceu.se of tbe cuetes ad. uoreo of our soclety, sexu.I bebsvlor fe Iprhalp the moet decately ba.Ianced erree of ed"fuetaent al, henee, the one noet IlJ<eIy to be iHgturbeil ln tbe adartatlonel roce68 and by d,tsttbanceo ln lnterpessnnl nelatlone. Thue, as 1a aJty ottrer behevlqrel" dloturbance, hcuose)cu&l bbavlor ca be seeu to on'tel, ao only tlre eleraeuto of oen^rt gTetlflc8tfon but also c@rLetely non-eru&l elaboratloas vtitch arfee fr@ uconsclous probleore lu tlepeuilencJri oggreoolon, ancl ccopt1tlon. In theae lnstaocee the proDer focus of attentlon ln treaent ls on tbe underlylng Froblee hfch has bece lncornrated.l tle enel act. Ihrotgh lsysbotberary, reso].utfon of the rrncterlrlDg problq! cauaeE the aus8plregr8rce of tbe bqoBexua.l behavtor. It nut be polated out tht tbe bafe eootfouI confllcts are out of tbe lnd.lvldualre aHSreEeBE, 8rd oDIy tbe hcooEexua-l urge8 sre felt by.hfn. ADy beharrlqr to be uaterstancleble to tbe observer, ouet be effe 1 teE of notlvatfonal goals. lfovhere 1s tbls more tnre thar J hcooeexrat behvlor, Vhen the boee)rus.I belevlor be6, a8 lts sotlwtlo.I Soa;l orgtlc EatLsfectlon; tbe EexuaJ- cponent le nfuary. aDdt lt' EaJt be Epoken of ae rtpure" bcoogexual ehvlor. lle t of bebavlor Eay be eeeq fn fndfvlduale uaually heteroeexul, vo ae l8olated frcE s heteroeexual outlet for e LoDg perfod of tlEe, a oee eexral driveE ae hlgh,, lbf tye of beh.evtor occurs aong prloonere couflned over long trErlods of tlEe, end res Eucb trolle csqol et fsol.et'e sttlono durfrg World Wer II tba noet peopJ.e ree.Llze. It te fuportaat to note that there le llttle llkellhoocl of auch hcoosexual behavlor rcurrlng vhetr b.etrseexul outlete sre evaflble. It la aleo iuorta,rrt to note that thle tyn of behevlor ca be clful1shd 1f other no 6oclF]Il ecceptable outlets for peycblc energy provldeil, euch a Bthlettc actlvltieo atl elnlJ.ar actlve rursults. ,ere
Slnce tbe n Jorlty of casee 1n the Nav)r gcaur ln clvllla oettlaga vtere a beteroee)da1 outlet prgbely le avalLeble, Eany of tbeoe Sctg obvloul-y hve other nottva!1oaaJ. goelo than orgeetlc
.it..
, ir ;
.
F()R OFFICIAL USE ONLY
,t, ,U
i
'.*, .:l ';i,:
DoD LA 7-10 045678
FOR OTFICI/iT USE ONLY
6etfsfBctlon.Iatbese,thesexualcponentfa'ofoecontlary jrflortsJxce 8x te prr-nary ccoponent arl8es out of the lndlvldualtn efiorte t adpb to tbe socia.I structur q$d, Et the.e tle, the obtal gatlffcatlo for b1e b88ic ueedle. Qnmar.rry lnvolvedl re ery deep geet epeadency DeedE wlch erxse froD eety chl.Ialhood' At uote superflclal level are tbe needs for frlend.cbfp and. affection frc othe IErsgls. At tle most,superflctel Ie\eI may be a very sinpl.e econl.c ed, e^9 6s .rFr"onstrettl':1n tI dys nben te psy Of enllstel met.rJr.g qulte lon. 0n soe occaioirs, ren rre knovrr to nrtlclpate paselly l! e hqoexuat ct for money yli;h vhlcb to purcluse heterorelt1ong. Tbe bas'1clfcirce rrnilerlylng a hosexual act, titele' exua,fcan r1rrr tJ geut of buotlonal proble6, att th. exact Beallllul for, of hdosexual behavlor nuet be detelned by cereflrl psychietrJc eya-Iutlon J each lt8'ace lf tJle ca.se 1F to be prol'erly hd-l'e'l '
1ftre fmportance of baelc eonfl-lcts over dependency cannot lre overpbaf ?.. Such conflLfcto e.re e:ctr&ely c@on 1n the Anericar opulatlon today. Depenency cooflfcte reacb their peak of dfettrrbance
to sdelttatlon fr the late adoleoceot perXorl. Slnce I le.rge Dortlon of tbe Nevy fnlr.e in this age gxoupr i 1s to be expected t'hat muclt behlrlor of en at18oclal type wlIL occur i tble age group aa l}r ect{ng out of 'tJe nconcfoue clepndtcncy probleIc. Thts aclng out nay produce tllecfillrary offenesr' exceelve a-lcoholis, or hcpoeenal ' ehvtor. trbat factor ete:fee the cbolce of etnpt 1e rot l(novn at thie tfe.
Aslde fr the edaptetlona- etruggte rrth depelrclency confllctc, the foctor nlcb ts probably of greetet ofgnfflcance ln hcqosexual bebavlot ln the you.ogr ege group 1s lmaturlty. Imaturlty, ccnblned rrtth adoLeeceat erc)erletaton, rncloubtedly eccount for nery ceees j the group bel,ov ege trcnty. Just a te curloslty of youth nay lead a orurgster to becqe groee!-y lneblstct itr orer to "see vhat 1t le Llketr, be nay slso eucctnb to e hooexual advane. Il,uosexur-l bebavlo 1 theee caseB conEtltutes s l)hase of Psychologlcal develoEent, retber tbsn conflrted sexuo.l- clevlency. Suc lndvlcluals uay actu.aLly pa.rtlctpete l several ,natl.rer th8$ a Elngl'e hmoeexual- act. 8o'iever, the f,ect vh1ch,dlstlngirlsheo the6 fr@l conflrme hcosexualo 1o te eycbploelcal uedllng- i tue acttvlty. Ernrience tras ehowr th,et sben the bcnoeexal beavtor' l'e'not the Inl-nary cource of sexual uu,il"fe"tlon, or eu.ptnatlc of a olgnlflceat enotlnal ciieturbance, tlre 1ndl.vlual norualJ.y w1}I ps^ss on to a heteroeexual leve]. of edJut:tment. Foo the ebove, lt roay be Eeen that e coblnatlon of fcto'tr llthln ad lrlthout tbe pereooa-ltty are necegssy for .tlte levelolment of exqluelvely bcooeflial behe,vlor. It 'ouJ-d erlrear that feare concerhg.the fitu eexrral sdJusbent of, yoltg nen Hto have engaged ln one or a oerles of bcmoeerual acts oay not le r1I lrourtded.
4.
Ei.'.*vi-
tl..tent
aod
re@1]1-*lg.rygsraql
Icregsetl rnderetsncllng of ti)e dyrranlce of homoecxual bt:lrovlo'r' as outlleil above hea improved treatrent ard rehal)1l.ltat1or) t.-rchilcLi
FC)R
9
t)FFI(]IAI IJST ()NIY
'
,-
:
ll
oD LA 7-10 A49679
i..
I
,
i ';'
' r ,.. ': .'i'

' ''t
'
FOR CIT:ICIAL USE
ONLY-
I'reu the excluelvrely hcEose,cllE-l indlvluE-t c8n DoIf be tleatetl ela belpetl lf he lE rell t1reted, for.cbsge. For the 1dlvlclual rho f.e ot eXcluatnely hcro8exual, traent of tbe bcuoeerual bebvlor 1s a BLBIle or ea ttlfflctrlt qs retEeut of tbo rderl-ylg d{tgrdtrr. lhea booe:fla,I bbsrlor ls e sJBItt of achlorrenla, troabcut 1s dlfflcult sDCl the Petfent ordtnarlly la not, eulted for trter ollftary sen'lcd. Hben tbo hcroeeneL behvlor 1s e !rife6t8tfoB of fntrrfty, treetuent ueually 1s gulte Fl.e AcI the 1ndlvlt,l l roet f.D.Btsce8 ca contlue to do rn1l1tary duty. Betteen tbeoe tnp extreuse lfe R'll gradetlone of, tberepeutlc cllftlcultlea. llro ob8es6trre ccrltrlEle r'eactlons ere dlfflcult of tte8heut, but ace t.ey oscur ueual.ly l peole of good lntolllgence, ucceeofltl rEaults of treatet nsy be qulte gatlfylng.
5. Deflclescleg of l(novledge. A.e addltlonal lnfonatlo ba accrqulted about bqoeex!'al beavlor, deflclencles 1 our @ovLedge bve becqe Epotllghted. Se gf theoe bve teen mentloned ln tbe diecusefo!. above. At thie tloe lfttre 1e knorm ebout tte lhyslologlcal atl ylcal coadltloas nbicb ney contrlbute the cleveloment of bcuoBerua,l beharrlor. 91ce thle bebvlor ss oceur Bs a Eanlfesttlo[ of a rrl rage of enottoaal dtgtr.berces, lt uoultt oeeu tbat the range of pblologlc&l aal lb)rElcal conctltlonE t!,sy b equally aB lflale, b.ence, ertrenely ffflcrlt to fentilfy
lbe gru,t rlrnoeu i psycblatry revolres oounil tbe cholce of erortcnatolo4. Sfee ve knov that o6sentlel\y the saEe psychopBtholos:y .c81 }rrouce dfffereot behsvlor pbencnene, the queotlou ' fa16e a5 toquftetbe glven s.ptcm 1s choaen. Ae long as tenust be nechnfst hov y sblc.b besle ootforlal pr.obfeno'proaluce bwoeeul bebvlor (rather tbsu e@e oter aroptcn) ere not }movo, lt le dtfflcult 1f not lmpoeslble to take edequete pvetrtfve 6teps. It llight be thought t8t rlclilr'g te $sW of exclu6'1ve1y hoooeerual lrgonnel oulcl onsler thle probLelr 8Jd, t'o eme extentr this aay be tnre. Eoserr, ft 1s to be notil that the uaJorlty gf the offege occur l c1vlllan oettlnge .aait Esy of tJrese oceur lltb clvlllaD 4ert'nere.
' ft h.ee ssa euggeat tbat aeguat educetion&l P.oceueg otal realuce hcooserua'l, behavlor. l.lhil-e thle ouggeotlou BItIearB logical ro o the au-rface, tbere ls uo Aata nblcb speclflcalty 6ultt lt. the contrarr 1 Inst exle1erce rith veneroaL dioeaoe, neitber eflucetfon nor <llsclrlfoary lreasurea had any dernongtrable effect on the veereal d,leease rate iD the Navy.
Tbe greeteBt aleflclenclr 1lx our pt8et dBy looiled.Se fe 1l1 the are of hcmosexuallty lD ruen. Very fev rrcEen cone for psychiatrlc treebent of hcnoaerual problctrs, so that pychfatrlote beve galnetl llttLe lneight 1to fenale tionosenral behevlor. o clate, 1t hs been lnpoealble to arrfre et a satlsfectory pveall- ttefinltfon of a hqloserual. t. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
IO
DoD
[A 7-10
049680
LONLY FOR OTFICIAL USE
ect, f r6en. For ststlGtlcal puipose, Klnsey ileflles a h@o6e)la] Sct "a One fn Vblch orgAoU ccrrb.' florever, EAy vurnen never experlence orgastr 1a elthe heteroEexualor'hcm9exu8-l relatfono, anl yet perfo:m defi1te Eexual acts.
It 1s losElble for t1{ fi@en to be t .B bomo6exuel reletioll' rrith otre r both of then not beLng anare of the relationshlp rntll lt le lsrupted. frhls fBct arlse6 out of the counon rnfecotrception t'bat only genits ectlvity reprseats serils-I mpulses. Actually, ln a contlnUlg horoOsexual relatlonsl:1B, ae fn o heteosenr&I relatlonsbip, geuftL Aetlvl,ty occupleB only a minute potlon of ttle reLatlonehlp' The naJor Ircrfon of ny such relatfonsl-rp 1o the lnterctnrge of stotlons a feellng8. fhe sltuatLo[ becodes eonerhat clarlflerl ff tbe nori Be<ual le ttno4rd ct the vord, hooerotlcfE used. Alt lr1vlduelg b.ave s@e love anil regerd for membere of tbe ssne oex' f['lxls hcroerottclBrt ls tbe be1s of fratenxEJ- organlzt1on6, vol0el' clube ead sfilar actfyltles. It Iq no vey f:r.lleg genltal ect1vltv. [he Boclal etructur pennlts a wider rpraalon of hcooeroticl! betseen vceen tha, betreen ueB, on lt 1a poaeible thet tl14 in Jl.oel.l' lovers tbe lncldence of genltnl, homoeexuallty anong Holnen.
h1p
1e e phencenon of ou cuJ.t\re tb.&t fron the tlue of birtlr trrne to ahotber oEa for confort ln t1nee of lone1lreea o.' rha,ppLnegg. A frlghteed. Ilttle gLrl Detur+Lly cllba 1 bed rjt) he nother. If, at Bge 18, 6he sgelu beccmes lonely or frtghtnedf rrh^Bt pracedre ls lrore DBtraI tban to oeek the physlcal closeneos of aother qrnar? TIre llne betrn thle seeklng for closenese al-d ael;ua. hcnosexuelity te thfir end yrguely d.rawr.
It
Jor.
6.
Sr@s.ry.
ltltb l]rereased pychiatrlo'ibtdr8t ln the problen of ltoroeenrelfty, and .tr.lth contrlbulon fr't'be oocial gciencee, eupecial..y anthropology, adclltlone to our. lnforlt1otr concerri:tg bose)ola} behavlorr'over the nst eeverrJ- irebb, can be outllned a follovt;:
'i :
gene:.u-y belleve.
a.
gcao'ee:ruel
behavio is nuch !ore frequent thrt lrot

"
lecri
ln
ql-1 brencbee
b. l,lay xcluslvely hooooexuI persons liave eervc<l ll)tult'fil,i of he Bllltqry servlcp v-Ithout detection.
'
c. EcnosexuaL behswio carnot be correleted v-Ith ary (1,1c]-' charBcterl.Btic or group of cluacter1st1c6 of the persotle.1{:y (frrt,ct' l1gence, GCB, etc.)' d. It caot be ssfd rrlth ny certainty, 4o a gerter&lzatlr>tr, thet one or Eore lnotancee of hqtoeexu'l bebavlor mal<e er lndivlduul elther nore lfkely or less l1keJ-y to I}artlclpate Jn hcrose:orul actt l the tre'
II
FOR t]F:t()t/1t
USI ()Nt.i
jl. , tl! .r.i
.{
DoD LA 7-10 049681
FOR OFF'CAL UST
ON
beh.evlor, ln 8ny g'lven ln6te$ce, c8r be uneatood.only by a conplete evalratfon of the PereonÎlty ad of the envlroIErtal clrcuns.tseee uner Hblb the behavlor occurE'
e.
Ec{o8e1a8.1
f. lre extest to nblch othenr-lse sultble personnel vlll n.lf!er h@oBtlralfty to evold nilfta,ry serrlce, except t letslcea rbere nore Eeyere ehargee ere penlng 1o gueatlonable. g. fs ql lnforaetio evatlb].e to the Cmlttee, lt roul tat 'ltb concopt that bcmoeexuals aeceesarlly !o8e e 8curfty rlBk 1s un6uplrte by Bdeguste fectual alats. b. ft seecos probabLe thet oter factore ln t'he peraonal ty lfluence the seculty rlek ae Euch as the onoee:cua.l behavlor. .1. [he concept of bdroeexuallly ae a ctflca entlty has
opBear
ee lecarile.
ps]tcbo8es Ecl orgBrlfc
l. Ecf[oBen8.l bblrlor 1a mptcoatlo bebvtor, rdlch Ey oscrr eB e rae of poychosexual Baturfng, or es a ezopt of ar one of, e ntnber of dfeorilere, renglng frcm pereouallty clefects to n4Jor brl
(tl6ese.
I)urlBes fe only rprkble
k. Ste boosexual. behevtor le oyoptcoatlc, for uedicel claseiflcatlon by 1ch 1t cen be categorlzecl 1s a claselflcatlon of tbe underlytng cllsturbace.
1. Ae e eorroll8y of the ebove, eech clsss of tbe pregetrt illrectf'e ctafls FrI tJTes of ureltecl hoeexus-l bebavlor.
a naffeattlon
trtra6ureB.
!.
E@oBe)ftral behevlctr tey be
better r.cleratood lf conElilered of tbe fdlvfuluaIro attemt to adapt to soclal
n E@Bel bebevlor uore oftsa thar Dot bsa otber notlwtlorsl goe.ls thr? orgaetie aetlsfastfo, and the baslc fores under\yfug lt n.tn tJre gmut of eotlonal robleoe. o Tbe ame tyn of enotlona.I pr.oble bieb rsuLto J.r h@oaexral bebavlor l one lndfvldual ootld reeuLt 1 other'tdlvltluals J ot'be tne of 16c1FLiary offeusee, more gerlous euottons.l JljlneBB, or pycbosm,tlc marffestetfons. . p. I the youlger age group, tmturlty ccmbled wlth fs e blehly slgnlffcent fetor f tbe cletreloment of hcnosexu.B.l behevlor. q.. I the trr^stu, 1f'hcuoeexua,l behsvlor le not tbe prtnary Eource of setlsfactfonr'or'eyrntonattc af an eln.otloual. <tfeturbace, tbe t-B.lvldrral ngaa].ty rrllt trross on to e heterooexr-f lwl of a.qrustlent.
adolesceut erpetlretetlos
)
IOR
OFFCIAT USE ONIY
t,i
fl'
DoD LA 7-'10 049682
;:'
(.*
TOR OFFICIAL UST ONLY
r. A conblna1on of factors vthin and wlthout tlle l)ersonallL)' ar neceBary for the de',fqolmeBt,of eilusively honoeexual relravior' B. lPreBtEent o'1 troqosenrl behavlor 1a as slmple or as djfflcrtt Bs treefuent of the tr"efi'ft'g,ieorder, whlch i6 the prog)r' fgcus of therapeutlc tntervehtlon. t. Deffclencle in our lcnovletlge exlst 1n thc cDtj.re flclcl r';l hoosexuI1ty, partlculerty wlth reference to the are&s'()f rrsr;tirlt' Srreventlve actlon ed honoeexuI.1ty ln lrone' C. Speciflc It@s of Concern le fof-Lorlng c@prfaes the analJ8ee ancl recol@endetlotls ul' tl;( Board rrith resftect t the speciflc ltene of concern referred to thc Soer 1n tre enclosue to the precept acl certeln otlrer aditloraL poits of pelflculr lElortnce fn.'connectlon utth the revfslon of
rret pol1cle6 and procedtrres;
1.
One-lli.ne Offendere
Shou.lal cout-nartfeL
or adnlnlstretive dfs
Dl6cusslon;
The probleo of tbe ao-cF1,ed t'Qne-time offentler" iti f ilc luot one slth Hhlch tbe Boa.rd hs.6.hct to Etruggle. Tl15 cetegol'y .enges a te rllei fos. the forc:bId onlet under CIBss I, for. trhont
d,lfflcult
genral cou.t--nrtia1.la nov nancietory, to the pre-servlce eeclucLlor {mqtr.re - en perhegs'iggoltent',- adolescelt. Perbap the J.argest nruber of one-time offender occurs ln the 1n-betveen &F8 * ttre 1n-eervice partlcipsnt, nho elther througl lgnoa$ce, curtoElty ol' desfre to exreri-uent, or: the lnflIuence of elcohol or corrupt asoociatlor:l sut@lts to, or trtBrtlclp8t8 J, & hcoosexus.l Act. hther colnpl.lcatjon aifse trc( the fact thst thls 6roup 1 not necesea.rlly restrlcted to the llteral "one-tfner" althortgh tJxe accuacy of thls labeL 1nlnlnher; repldry v-Ith the n'tber of lnclatents be]ond one' Fl:rarly, i thls broad category ere Bcsle one-tlners vho grer n fect, true, conflrmerl, babftu-t honoeere.Bls, to vhorn, deepite the occurrence to datc of olrly oue fn-service act, or no 1n-6evv1ce act, honoeexuFllty ls B vey of.
of the
t1fe.
Wlth the Class I category of forclbLe offender, the Lt<>ard harr such qr offenEe is a sertoua.reach of the cri.uln*I no dlfflculty. code, and, geeral court-ntlaL trlal le.nornally fndicateci. fn f,orc rare lnstsces, hoever, trlal by general court-atlal ' as r>ppooeri to specle1 court-nartlal - may nt be ln tte best lnterst of thc nav'l Servlce, aCl rellBrce sbould be pleced on the ilicretjon of comand eB to the type Of couf.t-Esjrtt8l Vhlch, trnde Fll tlle clrclulstance6 of t'r'r
Fofl 0FFtctAL
r3
{,ii[
(]Nt
DoD LA 7-10 049683
l*
TOR OFFICIAL UST ONLY
rl1v.funt cese, 16 r4ost agproprfste. rhe Boaral rqllzcs tht Ectle cse6 es ot slsceptfble cUr:Utlet, epeclq.lly bere cblldren r ftvglvd ald nrente're unrllUhg t baw thou IIF8 as rrltaerBe8. Eorevei, thls otfne le of such gavlty thet 8n ffltustfon of oerlour conBequeaceg le deelable.
In ccnlng to glps wlth the Brobleo of tho Don-forcfble onetfe offead.ere, the BoBrd feels tba.t categorizetfon of these offenderg 1to Claeees II ad III of tbe reeent l.rectlve le unreellotfc ertlflcla.l" nd unhelpl. A fs more usefirl BPIrroEch ln uniratandlfng tlrc probleo of tbc o-farclb1e, oqe-tl.Ee oTenaler 1e fou.al l 'b,he ercetlon of fnallvrdueJ,s in thle roup e e1tier (a) Uart'af , coojLmcdr true hoaexu:.Is, to rth@ b@oE;o.ullty 1s rrey of Ilfe, ad (b) aJ.I other offeacter, tbet 1o tboEe vho bave cctultte e bqo' sertral act or acto, but for vbbu tbe'sst 1e uot hsbltua'I or earptcmettc of a rrar o? lffe. tiha.e tbls clEsBlffcetfon 18 o\tetElllIffled, enct fgnoreo c of tle s}htstric nfcefeo rblch ney hav to be deelt rith l-a epeclflc caaes, lt offere e practteal, helpf,ul Etrttg polut ln te vqrkl out of I solutlon. Adoptlou of the above grouprng rrould faclutat all8l,osltlon of lni.rrldhrll caoeo. Peycbl,atrtc op{nlon ls substxtlal1y ualfnouo to the effect tbat trhe conflmerl rrny of llfe" hcrnoserual vouJ-<l.rgu1re, t best, erteldd treatuet for anr poselb1ty of curer qil tbe opinlon of btl I1e offlcer an psycbfatrlet.le to tbe effect that Buch 88 ltrdlvtdut-l ls e ltsbity to tbe uaval 6ervlce, end. nuet be sepoe_te{ { el'l coea. fte Boerd, :recognlzee te difflcultlee hereut 1 ar1v1rg at a dllago8ls of conflrmect "ray of llfe" hoo6exuallty ln the lndlvldusl c!se. Ele 1e IElErlly e pe]chatrlc robleu antl 1o dieelt.fith as auch elcnhe::e ln tlrle report. |Eh1e dla4noe1s, hte,trer, s neltrer lDsuperable, nor o5 lf,tlctJ. as tbe curent SECAV Inettuctlon Eakee Lt out to be. It ces be ecccopllsbed by a thorcrrgb poychiatrtc eva.luatlon, ad, t1s tbe Bogrd reccnencle 1 eIL cases. ,Curent procedura for "pebfatrlc 9r41cq! evalretloIa.e lnedequate fn tro restr)oct: llbe peteot taaequffTB-Eedlcel e.rrats,t1on'r q8 opposeal to evsltratlon by e frIl-fledscal Dol'chtatrlet osit I fgfture to regulro of th sxmlner l .11 GaBr e itetalled, sleclflcrstJlcls,rtzecl rmrk-up. flle Bosd bsg lsluited e euple foat for.such a ,e<olnotlon J 1te rccqeetlone. H1t regard to tbe aou-eoifl#a'ff"oa." ro comite one or trort hosexua.]. aca, the B""rq h"" heartl ancl taken fnto account, a get r!EE6 of testlony. Ilbe fust neJorC,ty of tble hae been to tbe elfect l-n brlef that preaeut proieures ar too 1rfLexlb1e. Pcoeeeu thfe gpseral aseulrtlon, the Boad. tu]r.rled to curtent 1nectls of t.e Ay eod Alr Force oq thle ibs'se of the subJeet.
lthc Artitif tllrectlve of Je,Du.ary 1955 (cureatly belg rerrled) provlabs tt one-tlue of,fenctereri'ttcno Fs1hfatry f1ite ar not confltar boseruIs, gr vho dp not FoBBes etrong tendencteo, eherl nornauy be retsle. In pllf1catlon of tble pollcy, a1 A:uy vltnees
r4
FOR OFFIOIAL US ONLY
'{.:
,
'l!1
DoD LA 7-10 049684
L
IOR OIFICIAL USE OILY
Luoeturity, curloefty, o lntoxletlon. .... .ether onors. or odultg/ ....vhen the peychletrfc evahle,tion conclue that they are not confllmeit hclnosexltg-ls act do not poBEeBs strong hoexua.I tendencfee, ot'e norrs.lJ'y retalned l thr servlce.rl
the Alr Force Cllctlve of Ju-Iy 1956 proiide tb.at excertlonr: to the pollcy of separatlor rr...,.,to perlt letentlon jn tle $ervlce are protrEr onfy vhen the offenae va comitted, proposed, or att:uFt(i wrder the uoat unuoual- extenuoting clrcr'metaceo, vler it i.e tletennjrcd. that tire meober doee not heve hcooee)ora,I tencteucfec, and whel tire memberrs abillty to perforr nil-itery gervfce laE ttot been corupr(llcd' Int<xfcstlon fE no a extenuatiLg circunstgce.r A1 lorce ite6; prpllfied: "ca6e8 lnvo.rrjflg inuraturlty qnd profeosed ntoxlcatlor equl ca,reful tudy end. eraluatlon. Evlence of one or tv teen-age acte uay Jny on-ty youthfrlL curfoslty or can be a poeltlve fder)ttflcatlon of homoeexual tenenciee. I{ben onJ.y youthfll curloslty 1s lnvolvc<l, vitb o lclicetlon of ar eatabLlehecl pottern of hcrosexun.llty, t:losIn1 the ca-ae rrlthou rrther action 16 prope unles6 tre fndvlduI's Bbl1lty to l)e"foIl eervfce has been cmpr1eeil to the extnt that oe1xrr0.tlon for the convenleEce of the govement Is 1ndlcted. Intorlcation has grorn to be one of the most coon excuses preeenteil by aroonnel eonf,ronted rftb ertdeace of. hcmosexu].acts or tendencies. fb nccept Euch e:cplanatlotrB cs,rnot afte,tn fct that suclr Bctlona have unfloubtely couproalseil tle penber'o allfty tq Cohtfnue to perforn milltary aervlce. I'fore tho. one such icident not nly'corbfs the sbove but penrfts poltive clesefflcatfotr.. .. . r' (Tir1a v'ttneso further stted thet r'ete.tlons uDde thfs provisj.on h.ave been rare. )
Beeecl on teottrnony of recorcl, the practtce of the other 6e'1,icr:s/ and 1t6 ovn erperlence, the Board hoo l-lttte dlfffeuLty ln reachlng the concluofon thet nandtory llechsrge for s-11 one-tie non-habltuel
otateal, "Individus.le r.ho canot, be regarcled E true trd confrned horosexual.s, but uho ba're been lvoi"vecl {n a 81nEfe act ae a re6u1t of
offenclers f trot l the bdlrinterect of the naral service, f'urthermor-e, it r111tte6 aglnet the beslc pr'1uclple, to vhlch the Boarcl cubscrfbes not ertlratien]1y, tht.egch such csEe uust receive indlvldual coDsldel'{rtfon. be dlfflculty then 1s not vhe',her rneJ-loratlrg clrcrllstnces Ehould be taken 1to account, but ffiErcr.met,rce6? the Roard agre()r, tlrat tbe clctosteceo f lmsturltyr. of fgnorance, and. occoolonal.ly of lntoxlcatlon, ar-d rhether notorletyior other fectors heve tleotloyerr'! the offe[ilertg uefrEi are eII worthy of conslderetlon. ]forc 01' these eleuents, boyever, neceEarlly requlree a deternlnatlo in fevr'l' of the offender, d. each eleuent ruust be congldered n the.iig:t of tle overall rreb of clrcwsto.rces Bolng to nate up eech ldi!1dttll (rr,\..
OveraLL evaLuaton by a boaril of offlcerc contlnuee tr l;t: tlr' no6t LEportt procer:ral step i-n reachlng a deci6lon as J di6pou11:lr')lr of the one-tlme, non-hebltueL offend.er. The boeil of offlce's elould. be pernltted to tske jrto ecco\ut the foregolng eJ-eento as a In,rt ()1' the vhole plcture eurround.fng eacb'offenee, ln reachlng lto oplnlon and lcccuendstlo a6 to cll6llca1t1ori, Th16 BoJd believes thet. thc
l_!--
'
:1.)
r ,
tr)R 0FFt0tA[ t,sf, 0r\lly
DoD LA 7-10 049685
FO OFFICIAL USI ONL-
at prlor to actlon by o oa.rd of offlerer'.tl1,bo gf ltAluebl asglgtane6 to +.be boad f 1ts rleflberetlone. s a flDs.l aD EPst Luportt elesent f aeofet{ng the bogrd of officer6 fa qeachtng a "ooo conclufon ln each cae, t18 Boa,'dl fiefs tht tJre dplaton eB rcoE!nd.Btlons of the ltrtlcr8n cclrndlng offlcer ee Ot gieat etglficance erd tt accorrtlngly olpcfffcUy ut8 8.dortloD f ranguage defgne to encourse tbe cscl{ng offfcer to-e:reo l ed ellberate oplôlone ad reccggenaltloDa l egcb case, anal of lenguage dlrectlEg thg boar to glve clre cousldeqetlotr to
.foreeutlone nardatory paychlatlc eva.lutton, arrlvd
88Err,
, $rls
of pubJ-lc olfcy uorale, lndlvfrral equty andl the neeils'of to Deval servlce aII nu8t . be coasldered. l draf,t{ng any lnetruetlon rcgulrfng oarila of.offlcerg to coll<le:r tb aforem.entloned, clrc.Botarcee. . l[be vsblcle by rhlch .tbls le to be apccolohed. le gfveu more tleteiletl consld.eritlon eloetre f t18 r.e!orf.
Board recognlzes:'tbat conslalerstlone
Ilvldre.le retafed should hare no probetlonary strigg other tba sucb a loey bo 1.berent fn te osledge tbat thfr IEevfqua offenee fE a !ettr of epa.rfuental ?coral.
t+cbedl
Arerufug adoptlon of the foregolng Proceurea, FFy ono-tlme offncers rrtll ontlre to be selarted frou te 6ervfce. It then beccneg necesearJr next to coneld.er th t$te of dlocharge thet euch a lechargpd lallyltrt bouJ.it rcelve. Agefq te current allctlve BIrIEa,rs to be too lnflexlble. I'he extent to rhlcb t'ble lnflexlblllty errl be llberallzedt lB tllscuegeal utcler ltt 3 belov. Tu ror' out the dlfscrselon of the treelnent of oue-tlne offendlersr boteverr tbe Boe feele 1:r ermary tbst the uudeetrable lacharge thul- not be rnanda'tory, ttlet overall eve.Iuatlon by boercls of officers as outllned, above 18 of, parenorurt Jlportance, nd that honoreble tyn separetlone Bre flB.ffanted 1 certeln situetlong.
W'
To s!@anfze the oplnfons of tfie Boerd with reapect to the "one-tfne offenrlerEil a. Pregent proceilureo fOr, CaB ,I are generelly oatlefoctoly. b. Pregent claelflcetlon of of,fenilers ln Clesseo II and III ls unBatlfactory. c Oe-tfue offenders can be nore hel-pfilly grouped, as (t) confirEecl hcoosexualE anit as (2) al-I othere.
r
ard ccm,adng
d. l{ore reltarce should, be placed on paychlatrlc evaluatlon offl'certs evaLuation of offendero. e. . Conflloed hooose)runls ruet be eep;rated 1n aLl ca$ea.
I6
.J.
FOR OFFIC{AI. USE ONI.V
'.: DoD LA 7'10 049686
FOR OFFICIAL UST ON.Y
f. ll'hose Hho re not confled hcno6exu,al8 mey be rt41ned 1n Fpeclffc ca8es a6 certol llllit+ aeelfors,tlve clrcun6tBnceB vr:rrant. S. T'n of tlfocharge thot}ct ctepenil on a overe]-l cwrlttotfor by a boarcl of offlcers.
Recmencletlone:
The
pffeuilere:
follorlng
rcc@endetlono arq aade
rfth re8Ict
Lo otrt -Jntt:
duty caeee.
. A peychlatrlc evaluatlon should
be n.andatory 1n
all
rt:t.lvt'
b, A cqmqnd.lng offlcerra eva]-uatlou Bhoufcl be urandatot''. nll actlre uty caes.

genera cott-rosf t
ltr
l>y
c. CI8s I offnderB ehoultl contlaue nonrally to be tr'1cd

1a.1.
g. Ioa-Cl-ae I offendlers ahoulit be grouped. general .y eo to rhet'ber.tbey are, or not, true, confiled rrrray of Ilfe" hcoosexrrsl.g. (l) Cooffteal hcuosexu!,ls should be 3eI,aeted 1n all esea. (2) Dlepoeltlon,of ttr""" to b base on oreraLI evu'liratlonu by boBrds of oftlcers.
but
ehould, be basecl on flnd,tnge aril oplnfons
e. Ihe tye of diacbarge
Ebould not be
of
boed,e
fnflexlbly pl:eEcrlbed of offlcels.
2. Volrt{y coffeeelons.
Dlgcues lon
Tlrlo gueetfo[ 1s ileued by tbe Board to be B@ek*let tuoblgttotta 1dlvtuel vho rolutar1ly adEfts partlclpetlon durfng the courae af a offlclal lntervie or lnterrogatlon to which he ls e p,rty, or the lndfvtalual, who ft le.ouboeguently determlnerl nigbt bave reaso to belleve he bad been seen 1 the coulse of his actlwlty, bale been elllnete f,rou cgnElderetlon under tho ften. lbere s, qever, record of caees ln wtrlch lndlvidrals have reportr:d bmoeexlr8-l acts, lncludj-rg $rxport,etl hosexual aesault or thel: Irer'iorr or eealuction, to:
Fn ElsLeB1xg, Tbe
e.
The Cctqnendlng Offtcet', ':
b. fhe cbaIaiii,, ' ,
T7
Ff)R CIFFICIAt USI i}AIi:I
DoD LA 7-10 049687
FOR OFFICIAL UST ONLY
c.
The Medlcal Officer,
hlch vould never have been othersie li.nco.r""ed ancl vhich heve resul+d 1n undestrable or u.nsuitable. dlscberges for the ladlvldrr8- 59 reportlng.
Pertlneut to tLe problen s the fact that hlle rurder the codle of Mll1try Justtie (lara4rapn 151, Ma:xual for Corrrtlal, U, S. f95l-) cheplelns have the rlght f prlvfleged conrrurications (vhere the cormunlcEtlous ae made aB formf. cta of rellglon or concernlng a natter of consclence), such rtgbts bsve not een extended, to medj'cg^l offlcer ln the rnlJ-ltery eervlcee. Sloll-arly the Boel hes lnfometlon that seventeen (1'l) stat of the Union do not recogrrlze E'Y privlleged .ccmunlcatlon
bettreen e physfclan a.rld h!6 patlent. Lackg thle rtght, nedlcal offlcers hare at tl$es bad to forgo effort to treat or counBel fdlvidusle rho have requeatil belp or have edoptecl eubterfugee. fhe dlrectlve unde guestlon haa been lnterpreteal to requtre 'rall peteonet' to repolt t thelt corroandlng of,fl'cer ay lufolEatfou conlng to ttrelr attentfon conceruln8 hoooexuallty of anr neuber of t'he Eervlce. Moeover und t'he atrlct letter of Artlele 3l of tbe uE1f,on Code of fflltasy Justlce, phyElcla8 ere requirecl to Item porBorrel of the fact ttret sny tteueDt they nalce can be used gBlnBt then vhen easisance 1n honosexu&t proble!s 1s requesteal by pa,tlents. If .folLordl llternlly tlrle voJ. ef,fectlvely en tbe u6efil1nees qt the peychfetrlst fn the cese antt recltatlon of the fects would probably ceeee et that point. It r.oulil be fruetatlng to tbe petlet a,ncl.oey be dletlnental to the servlce. Meitfcel gfflcers 1n the Auecl Forces hs,ve a tLes concaled hmogexual tendenolee or bebavlo! urder ttre gulse gf, varous pBychltrfc fanoees 1n orcr to (e) treet the lndlvtdrl cencerned or (U) to effect dltcbage wlthout the,.etlpe o.f ,h@9,s.exuel.lty stteched tlrereto. It ls the nactlce aqong, roarV crrapferns to advlee '*Ut*rd*u seeklng aBlotance concernirrg bcqogexuI problers to ee the uedlcal offtcer an/or to eke a clea breest of the natter to the comarcti-ug offlcer, Such referrl of coure, Ifterally trrtB the dxygtateD "on tbe eot'vtth no alternatfve but' to offlcfslly report the conf,ldence. FectE ae not arralleble to prone or illeprove thet the lleblI1ty of ax uniteslrebte dlseherge doee !n'fact lscourge any voluntary confesBloa qr recourBe pschfetrlc aselsteace. [he few cese on recorcl gtt, hovener, eeen to u$rotd the val.1d1ty of th18 aeeertlon.
any
ft fe the cgqsensus of te Boe,rd that much car be tlone to eucourBge OtuDty eonfesslons v'Ithout udty eopardzlng the beat ltreete of tho6e rrlthin a particular cla6s who confees to e boooge:ana-l act or to poaseestng hoosexul t'ndencleg. It fs conslatered deelreble to forrulete a poHcy to encotriege confessfono that lead to the separatlon fro the oervlce of confltsed or hBbltu8l hosexuele rltb digchargeE Lnder other theq honorable condltlon$ but that wlIl
FOR OFFICIAL UST ONIY
}B
:,
.it,
'I 1.,
,{
DoD LA 7.10 049688
ONLY FOR TFICIAL UST
D@ent
at tbe sue tle dlEtlDgul8b the 1divldu"s- niro bes trans;reoeed jr e of veareaa frcr, the true.pgrvert'. It fs recc@eadeit thgt, a pollcy be edopted vliereby en lntllvldual, lbo, due tar {rmntrrrlty, lgnofanee'r' oq Occe6lona1f.y ltoxlcet1on, becomes a pirty to an loletd ect ail therefte Euffers regret, reuorse, end relugnnce, l.lll be encouragetl to confeos such to le cmnqdlng offlcer, chBplal)l, or loeillca]. offlce for the Inrltose of nlnfnlzing odneree couaequence8. the poticy should provlde the tre Hho does confese thle non-repet1t1ve, tao]-ateil act, vho nake e ccnplete cletelled 8t,te4ent Eay be etsled ln the nanml eervice. The pollcy ehorrld firrther enr:ourat<(' cgrfessfols to bcrqoaexul tenclencies.
.
epproprfete proced.ure ould. be as foll"ons: e. Ose sdnlttltg to an 1n-aerrlce ect Ehou1d be subJectd lro a tborough poychfetrlc evs-luatloa to ctete:rle lJ1 Eo far B6 !o86tble ?,bet bs be fr fst c@ftit only thfa ou-reletltive, lool.etod epleod,e 1 tbe servlce and tbat 1n f:he esttnatlon or oplnlon of the peyeJrlatrlet oes bot Ln fect posoeas bcnoeexuaL tendenclee. Indlvfuluelrt r.ho Eeet tbe aboye crlteria rnay be rtalrled lf their servlce reeord oterrrlee vrrats. .One vbo ha^s cquittetl, euch or leolated act, cofeoaecl, but nbo le dlagnooed, by the psycblatrlet as poseealng true bcooeenral teoclenclee, shold be oeperated vlth the t'pe tlfocharge otberrlee varated by hla servfce recorcl. b. [e vho cofesaeg to poseeesiug hcaoeexual tendenclee shr:uld te lntervfered, by a psychlatriet, or, pendtng tlre a1B118bJI1ty of a 1rychlatrletr'by a netllcal offlcer, rho ehouJ-d make a deternlatlon l so far as practlcable \{hether tile flvfuc.l trn fact doee poDeess tbese teaaleacfes to euch a clegree ttrt hls retentlor ln the servlce 1 not ruauted. llhfs deteEne-tloq ehoulcl be pubJect to the cQmxdlng offlcertg oplnloa and cdbeq{ pe to thether the lfllvldrrnl !e coufeer:ln4 to tead.encfee for'the fu:pogld b4 evsdfs firthe nilltury serrrlce or not, gepretlon wfIL not be effected rt1I a ccolrlete poychfetrlc evaluatlon bas conf,lrloed tbe:exlstenee of hcuoee<uel tndenclee. one to le <tertned to h.aye hoserua-l telileDcfes rder these clrctuatr:er; rlIL noa[y be eepenated lrlth e tytrE of tllscharge of no lonr-'r cbaracter tbao uneultble. Eover, one.no Is dpteuleil to heve been & conf1etl hcmoeexrJ- e,t the t1e be entertl the servlcer havlug knowlugly faeil to discloae the fact upon uch entry, mey be il1echarge.l rltlr arr
rdeslrable dlscbarge
.
c. beae poIlcy grovl'long forid to be CIae I. of

tb.e Amed ServlceE
Bhoul-d
nt appfy
1;o x'r'troirri 1r!':' !ri(:'
clrqutrcribed and tlgrcllceplEdl i.n establ.l$illr{i gtopr yofcj.a-petlent .eLatloaohlp 1n the trcefuent of csse ulLc -cUty or fdlfu"ectly lnvolve hcuoaexuallty. Ttr18 lblb1tlort ras Jnxrseil by spOclf{O dlfcctlr or lferred by the cloctors theoeelvea fr:m collbltatlone of 'egu.IEtfotrs of B geDersl nture'
lr,re
[be
Board, notetl
rlth great qoncerr tht the medlcai off<;ertr
FR ()r'F'Ct/lt.
19
us (]rury
DoD LA 7-10 049689
FOR
OtflctAl ust ONLy
'
Alr f'orce 8egLetloq 35-6, secton A-6 grovftlee: "lt la ttb uty of e'ry euber to Port t" llu ccmader 8y facts coeerBfng o\ert actB of bonosexualty by any neuber nhfch ny ede to btre attestlon for (fc) eny boooee)aB.l acts or tenlenct'. Aqy Eernber rho nal<ee e fal- offfcial etetlent for tlre purpooes of lnltietrng actlsn to obteln a dlacharge uncler thls regul-etlon 1e ubJect to attou under the aproprLete Atfcles of, he UCt{T.'r lthoug,h not Epeclflcally eet forth, t^t SECI{AV llotructfon 1620'1, the eubEtace of the abow AfrForce Beguletlon 'es been ln fect luferred by Navy medtlcal offlcerb fr e t"uf"S of paragra l+ of tbt LoBtr:rctfou togethei Flth the lvrovfslo!6 of Artfcle 1216, U. 9, trev negulattons l!k8. Ilre aow refeffe to eetf-Jposeal reetrfctlon by Ne'ry Esallcsl offfcers ha.e sultsd t e not-lnJurlouo lractlce of, faJLue to report erery letDce of bcoosene.l ectfvlty, hrqeledge of tblcb mo acquired
t'hroueb tbe dya lcs-patlent relatlougblP.
rpulil attboru tbo E1c4.1 offlcer ln slreolffc tlTs of caseg td xerafs hl 1scretlon ntth regertl to Ffaa1g fforuatlon of bcoosexul re 1 offlclel chgr.olg for routfs roceeetng. Uollrttt, tbe Boa ba lscae a.e lnraclcLe and fraught 'tth lntllartable edntnlstratlve lfflcultfes nll suh procedurce.
Erc Doril
ba^s coneldre
ruleroua propoeeil proeodturea nhlch
corlrlng bclloses].lty ud tbat t'be trreotlce beretpfo'e conaltleredl by Nerl nedical offlcerE as ppt confqn{.8 to dlrectlvee bo tacltJ'y recogplzeal ss IrenEls8tb]-e. flilre te uecllss.l offlcer rlu be 1n c roelttou to contlrc exerclsing hle orofeosfonal tEcretlon l cletcruffg nbetber Iforratlon, obtal.ne 1a tbe course of the phyEtclan-patlnt reLstlosohlp, pertsf"Bfn to ate or teudlncls of e bmoeexuI Dtiure, are of auch tuport 8 to nece88lt8te blE otflclal].y bllslns th to tbe attetfon of tbe ccrmaudlng offlger,of. the atlent lnvol'red.
It ta tbe coaeltlerett oplnfon of the Bos{t t'hat te profeaslonal nllltary l.utegrfty of the Ded,lca.l officers rust be elte uIn to tbe frlIcet ertet for the lrFoper adJfetreto of, a.ny dlectitrce
and
tb
Suary
eonfegelona.
't',,;
.',
j, i tl
' ',,.1
s. Curet pollcleo
do not'novldle elry conceestone
for voluntary
b. Flrrleged, ccmunlcatlons s're rcognizecl for ob8ElLafu8 but not for eclfcal of,f1cer6. ' c. Curent pollcleo tnd to tllecourage volwrtary confesolone. d.
Judgent
!,fed1cal ofiBlcere are currestJ-y exerclalng ctlpcretlon rrttout te enpllclt ganctfon of Yrltten dfrectfvee.
act
i
f;i
..\:.
IOR OFFICIAL UST ONLY
DoD LA 7-10 049690
t
rOB
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Recmendatlons;
Ft,Dce6 ehould, be:
a. To eneourege voluttar}^ confeaslous, a person volutelly confe6slBg a.non-repetltlve, 16oltecl ect uder anelloratlve clrctun-
(I) Consldereit for retentlon lf psychlatrlc eveletior rlocr not lrd.tcte homoeexual tenclencleg. (2) Separateat if hoosexlal tenrfences ere :re6cttt;, brtt rrlth the tyn of dlscbelge rarranted by bis serviee recold. b. f,he above policy not to apply to Claeg I Deroorlsc. Trc eucourage pereomel to confess to honosexual tendenclen, provlde that lf conftnned by psychlatrlc eveLuatlon, and there ie no evldeuoe to lndlcete an ettnrpt to evade rollltary 6eryice, tbey vlll DorioalJ,y be aeparated th e tlT,e of dl8cbaBe of no lover cherecter then weulteble, Hortever, one wbo ls dletenlned to hve been e cortffroed hcmoeexu&! at the tlte be entered t'be servlce, hvlng knovl]y falled to atlsclooe euch fact nay be tliochargecl wlth aB undeelreble
tliBcbrge.
d. llbet no exr-liclt stat@ept or fmpllcatlon be nade tn pub)-Iahe< or not any obligetlon exiets on the pa.rt of netllcel offlcers to neke a offlclal,Tepgrb concerntng homooexuI oattere dlscloEe to the! ln conflclence'by a patfent wder teetment. Slue tle preeent practlce, vhereby lt ts left to the eouod profeB8lona^1. Judgment of tbe nedlcal offlcer, ls tacitly rccognized end ecceptecl.
d.1rectlree trether
3.
Type -o-f Dlechgrgg. Do our nIeg on
tlon?
effect? lo
of" enlnl vira ertnt

1
treti
v6
h&ve
o deter-
ne?
Xbe preponderoce of.teetJnony befor this Boerd has )een to tbe effect tbet the tyle of dlschalgF (rooot freguently the undeslrable) currently glveu the hcnosexral- offender, Xe Uttle or no deterrent to cfoalon of the offenee. the nqJorlty of, witnesee (end the Boerd) Breer hovever that there is no reliable ueanu by vhlch the doterrent effect, lf anyr. of the t)rl of, dtecherge, can be aecuretely eatieated. Itere gee&,e to be Uttle reaaon to cb1.enge the lmpreeeJ.on of "nodleterrent effectil ylth reect to the hebltul, conff[edr "uay of Llfe" hcooeeqral. Ae to 11 othere, bor+ever, a concluelon of nodeterrent effect nay be on eaker grounile.
Whether or not the other than honot'able dlsctrarge ls {r dett'::renL nay IesE tuportalt, lrowever, than otler conoideratlons vhlcb argue for 1te contlued ue. For exarnple., a hoosextI ect is a sodcmftcal
a
ti
2L
[)NLY FOR I)FFIOIAL IJSE
DoD LA 7-10 049691
\.-.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLV
sct eJlal try be Fnl8betl undr the Ltlfon code of Hltry retlce by diehonorable dJcharge aod poafleue4[ up to fir! yees. l{ery stateo pr :-ral1e penatttee. tbl trInfshent 1s anetogous to t'bt artborlzed for other gerfous crlneg uncler tbe Lllforo Code of Hllftory Juetlce; auch 88, deaertloe, gtantl J.arceay (over $5o), forgerlr housebreekng, pJury, ntl drrrrg enct pootol offenses. PceslnabLy over tho yeere J.eglslatlve oplnlou bes been to the effect that severe InDlshllent la DecesEy, ff Eot entlreJ.y as B deterrent, tben fot s@ otber goo 'reaaone, rlJ. fornde 1 prbltc Bolicyr such aa protectlon ad. groervtlon of rqoral. In thfe oettlng the qther t.tlan honorable illecharge cu$eat1y off,ere the pon-foc1bl offender, does qot ppesr to be excesslr. RecogBlzltrg tat at tJe crtntaL coilB lg bbld thc aoclologlcal ad. cu]-tual advancqeDt of soclety 1 genral, the Bood brs norgrtbelsg beeB tuable to Xgnore tjre fact tt o bcmoeesul act la a serlous Dlt,rJr and. crlol.er offenee, efffd a8 sucb br a ct of Cogresg ee recently eF 1950, (tnttom Code of M1lltl'
Jlrstfcc.
)
O! tbe otber band., t'he fnetfectfieneEe as e dletcrr.ent of tbe poltcy of corrt.urt1I a confleoent fot all bose:fl.Bl otfenalcr8 lras erreaay teea tltustreted@Eire l,e&-t93ots ead, earJry l9l+ot6 thls pollcy resttc. f fl{ng our placeo of, c@flllcuut 1th l!8tos oflenllcil. sore "eullgbteuecttr pollcy of gubstltutlg a otr tb.a boaorable 1gsbargp for court-nrtlal ad conffDat rss adogted. fortbeuaJo1tyof!'on.folc1b].eca'se8.NoEttgt1esexl8tfr trbtch 1t can e itcroted, rtrgter o ot tbfa rrenllgbentr ttatrltd 1 au lcrea.eedl llcfdlooe of the offenBe, trt ta opn to conJectue nbetber futher I'enllgbtrnent" by ccnpleto ellfetlon of tbe'otber tbao boporabJ,e dleebarge (undeelabl,e) rnul result fu a lncrease 1rr te lreldsuco of bclosexual ectlvlty.
I'lro tos.r founil ltsetf on ffmer ground 1a reecbf.tg ft conclu.etos tbet tb tye diechrge anarde - ogafo refelng plnarrly to tbe tJuoafrabls ; as sn 1blbltor of Eocis,l a econfc rebbtrlltotlon
cesoo. gaJ.n, trougb.go{ng attlstfca qre ebon, but t'ho le srbstaltl8l thst euch e dlecba.rge ltûlt rc ailoyacat oppounfties anEllble to fte bold,or onlwo bl.u of csrtat boocflts genora.Ily lntcrfeca vttb bts econctllc al socla.I rerJuo@nt, an ray acl,J.y agrevats tbe hosexl :frictofs lrrolvp. Of courao Sy of tbeg oiieuders csulil hew Usdtr',court-ue+faledr 1lr whfob cae tbcr probab sould ,ew receiw puattl' locbargca fn*rferUg st lcast as Iuch a^s, asd perbsDs uor.o, vlth rebablllts'tfon thaa sn adetrtlr dlecbalgc uDiler otb,ct th honora,ble eoaltlonE. It ls to bs notoil tbat by 'ccont DparhDt of Defense Dlrctlw Jsplnte by BUFIRS Xntnctlon I9OO.2, e codB nuber desf8netlg the reason for foobargo ls o 1scrt on DD Fom ?l,l+ (neport of fbafe! or Dlecba,:lgo) ec llfortlou to latorgoverrent agencleo. fn
rneny
lraproefou
nllllary tbc loar
llblLa rohebflltetlou IF e le not

roco
grrlzets[-obllgalfn'm r1i1ery
22
plsrtty
e lrobl,cq 0f t'bo
ateFqtacnts
FOR OFFICIAL USE OI\LY
'..
DoD LA 7-10 049692
\.:
to the country rrot to ,HB.Td u !" of cllcbarge Dore one'ou6 the tr nranount needle of the ervlce reqrifrc. the guestloa tlen resolve ft8e.Lf lnto one gf ubet tlTres of arnlfetratlve dlechrge8 a're r-qufred by tbe needl of the Berylce. A.Bslellg tbe prevlou polnt ae to vhlclt tbere ney be oe dloubt, that le, that r gther tban honoeble dlecharge le llttJ-e .or no iletorrent to hosexual ctlvlty, the nsv&l 6s'vlce l[lEt Detetbele86 neserve ancL protect norel stqrdards a1cl it csnnot affod to cond.oae st,ndrdg of concluet vl1ch fatl- belov noral Btandardr .of aoclety ln. geDera,]-. lferely to eerarate an offender fit rany case nay uo be enougb - an qdd.ttfona,I label nay te DecesEary to 1ldicBte dlsapprvel, eod tbe tylp J-abeJ- shou-It be litlcatlve both of tle dlegree of, lsBpprovaL and tbe degee of dsconiluct, $r tbe:e ere ra'ely lf eve groundo for dfecbsrgfug aJ ln-servlce offender v-trth al honoreble rlfscharge, atl ltttl-e need or excuee i'or cllecharglg tb al other tla,u bonors,bJ.e dJ,ectrarge oae voee Bole trrsresoon vas B prceervice ect of adoleEcence: I{lthfn theee extlee If-n1ts \rerlouE types gf ceaeB dmo.d ratous.treenente. fn Justlce to both the eervlcc sl the fdf\r1d4.1, 1flexfble rules ahouJ,dt be evolal,ed, nurl ear:l caee adJudged ou fte ovn uerlts.
W1thl the franework of tbeee general ccsuents, certBllt rore sPeclfl.c tlnto of areeneEt beve been reached.. l[he f-servlcc offender, . fo eXple, fether'he be conffre br e "one-t1&er't, \ea co-mttted s serloue breach of dltaclp-Lrre (a.e dfstlngulsheal fror e breah of noral behsvlor), end, dlecffne fs a nllftary coDcen of the firet ' lnportence. EYe vben tbe offenee ls acmlttett fn a cvttian envlronment, the ulrltary offeader b,e6 bece e potentlal dlecipllrary probJ-en. Certal-Iy be ba^s bece e eek Llk ln tbe chein. Ee nay be subJected to urilue presaure to kee his of,fense a aecret; be nqy offend qgah, trgre iead.ily the eecond tjrne; h{e behavlor may becole knoun, 1 vhfch 'cae bE frlll be e target for ebuse by scue of hla feLlo$s, end, for. erIoltatlon by otberei he uay beccse a L1eblLtty to good nolale ard dfectplfne l e varlety of vays. I{irfLe nere eeparetlon nay be adequatc o eet the legulre@eto of gooil rorale an clfeclpllne ln one cee, 1l otberE ar uequlwcel lebel of ispproval rnay be noceasary. llence the loatl 18 of the oplnfon that the sertdce !upt reteln the xrner, Jrr appro1ete ceae8, to anerd, e dlocharge under otber thar ]ronorablc cordltlooe .for the fu-ervlee offender. '
Pe-eerrlce offenderB present less of a hezed, to <tioclBlrre EorBIe, 1s ast cgse6, than those vho heve offend.e ntrlle ltl urlttrr, Eccptlon trust be nade for the confl:retlr. "vay of, l1fe" hmoee]ila], Xn eech caoe, houover, tbe needs of the oervlce ceo Edequstely bc net by a afne dlocharge, ttre speclflc tytrE to be detetled by congidra-. tlou of 'l 1 cleungteces, facJ.udfn6 the offenclerrg totg1 recod of eervle. Ordtaerlly, thle rrlLJ. gnl fe a general itlecharge (under. bonorable condltlons), sfnce onJ.y 1n the.rarest of caes vllJ. the gf,fend,er bsve a record eufflcfently merltorloua to \arrant a honrt'ele dlecharge under crrent regul;s,tlonB alE1fcBble to thore tuo .t r
and'
'
categorlee.
"
i. 'i.
' t ,'. :
!
'oa
F()R OFFtCI/tf. {/s 0rt :/
DoD LA 7-10 049693
LFOR OFFICIAL UST ONLY

PerBoDeI. vho DerlJr
/ '
lnvfttlou to thle tne of mallngerer rr'lthout at the esru.e tlne servtg ueefi rrr8e, elnce the boua ftde tendency aeee rfrlIL be screonetl by the pychlatrlst arrl leeued. an bonooble type dllcherge Bnlrsy.
aJly
SIE@Er.y
teuilenclee preoent a unlqua problen. r r'l.Jbetr psychietrlc elaluatlon conf1::r08 the terd.ency, separatlon frith e tyTe of dlocbarge varrantd by tbe lrdlvldualro ser'rice recocl ls aBproprlete both for the gervice er tbe 1uit1vlu1. The unlque ltutloa ar16eg fpu the fsct that ullftery eervlce ln thls oountry fs a etatutory obJ.lgtlon - an obtfuetlon whlch not aLL errlcenen enter into 'rltb eEral enthuelBs. f\o trose f vhqm tbe enthusLa. 18 lacklng, tUe iireeerit po'rer of the gervlces to asad a cllocharge und.er other than honoabLe cond.ltlons msy be a deterrent to false confeseLon of a hcuosexual ect or hcdosexrs]. tenencles to avoldl srtl.lce or to obtel a eepe,reton. the extent to shfch thls Iver 16 B cleterrent to f,alee aElBBlonB le not really ascertalneble; hover, derlvlng th .servlce of ttf8 cllecharge pover vould b opea
adrlt, profess or exibtt
hoaerra.l
B. the ot'ber tha honorable cllocherge for aay clse of off,entler.
shouLd
not be 4,gdgtor{
b. 3oa.r8 of, offlcerE Ln reechlug e conclurlon as to tyn of dlectulge to be anarted, sbould. talce lto conslcleretlon the Eervfce ereoats overall eefr1ce record,, as netl a6 r1'l tbe clrcrustacee ln tbe ldlvlralr e cae.
tbe bonorable illecbarge an notector
cr
Ehe neval service nust ret18 the nner
of noral etand.arde; and (3) aqllgtrtte fl-lbl.lity. d. ftle

eedls
cetegory, aa a (f) deterrent, elblt.a urueuaured. one; (A) preservr

soundl eotl Decesesry
ln
to enacl an otber pproprj.te ceae8 aO ratter wb8t the
tool of
dlecharge
uter otber than bonorebls conditlohs nee bererarded ouly virea tho
of tbe soryfc,are-sib. tbat ordlr:ar{Ly
gffeuer bg crmltte aJ ln-eerVice act o acte,

Beccuendatlons:
tadr bsdtory
B fbat oo pertlcula,r tyn of adlntstretlve dloctrarge be for aly nrtlcutar type of hcooexual or hosoxuaI L bebaylor. b. fbt tb tnn of dtecharge ehorrLd. be besd on the flil1ge
a opinlong of a boa:d of offlcero arlred a ef'ter coneldrolon of tbe servlce trsoDr! oyrel]. rocord, a re11 as the elrcudstsuoeg of tbe lnctlvldual cese.
4. freetont ol8o-caUed
knsrtcdge?
Clqls. IlLof-feqdgl
4f our cur{grt lfocedureg-soujrd ,n 1tq!. of lq$ent-dry

FOR OIFICIAL US ONLY
2I+
+t
if;
DoD LA 7-10 049694
t
USE, ONLY TOR OTFICIAL
Dlscueolon: Pre8ent d.lrectl'es efle cless III es "thOee r&re ca,sea vltereln personnel oty exblblt, lrofees,or adnlt h@oecua1 tendelcleo sJtal vherein thee ee nO speclfiC prolable acts or offenaes, or court-martial ,lrrlsdlctloo oes not ex1st."
fhe loBJorlty of aII vitneB6es vere i.n agreement tlrat thfs clat;BlfLcetlon r+es e contet Fouce of dtfflcufty, ulrr'rcrltable froru the .vfevpoJnt of tbe psychlatrlsts ld too lnflextble 1n B1mJnlstl'etlo n1: the cormald level.
of the
Tbe foLlowlng apeciflc d.efecte Here brougbt

boerd:
to !)re &ttentlor
a. tte:<hfblt.,.
. ..hcosexueL.tnd.encles". . .
.l
It lc genererly aepted tht e\en excluslvely honooenral Irer8on8 can not be ldentlfled eolely through physleal ebaracterletlctt, 'oert beha\rlor, pattern of lnte'eet or nanerisno. the other handt ocae rlLy hetroeercus,L perEona exlibft unnerloms shlch couLd. nlelead
the laan.
b. "profess or alt hcmose)fl.q.l tentleuclest' It 1s dlffcul-t for even a trelnect arct experlencect psychletrlet to Brrlve et ar Ecurate deterofnetlon 6s to rliether an lndivldrtel 1 a.hcqosenr.al oolely on t'e st,terents of, the petfent. c. To exhlblt, profes6 o admlt.houosexuel tenclenciee le not n. offenggr euy more than teudencfeo nard a-lcotrolln for exa,npIe, and. rrere such tenclncleg are controlled ituring nsval servlce, the lndivldtaloboulat not be piloced ln a posltion of befng EeIlarted vttir sn rurdealrablt: dlocharge bec8uae of eucb tendencles. . fle nruber of casee vhere pereonnel profeeseil such tettdencletr for fe lrurpose of obtafnlng e tliocharge fucu n1I1torr ervice, thottglt not escertfrsble vlth any clegree of eceuracy, j.s consid.erecl to be negligtble. Ehe moet frerent lstencee occur orrong those j.nlvldralr; already oervlng seutaces for othrer offensee. r The nadetory Jmplicatlon ln tre plocedures for Clllti ILl offender tencl to lLn1t oe'erly tft" cc@Bnttlng offlcel frotn exercioirr IErsona.I Jurgment ln the d,lspo.e1,.tlo..r o.f these cases'
f
. llbere are fev
lpur,,1'lantlgnqy" ceses
of
recot'<1.
S. Untfl recently the CIssB IIf offender has 1n nulny eaaer cel\e an urdesi:able discha,rge, conslderecl by tost witne6sen bcfort: the boaril as a punfehment unduly harsh and dispro.>rtlonatc'
t'0R (]FFl0tf\L U$g 0NtY
25
DoD LA 7-10 049695
FOR OFFICIAL UST ONIY
h. be efullstriatlon of the -procduies pettaiJng to C1.88 fII dlreote{ f,he peychlotrlet,,towprtt chronlc Itrevllcatlon 1 the rrenretion of EeellcsJ. repcirte upon tboee ldfvidrtel.s eeeklng Eul(tBnce for JroeglEe o actusl bcuoeexual tenalenle8.
ofJleuder aa Surary
lhe Bosr Ie of the oplnlon that the pollcy for the cllapoeltlon III offenerr "oo preeently prescrfbecl en fnterpreteal, hes rBul-tecl ln cases of lJuetfce .by tlle avarttlng of wdeslrablo illschrgee, e f,athre to reeelve the aupport gf lleclloal. offlcers lD te fo of dequete clfnica.l eval.uatlone tlre looo tp tbe servlce of lndivfdua.ls that coul-cl b.Bve contlbuted velueble aertrlce, acl tho denla,]. to tho ccrmader of tbt flexlblllty of adnlfetrotlve rteroletlo Lu caaes of, thfs tyTe vblcb he, vtth tbe frl.J. technlcal aseigt[ee of tbe psychlatrlBt, ehouJ-dl be fullr ccdlletent to oxer.cfee to te bettnent of tbe serrlce od tbe fdivldral.
of the
Bo-call-ed, CLa,ss
RecoeDd.BtloDB:
e. That Class fII a
non alefbecl be abollehed.
b. llret lndlvfdtuels fonoerly fnclucod f Clase IIf be proceosed as ln reccnooenalatlon d. under ltero L ebove. 5. Cllqlcal Evaluatloqo
Dl6cueBloni
lb Freaeqt trCSAV Inst:rcttdn pertbfg to dfepo1tlon of, hcoosell,le parIos for the ncctlcal etsfulnat{og of eBch nelbo brg coDsldlercl udler the lurrrlev of, the dlrcstlil ', It 1o nndo gulto clcar 1 tle Iotnctlo that tbe prlnary prrlse of the x,lLatlon 10 to dot:lc rtbetLer tbc oober le pshotlc. Hogver, IFgvfslou 1g qlso udg f,Or te extnlng nelcal offlcer, at tle egueat of tbe ccmnnd., to atdl J tlstmtl.on o! ether tbe raeruben, ln feot, has htogJal tcncnclos or bsê partLafpt f bcooeexual. eotivlty. Beyondl thfe the DrosoDt dllocttw qultc cxloltry ercruaee coneldleretlotr ol tra ueaHoa.l asDot of !rcmosrul1t rtthr on loca^t or tho dliepoaftlonal IcwI. In fact, lt l not oro[ Eocpsary for te ollnfcal Baiustloa to bc couiluotoC by c ucdlea]. offlqGt trafc ln pEychlatry. Bucb a fr o! rrfcro!,ce catrot evol lgcour1 e thomrgb peychfartc otudy of the lndlrrluar, boyoud a dctE1D^Btlo[ of, r{btber he fo poychotfc. & ordr to evuluat tbo a<teqr:aoyr"firq e peychletrlc stanpoht, of rrporta sln outrlttod, rndor tbe crlrrent dir"octlw, c oarofiI ana,lyrla hm bceo trsd of s@p.I of 3? rscert peychletrlo evnlustlons utfllzed. by th Btulau of, Nevo'l FerEoDnel fn proceaoing cBses of hcroexuallty. tach raport ha.s t'een ratecl ae to lt ed,eqrrcy f,ncq ar anlrlstrstlre stf,Edllt. Orrer tp-thirds of tbe eieolstfsue erc
26
FOR OFFICIAL USE
OiltY
i .,j'
ri
DoD LA 7-10 049696
ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE

concluctd
lotr 2I of the 3T repor.ts vere co4ofdered exceLlent or outotencll' Eowever, lt llt18te\r beccoee qulte evldent tbet lberc is a. vast clff,fer.eace beteeea tbe elJ.etattve a:tl the sedlce.l concepte of ndeguacy ln euch conaulttloa. For exqle, oue eva.luatlonr vhlch ns ated outstd1g fOr dlepoeftlonal purposes, fe both uIEatfefsctory aud ueanlngle68 a,a e psychtatrlc consulttfon. rLly oe repoft apprVachcs BCequscy fn pcovlilr.g a urderstsdlng of the p6ychlBtrlc spects of the lndtvfduIro behvfor. At best, onJ-y 5 of the reporte lnclucled' natrl&l nhlch vould, Ber:in1t more tha a superflclat evaluatlon of tlte: ncberlg peroona,tlty otructrte, e baslc foctor frl sny poychlatrlc
consrltatfon.
tbe' oarnple contslu any illcatlol of, tbe lndlvldrra,l's develoIpental bf.story or of hls psychologlcal rel.atl<rt blps to treubrs of b1s fmlJ"y ard otlxer persons durtu thla perlocl. OaIy a occg8lotr.l report coDtalns lnforaatlon as to he neoberre pre8cnt 'belr.evforel Btetu8 -- h1e edJu6fuent ln hfs dafly vocetlonel, ooclal, fl evocetfonal pursutto. Iforlatlon es to pesent 'nets.l- Btatuo ls usually confJel to a er.merry etetlrent tbst t'here te no evldence of peychooe. Fa more serlo.s la the fect that one evahtlonr nad.e by a eenlor medllcaJ- offcer not trX$ed 1n psycbfetry, contstD8 e descriptloD of beberloral olgno vhlch coulcl be d.legnoatlc of the early otageo of eeblzorhrenlc poychoslc. lforever, the report le not eufflclently csopiebesetr to pemlt e neanlrrgful peyclrietrlc evalu^Btlon of the obvlous eootlonal d.lsturbance, alx(r lt norrld appear thBt no further tredlcsl follov-up vao oade.
by trai^ned psychl8,tri6t;
snat frcn a
a.dni.sietretive strld-
Very fev
of tbe eport's ln
ii!
In ebort, tbe preeent Frltten reporto of poychJ,atric evIuaflr:tt, as a utole, do not provlde adequate ifooatlon upon wblch to bese eclsfors et the d,elnrfuentL level, ff nedceI ard Boclologlcal f8ctol8 are to be coDslaterd ln the dlepo6lt1on of cases lnvolvlng bc@ogeruI1ty. Flrot, there fe lneuf,ficient clllce]- ercl hlstor1cel Lrforuatlon 1l1 tbe reports to perfllt en u,Ddsrsta.rdn of the 11vldua] and hls beba,vlor f'cm e psychletrlc viern1nt. Seconilly, tht lnforatlou tt1cb ls lbcLuded ueuell-y conslste of oplnlona, v1thout the cllnlcI evlclence gn vhlcb tbey ere baoed, e,uil e poychotogicnJ I y EtrILe recoturtlng of deteue alread.y s.velLable frcrn the 0m rvestlgBtlon. ftllB approech to the preparatLon of cooeultatfopq .itei tlre dynsnlc lterprettive natr1al rhfch ukeo a rtrrt leychj.,trjce'tl,y neanlngful. :' It le not eurprlafng thst he prcsent.reports of pcychl,atr1c evaltutlon are lacklqg ln unifoqlty, oco, ad detall, as noted alow', l{edlcal offlcers not fonsJ-Ly trelned ln poychlatry re soldou gtrali.' fled. to Dke atr fteuslvs eveluation of perBonal{ty structure artl d,nraralce. Moreover, they eennot reaeonably be exnctetl to recogrrlze the more subtle ladlcetloue of eertry psycboele. 0u the other hend, treleil paychlatrlets in the fleld. freguently take the pooltio that ouductJng atl repor,tlg a thorough otudy s not justffled vhen thetr' fll3dlnga, otet thE thoee pertarntug to ccoetency, v111 not tre consleed 1 the dlspoeltlon of the lndlvldual. Tlrere al.srr lc; a
zt
FOf{ 0FF-t0i/if
usfi
r)i\Jt
t,
DoD LA 7-10 049697
FOR OFFICIAL USE,
ONLY
\i
to vbether the menber bellry pv8.lqatetl ps actualJy partlclpated f hooogext.l Bctfvlty or rrlu engage Jr 6ucb bebevlor et sc@e tljlo f tbe fiture. f'h!e rluctalce bes@es understsdb].e rhen one csnaller'tbt bclosexuallty 1g trot e dlseese eltlty or aJl lsoleteat contlftfon but fe onLy oe of uany poeafble EJotrt@B of eqotlonel dleturbence or lruatu1ty. Thua, 1a the face of dtenlal by tdre trdlvfu8l, the p6ychietrlt ls egqesteal, l effect, to lclue lforruatlon t hfo sJ.fnicI evaluatlon rrhlcl le lnpoeelbLe for hlrq to provtd.e lflth the professlo[E-l technlquce t hls ccrE!. In ord.er to correct the reeent deflcletrcles l cl1nlcal eraLrs' lone a ObtaJ a rlflJCIu.E contrlbutlsn frou peycblatry l deallg wlth tne rrobteo of hcoeernrallty, lt e neceaay t evfse tbe preeent Ibl1osol\y of ths .<llrectlreo lertalnfg to the claselflcetlo ad alfspoeltlon of lrsoDa nntfssllng hcro8e)ct,I beb,vlor. th8 psychletrlst ls D forced, to eIrrEch tbe probleo rrltb a adnllstratirn orlcntatfon a to rhat cougtftute8 bosexuD.Ilty vtrleh, sedlqnlly, lE bot'h fncoelstent aid l-ncorrect.
A t'horoqb p8yehlBtrle evaluatlon vILI contrlbute not only e blc tld,erotdLn of tbe lDdlvlitual and, the peychologlcel' factors rotlvatr-g the behvlor under lffrcstlgBtloB, but lt lrltl penlt 18Itftlou of the cae L: a trlDcr vhj.cb ls 1 tle bset ftereets botb of tb nval 6er'\rlce aacl ths 1,1v1duBl.
conslderabl.e reluetance on tbe pal, of the psychiatrist to nake a defj1tlve etstcueut, oe he to oo frequenly rquegted. to CIo, perte1n6
I oriler to provlde a neanlngful e\raluatlon of the ladlvldual, the Bsfbletrc e:clatfo should crer,eech of the follovfg are: lgjghl of. thgSg:een3 hcoo-seqg*p,rsode. IhlE lnctud,ee a cleocrlptlon of the tlne pLace an ilurtlotr of tbe lnclilent(e). A dscrlptlon of tre other lnrsotr lvolretl (poreonal characterlstlcs ad, prevlorra hcooserqEl ernrlence) a,n hX6 ps]botoglcel rlt1o$blp to the ucqber belng exautned. Inrreetlgetlon of the eootloual factors lrohctl l fihe Jctdent erd tbe psychologlcal nesrrlng of tbg coBtt. For exmdle, doea thig act rerrceeut edolescent curloalty, al.epeBdeney on gsg egrro\ral, prootltutloB, defeu8e gln8t lonellnooo tc. Dtd lt occur rbo the fndfvlduaL vaa lonely feolatecl, angry, broo,lJpg, foJJotrlsg rJscttoar falJ.trre, closeue68 to Earriage tc. Hbt 1e the effect of bef.rrg ceught? l,lht- ae the rrofeesed fiture p'Lar regadlg coutlu.Btfon of tho beb.evfor, cleofre fo treetoentr etc.?
A acnrebe4gire
B.
b.
4.c.cIEebcaslv.
blqt!ry
o,f
.bcagloq{s+ bebTor.
Ibl 1s to neeent tho total curront, crose-aeetloDI ctl1cal plctre. ltrat 1o, thG honooo:rs.t behavlor rrllJ- b! vlene a5 lart of a tota.l pettern f vhlcb lt uay flt he catogory of, poboale ceuroolo, poraonallty clleorder, or vlthfn te range of nonoal. Thie blstory eboul tlzo the eettfngs ln rhtch the honosolcusl behevlor occur8, the nrrlnees serned,r. frequency, tyn, etc.
28
FOR OFFCIAL USE OI\JI Y

ti
t:'
DoD LA 7-10 049698
USONLY FOR OFFICHL
c. De'scriptlon of curretrt behavJoral

Tbis ection
6at:us'
of ttre lrclivicuaL'u d hls effectlvenees in theoe aec.. Also lncl,uded ere his attltuec toued ttis present duty etatue enal the envlroruoental sltrrEtlon jx vhlcl le lt l.lvin{.
include sn eva.Iuatlor jrterpersonal relatlonshisr L and "lrot
and
d.. Iteecrintlon of rrsonalltv etrrtrtrre

lnterVlev,
?
tyfe'
fnCorporatecl uder thls octlorr. ' Ie the lncllvlilual lroeture, docc he preeen.evlclence of a character dlsorder, pereonality defecto ot' rtctlro$ I u,
The nenberrls peraonallty otructurc ect type Bs seer ln tllt' And aB determined by r,EychoJogicaJ- ex8E1latotl orotlld Li:
etc.
El-Logg"s rl_!qo'$y_]u919ry. Ifrls eectlon 16 ctevoted to the character ,nt l>erootellty of the urente ad Bfbflnge; the lnfluence ancl reletlonohlpe vltlr neore; of tbe fanlly; ard the attitudes of the parent -- 1urtlcul-or.y tovarct se)nraJ. educatloa encl eclvlty. f - Blrth gloTFh.al ey:elopenj. . Slgnlflcant events our"roundlg blrth ad c&r'e 1n fnfqcy and ch!-dhood.. Early neurotlc deteroianta (perslstence of enur66, tenper. tat:re6, 6leep encl food cHeturbarrcee); early chikllood memureo; toet trafn-J-ug, etc. g' he.-ee,rvlce echool BJxd. occulglonal lls1to.ry"
Ejctent ad uration of educetloni learnlng <ij"ff1cul.t1es; reletlonsbll6 wlth teachere arcl studeDtBj natu'e of 6tuillee. Ilre occupetlonal bfstory ehoulil lncl,ude lfoot1on as to otue of <lut1+urletlonohlps rlth employers ad felaov-rrcrkere, freqrertcy of' io) cbar8e6, reason for change, lt".:, b. I\Ilt.ry hlstory.
e.
In ad.dttloatto Juportirrg the chroologicer,l rteguetrce of cluly etetooe acl advancement l rate, thlo eectlon shouk lncluile quA ltrtlve evahatlon of perfor:acej relatlonchips to Iners, senior letty officera, and, offlcere; dlscip].ltrry cltfflculty, etc' 1. Sofal
and rgljlelo-rg.-!fetor{.
Of Ftfcular lroportence here Ie type of acl;lvltles tlre JJldlvldu8l engsges 1 and 18 lnteresbeatJ.n; typee of people he gets u,L:tt{ w1th, qrit tloesurt get along rlth; frfenito and hfe relatfonshlpo witl: frlends (leader, follower, Bocl8-]- j.eolete); dlfficultlerl vltlt DoIlct)
Fon 0FtfClAT, sl tft\/
DoD LA 7-10 049699
.l
I
or Juvenlle authoritfes; when the llvld.r.l l-eft hce and why. loo, re]-lgloue bellefs, aEount of trE.rtfclIEtlon 1n orgaxlzed' rrshlp, ard' de8ree to rhlcb the fctfvlrt 1e.gfdd by hls rellglous be1lef,e. J.
CorpJg.lg3j$e
eena.l-pqrltel bigtory.
Ealy se)RrI experl,etceg eenral lstructlon; oneet of nrberty the fdlvldu-l; tye of gexua.l adJushent; heteroaenrel blatoly; other eexua.I "derrlatlone". If nauledl, tyPe of lErsotrr orral.I adJuetaent to rua,rloge; reletlonehlp to sporse et tlme of hoeexual bebarlor, etc.
ad. eff,ect on
E. @'
trar{
tJrc Navy 6Gx,
lltls rectlan fcludes the lnillvldrra-lr
eutborlty, b18 trErs, ad hteclf.
rore genaral attitudes
I. Boutlr b'slcg-L and, nurologfcal exautnatlon:rltb nrtlcul atteutlon to tbe pocelbillty of subtle organic changee ln uature lrroona. Reort of lndfvltlrr-lre past Eedtca.l hfstory.
!r. tantet Etetug
esfstlon, e
Atrtlpsrsce o! tb,e fillvltiuf ad, b18 behvfor r.rrlng the e:cp"1atf.on. A dete:ftlon of approtrtrltsBe8 of, eotlo!8J. rslouFei geoeral .uood tone pooofble tbougbt d1trbec (confuslou blocktng, retsdêt1on, dlaluelone) lewl of lltI}ectret functlonfng, aad Gvldence of tto11ctrral lnpafrent adequacy of Judgrcnti oralveneee, etc. 9Becfflc Etatent e to nental c:lptence alal aerlty.
rlr gumy of psychletrlc
F-Fe@
exmlnet'lon aDil .fo:muletfon o1

s.LL
ot'lratlonal lnfluenceor eer.nl bslsv!.or.
avaf.Lablo Baphlatr{,c Dstriat to descrlbe tbe 'dtvltlual aa a !roon, hla rrlna,lry Ecane of coplng rlti the probLe@B of lly ltvtDg, tnport,Dt
and
lhla scctlon fe coucerned vlt ttegratfo of
tbs
the peychtetrlo etgniflcance of hle bcqo-
o.
pfnlons end, g@end"ettong
the pglnhletrfstts oplnlon based. ou t'le ebo'e lnfo:natlon, a the lttcotlboo of a recuL'rence of, the hqnoserua.l behevlor a the poeelbtllty of furtbr ILLreee ff rtalned, ln serylcc. (A recmendstlon also Ehoulcl bo ude e to approprlate illepoattlon (retura to duty, hogplta.lfEetlon, or eepa.ratlon).
3O
FO OFFICIAL U$ {)IVLV
'iP
'' -.
t'
:} f: i
DoD LA 7-1Q 049700
FOR OFFICIAT USE ONLi
Ietgtledreportgofpsychietrlcandpsychologlcal.exemilatlon rItl othe leea tecb1c41 lnfor$Btlon r11I provlde a tealth of reaeareh tlata nhich cs,u be ueeit to cotE Elore effectlvely vlth fectore hfcb re conilucf'e to brnoeexual activtty. llttu, fn adltfon to the gsycUlatrtc evaluatlon outlfne ebove, lnfoletj.on ehoril be obtelne ir tu relerte gerrrlce recoralr psychologicel tests, and questlonnai'es to be ccmplete by both he 1dl.''ldul an the Peychiatrlst. Such e cffeteal t the time of e:camiaifon ard w111 provlde baclc"t* "*, grounit na,trlal for the atual p6ychfatllc evafustlon afiit at tbe eae Ibae pernlt reEearch oo bonosexrallty wlthout ccmpllcatlng the operatlon&I
c@biDetl
prgr@.
I 1o hlghty deelrsbl_e that all_ reportE of psychlatrlc exalntlon be refefred, to the Bure,u.,of Meilfclne and sw.8pry for revlev rior to te Csse beg acte upon by a dieBoaitlonal boerd.. Iirls wtLL reult' l EOre utlfol$lty fl re!rtlDg end wIlI leITtlt tbe resotutlon of any 1Conglstnclee prlor to board ctlon. SuCh e progI.sr of revlev slso wfll p:rcvlde.a, fol of utrenriEory colltrol to iJx8ur'e L] I r0ed.ics.l ccu' -. puse rrttb tbe pertlnent cllrctlve' No slSnlffcaat d'eJ-ay fn the flnal d.lspooltlon of cs.ea te antfclpeted. A carefirl cIllcal evaluatlon provlcleo en \rusu.Ily rlch 6o\rce of uterlal. for u8e 1n detenlrng ,gproPrlete atf8Fosltion of ceses fnrrolvlrg bosexual1ty. Ihe cltcat. eraluatlon shouL not be the eole fgctor u8ed; bouever, lt ahoulct be glven e"en 1ght l{rlth admfletretlve f,actoro f-n dteltnlng the general couree of dlopooltlon to be folIoreil (leclra.rge, re{arn to duty, etc.). Determlnatlon of the approrrtatenee of d,lecff.nary actlon or the cla,ractei of diocherge, Ln c^seg vbere eeparation 1e epproPrlete, should be gowrned'.:y the eaee a,fufrcletretlye coolderatlos es are presentJ"y befng used' jl the cese of Eelbrs vlt'h peychtetrlc dlisorers vhlctr are matfested by
slmptrns
othe tban bcnoserorallty.
Sr.mqary
to dlecourage Bdeqtet pisychltric to tbe 'el&tlve Triftexibulty of dfopoe1tlon proced.urcs, an gtrtbgslg upon cetgorizg jrflvtua.ls lnto hosexuglsr poychotico, or rnallngerere. Psychlatrl6t tend, to feel thet a c@Itrtrebenstvc report le wtthout pr?o6e ar to ra av1l. eporte by non-peychlatric ned.lca], offlcers fa t provlde suffl.ciently ccuprehenslve terlal e to lack of aectfic trafnfng. A thoroughr ccdprehenslYe poychletrlc evaluetlon ie needecl to Feltiadequte retlev ard consideration for lcoper dlspoeltlon et e deParhental lerel' An outllne of adeqttete eraluetlon 18 provlded ard wrt]. be prerared by the psychlatrlt 1n the fleId. Tt1e dats vlLL be coll-ecteil by cod.ed gueotfonnalres to bc ccepleted by the ldlvlduaL and pychltrlst along rlth a wrlttcn report ftor the peychlatrlet, Iheoe reporte ehou.I be referre to tltc Bureau of Mecllclne 8nd Surgery for rvl-ev prlor to dlspoeltional actJotr' IhlE date 1s e:trellely Lrnportant to'gccrrulete for reseBlch pttrposeG a rlue clear .gulclance.
reports
Preeeot dtrectlve ten
d.ue
3I
FOR OFFICAL USE ONI.l,
DoD LA 7-'10 049701

eccmFudtisrus:
tbet:
In coonecilon rrltb the cl1XceJ. eveluetlon, f le
reco@eadeal
a. A detelleil and. ccmpreheuelve psycblatrfc.exan1atlon be In eech ctfve duty caee. b. Sufflctent detel].ed. lnfo:metlon be col]-ecte et tbe tlJ[e of tbe peychietrfc e:cu1a.tlon to permit couinulng reaeetrcb o b-ooexua-llty fa the nava.l oervlce. c. llbe general outlfe of the d.ete to be collected at tbe ttuie of peychletrlc evelutlon to be as fo].lorrg: (:.) Crenera,t baclcgrounci atl ttlentlfying data, (obtalned, frcn tlre ser.rrlce ecord and e gueetlonneire to be cFleted by tbe reober
rportal coacerned.),
trfBt.
Btr84:
(a) queatrom.etbe tg bg om+ete by the exqtnlng

(3)
CctnpreUeuelr:e
poychla-
cLlnlcal evaluatlou conerlng tbe follorrlng
(")
epleode,
,ccmpreheaelve hfetory ccaprehenelre btetory
of the rreaent
of
bmoeer$l
(u) a
hcoose)Ru1 behevlor.
(c) neeorfptlon of cureut bebavlorel tstus. (a) Ueacrfptlon of lesc'ballty structue end tyn, (e) vetopent of ,e.q!ly hletory.
(f) Afrtir, grorrth
and. derrelouent.
(g) Pe-eervlce ecbool (u) Ufutary bisrory.
en occupetfonal.
history,
(l)
(k)
Boclal
and,
rellgloua biitory.
ard
(J') Cpretenelve sexual
Eexltal hletory.
nst nodtcel hletory.
Attitudee. :. (r) fUyrcaf *li o"oiolo6lcal exaut-uetfon, lrrcludlng
FoR oFFtctAt usE Ofvty
DoD LA 7-10 049702
(n)
tence ed eanlty.
Menta:- etetus
errniretlon, l:rclutilng mcntal
conUre-
of
psychod.ynolcs.
(n) sumery i p"yonfqtifc exanlnatlon
and forruls't1on
(o) oprntons and recoroenchtlgns. . AIL exnfntlons be ooncluctetl by nedical offfcero trolned l the opocfalty of paychietry. r 11 reporto of cLlrtcel eva.lutfona be revlererl by the Clrlef qf tb Burear of Medlcfne ancl Surgery before the case 1o aeted uBon by e d.tooeltlon board, hoccduree eboulil prevlile for exndftlor
Irroces9.
t. Ihe peychleric evaluatlon be glven equal- velgtrt rr-lth Brini' tratlye factore 1 cletelln1n dl8posltlou of cases lnvoLvlr{J honoeerual1ty.
6.
neYfev roceilues,
e addeit to the
.Ae
ffireffi-
let?
Shorfd
svchltr16t
DiBcusBloB:
lbls allscuseton pertalns to the DepertnentaL rer-lew tlat 1o Ed l.n t'he Brreau of Neva.L Personnel an tseaquartera, Ivlarlne Corpo
of ceses fwlvlB hcoogexra,I ectlvitles by neval lrcroornel. lhe revlev of ce6 of tuscbarged lErsonnel by the'NaW Dl8chage Beylev Board and the Boe.rd. for Correctfon of Nenal Records ls not lclude ln thls dtssursloni but ls. treeted bereinafter *rtlru Boardre renrt (part f.n.).
Caoes J.nwlwlug hmooexr:-I actlvlttea by navl pergomel, actfve, rctlve or rtbecl, generalLy oxlglnste by voluntery confessfons made to e chapler, uecllcal offlcer or cuandiqg off,lcerj reports by e thh'd nr'y rltaeea tlst o or nore fnllvlctueL have engaged 1n honoeexual a,ctttrttlee; repartg by the vlctJae of rneolfclted. hosexuEl ad,venceo; confesslona foltorlng laneatlgetlons vhfch furllcete persone1 other tberx tbe EubJects o? the lnneetfgatlonj Of,flce of Na.eI Intelllgence reportg nci epcrtg ecelved, fcr tbe l.rrtelJ-fgence brarches of otho. nllltary serrlcea an Federal GoverrucntsJ. agencled; and. convlctios by civll euthorltlee. Upon recelpt of ffomatlon thst a enJ.istetl persorr on actlve duty ln the nelnl aervlce has engoged,L:r homoserua.l acttvlty, comnsndlnr offlcer causes a ccBpl-ete lnvestfgatlon to be nsde. ThlB lnvcstlgetlon By be coDd.uctecl by trelnecl lnveetlgetore eaoigned. to certaln coftands o to e greatr extent, ritb the cooperatlon anct essletsnce of Naval IntelllgeDce agente loceted rftbln the Distrlct or area.
t? JJ
FOA OFFICIAL USE ONI I,
DoD LA 7-10 049703
TOR OTFCIAL UST ONLY
Irr 'l'l caaes B co*rqditrg offlcer subnfte a report lnclulng a r.eccendetiou a to dleeltlon, tb the thfef of Navat Feronnel or Cada.t of te rfertne Corpe. lfhese leports Jc].ucle the reaulte of the lvetlgatlon aD al]. otber oatterg that uay be of asglstsce to . DelErt&entsl revlelrlng authorltteo; a Elgne ststement -c tle Ir8on 1l]vestlgBte, ubfch etatenen ls rdtnesseI and atteeteali snple chargee ad speciflctfono f epproprlete cases; agreenen to eccept ar utlealrable dllschage ln lleu of trfal by generaL eou't-nrf8-U B gtste|trDt of avaeleBs JJx certsln cses th,Bt Br undle8lrqble dleclurge uay be aa.rdedl beceuEe of Bltf-i[ors.l o Bntl-Bocia]'tralta; poychletrlc reporte aDil Ettoentg of vltneaaee, 1f enr.
InrsoreJ. generl1y orlgl-uete l the cases, FoJ.lovlng tqvettgBtfo en detenqfatlon by a ccuandlg offlce 0r euperfor.offlcer In the cbaln of c@d tbat noceeglg under SECI{AT Instructfon L6.L 'of Ju ]1953 ts .e{trfrd, s report 18 Butoltfd to the Cblf af Nava ersorel or tbc C@adsDt gf tbe I'lBrfe Corra. The report lscludes e st'toent fcn the offlcor 1yestlgateil, olgaed,, rlheeeeil anit atteetecl; Etatenente of vltnesses, 1f any; Fsychlatrlc rIrts; sryrFle cbar8ps ad specfficstfol8 1! epprorfete caseEi s rBtgnatlon fo te goodl of the ervlee adt t escape trfal by AeDeqaI corrt-nattef (fn Clss II casee), o for the esoi of tbe aervlce, (tn Clee XfI ceseo); eod tle recqeodetlon of tbe ccunatl{ng offlce.r or auIrlor offlce ss to d,1e!oe1t1sn. a@e Darure! as enllstedl
Caeg lrolvlng
offlcer
PDe Ddrn lbe a c88e of e lortn ls coB8trdere, sral at leest B !gJorlty of the ttrenbers &re re8erl offlcer8 r+!en the lndl\rldun]. be{ng conelderccl 18 I resenrc. All evaflble fnfouatlon pertaln'tng to the ca.se 1B trnlshed. th boad^s, facludlg tlre report ail rccemeudatlon sutmttted by the cc@od,, tbe d,ulcate oerrlce recordl ln tbe caee of eniated 'pergorg, anct the offlcer prsgffel record.s 1 the ceee of officers. f'ollorrtng etu(y an evaluatloq, the boards rry recorIurend anyone of the folLovlng actlons and dllosltfon: . ,, O ,. a. Retal the fndlvldr-ti- ; ,i l, r .: b. J66ue an en.lfetert pereon e tllocharge for the convenlence of the Oo1errent, lth the chrectr of the dlocherge such es ile
,
nu recelpt of, a cae lo tlre Denrtneat, 1t tE rlered 1 tbe arrroprlate lscftre or erfornance offlce f tibe Breau of Neval Persgrel. or Eead.quartera t'farfne Corn. lllhts rylelr lE for tbe rurnee of etclnlug vhether to r.otu tB cesg for the lnrrcatlgetfon 9r for trlal by uera], cott-artlal. Upoa tleterletlon thst te sae le ccorlete f a'l I sspeto, lt 1s refered to E boar of offloots for fLBaUDg6, opllonr BJrd, ree@eEClgtlgE Eecb case, excetrr one JvolvlDg trlal by gBap?.l csut-trartlel, te rferredl to such e boeral. Ilxee boed qce c@Ip8e of thee offlcefs nto ae senlor to tbe lndflrldu-l une conelderetloa. fre nerbrblp of tbo boerd lcLuile et least
servlce record, rrerrante,.
34
FOR oFFtctA[
t/sr 0ruly
'1li J: ').-'
'p,t!
DoD LA 7.10 049704
\..
'OR OfFICIAL USE ONLY
l, ..:
c. Dlscarge glr nl1s.td trprion: uder honorablc conilitlort fo' : . ulsult,b.1tY. d. Dlecharge an enl16t pr6on as u-rldesireble rrrler otl)er t)alt
hooreble ontl1t1on6'
e. Accept the reslgnatlon of an offlcer f. Accept the resgnatfon of an offlcer
a 6ubnit,td'
1n othe fonr'
scts. )
g. etura the cese to the com.end for addltions.l lnfonrt'l.or. h. Reeolye te cese by court-nartlal 'brlal lf gutlt ls 1n dorbt, 1. Reqlot perrlosios frco tbe Secretery of to Navy to try tbe peroon by court-uart1al. (I'hfs reccnmendtlon ls approprlete vherr B IErsotr ha been trled d, couvlced 1n a c1vll cour+, for hcuosental
,*u In ceea of Jactlve reeerv offlcers tle yrovlslons of, SECNAV Inetnctlon 1900,2 ae utfLlzed. ln proceesing for afulnlstretlve dlecb8rge. Itrer tht Instructlon, the boa.ril of offtcera prevloua]y deeerlbd. conrenee ancl the offlcer concerecl le efforileil, an pportu::tty to e4nar lf be oElres,
the Boerdts dtudy of the Departmonta.l revlew procedule dlecloueo t.at 1t 1s f,wd.qentaJJ.y sound antl adequate. DlfYiculty lras been e:qerfeaced, ho?ever, beceuee of lnadequete poychietrlc reporte. It 1e be1fevEd. thet nore ccorlete sychlatrtc reports wlLL nble boer(ls an errler1r6 euthorltles of per.oono beir43 ' couold.erd for ctiepositlonto bette eva-lute casea much to detect t,ho6c es hcmosexuals, vfJJ do IEf,soDs vho rney requlre addttlonal psychiatric sudy and treatlent, rrl!-l esalst revletrlng authorftlee to etter deternine vhether a Ixlrso) sbouLd be etslned or dlocharged fYcu.the newl servlce, end, vlrele eprrorrfeter.tbe character of the dlscherge to bc ar+ard.ed.
dlll/ers1fled erIerlence to guaretee fafr ard, Just consldere,tion of q1r fsctprs lnvolved. Addltlonally revieying offlcee 1n tle lJ\rreorr
sadl.
Upon epronal. by ths Secretary of, the Nevy, ppr.oBrlete SECNAV ordlee ore fonrsaled t tbe offflcer concetned., Otr, croendlng offfcer.
FoLLrIag boad ectlon, ech cee 1s EyleEi by eenlor offlcero ia tbo 8ueau of Navl Fersorurel or Eesdgusrters, !.farlEe CorpE. llnn eprova.l of the boad actlon 1n erltote cesesr a Letter 1o fesuod to th! lndirlua.Irs cconril{ng offlcer dlrecting bln to take tho actlon s f{nal,y s,prorretl. Offlce easeo ao fonrared to tho Eocr.etary of t'lro Nevy tor flnal octfon, Ir tte nor^l course of arente the Seeretary refere the cese to the Judge. Avooete Geaere.t for adclltlon. rrrlew.
Tbe Boeclte otudy dlscloeee th.at cpoeecl, of eenlor Nevy end l,farte Corpo
Denrhental revferr roarda nre
offlcere of oufflclently
>ronrl
35
frriR 0rFrcL tJ$[ {}l\{[\i

I
DoD LA 7-10 049705
L
FOB OFFICIAL UST ONLY
lar8-l Fersonne]- an lleadqus.rters, Marflre Corpsr wlro review the reccqmentlatlons of tbe boeds, have.hd years of rvlce experience and are quallfleil t<i render fair ad Just d.ete:rnJrrtloner belr ever qlndfirl of the beet ltereete of the neve.l eervlee as ttell e tbose
of
of the lndlrridus.I
concernedt.
A nedLeal JterBretetloD of the cljlcaJ- evaluetloa eltotLt be oade at deparfuental'level. Tb'Ie nay be hardlc efther by trevlne e poycbletriet atthe to the d1po61t1on boar or by revlev of the clllcal- eaJ.retLon ln the Buresu of Melcfne and sul8ry, as recqtmenddl Ln paragreplr C5 of rrCllJ,ca.L Eval.u.etons'' ebove.
In couctfon wlth the :rev.fer of caseg lnwlvfng r+wen, the tlnds t'bet aIL revlewtng authorlt'lee neecl eoe gulclance, artlcuJ-ar\y as to rat costftutes acte of honosexuallty. It le belleveil, botener, tet fim1ehlg copleo of tre report of tlrle Board. to allspoeltlbo board.e and Jpproveit clllcal elsluatfone rd meallcal reconnendletlone rlll povfde the neceseary gufdece.
Doard
Srmay
e. heEent DepsttrentsJ revlev proceclure 16 fu.@enta.lly Bound' rlth the exceptlon tbat ttrere 1g no Provlslon for mecllcal revlev et the Departoentat IerI.
an<I adequete,
'
neoberahfp
and rc@eniltloEs are ede eval]oble; ceeg
b. ft $ not neaeesary that a:peychtetlet be addc to tle of Departnental revlew boarrle, lf Departnentel rnecllcal evlev
co Sq[e guldance LB needed iu corurectlon rIth the rovlov of bvolvfng b$oeexualXty 1n wcuen,
ReccmendejPlono:
a. Coltlnue the preoent Detrnrhental revier procedure rrlth tte additlon of revlev of the cllnleal evalutlon encl rc@endatlone by the Cblef of tbe Brreeu of l,lelcfne encl Swgery
Bureau
. Surnlsb for tbe gnrlaance t!lasftlon boerde 1n tho of Naral Persnnel ar Seadquartere, l{arine orps coples of thc report of tto o. .., :
,
7. Beeponefblllty to tre CtvlLla Comunlty. het ls the ree lb111 of the Na

lEcu8Elon:
nE8es eppeartDg
to the
cowr.url
It le the opfnlo! of the Boar, eupporte by teettnony of before lt 88 veIL a etatoents of clvlllan I8H
J
w.lt-
FOR trFICIAL USE ONIY
DoD LA 7-10 049706
ton
oFFrcrAL
usr brrrv
euthorlties that the Narry oe6 no responoibility to 1he civ-iI1ar comnunitl rdtr regard to homoseoa16 sepal'atat frcn the eervice exceptln6 in casee of thoee faLl1ne rrtthl Class I viro here exhfbited vlclouE or dangeroue tendenclea or bo have been lnvolved l aets of .' perverslon rrltb rilnore,
enforcexqen
fn the vords of Dr, l{arfeil S. Guttracher, Chief Meclice,l Officer of Bs-Lt1-nore, "As fe.r as the orclnary lcosexu.I 1o coneernecl there aptrEars t be nothlng tire se'vice orres tle ccmnunity. Clvf-lan authorltfes have & pretty bigh degrcc of tolersnce wlth rcgard to tbe routlne honosexual ectivfty. " of te
Supreroe Bench
Rec.n[elalatlone:
a. Ttle Chlef of llaval Peeomel and the Ccinrt of .thr: Ma1neCorps, ohell, only ln cases wherein the homosexual has been deterulnetl to be e publlc rDenace or the offense for vtrlch he ves separat involve<l chll-clen* report the caee to the Federal Brrl.eau of fnveotigatlon tlrrougn norua-l channels for such .ctl.on as nay be necesory in l)e public jntereci;,
*Attentloa is invited. to tlle age llnit, of ten yeats tonocr in the neu moale]. cole,
B, Screenlng of p.ppllcants for enllsher.!.

Qfscusoion:
sdnnistratlve procetlures &t tlte t,ecruitlrrg levrll ard, ejeclrion of a certefn proportion 'of orert bcraoexuals who apply for en1stuent or &plK)ltrent ln the nvs-l Eervlce. Holever, tlrese procealure6, lnclutiin6 pollce cheeko, beclgrowrd. nveotigatlons vher ppropt-iate, ald tire routfne enJ_fsten1, fhofcaf ex&nfnatlon, usuIly. sel.ve to el-i-@inste onJ_y flrc rnore f"a1;rant: ed exlibltionistlc of the confirmed. hoscxuls.
rhicb
aid in the fent:i.ficatlon
Ttrebe e.re thee
19 lo1ble that the pt,oportion of hcruoucxr.ral..epp.licati,o et the recuiting level nlglrt be sli.glrtly increased by ueklng provlBtol for a itensive psychietrlc evaluetlon uron erioboent or appointdent. Hercver, past exnrlence ras ind.icet*:<I urat peychiatrir: exiretion on the recrultlng stat:lon rever j6 of questfonabre varld.fty ln the identlflcetlon of cnotionally clisturled incilvlcluals and certalnl;,. rould, not be feasible 1n tre navJ- Eervlce flr(l the Etadljjt of thc tnotrey a.nd. profecslons.I personnel requireti. Accorcllngly, it is doubtful lf any nolflcatlon of ecreenlng procedrre at recnrlting statfons 1B
eholre,ted,
It
fud.lcated, provldln tbe preoent pr.oceduree are caref\lJ.y end thomugirl;,' cs'rried out.
Over a perlod
has beeu d.erreloped. and refined eo as to ovcrc(ne the umitations vlliclr ere lnherent j ecreenlng et Lhe recruitlng or lnductlon stetlol level In fct, 1t 1B conoidered tlret the systeu of peychfatrlc acreenfu{E nov
of yeerc, the
Navyrs progrsm iD plevet)tlle I)ycirl.ntr.y
fON FFICIAL
3,/ , ,
I'ff OruLY
DoD LA 7-10 049707
FOR OTIICIAL USE ONLY
-.
utllized Bt recruit trainng Bctfvities constftutee as adequate a at present for tbe cletection of loqoFexre1ty i nevly en}lgteal.eenbers. The f\uauental prenloe of th16 rrogr@ 1 t the lntenstve psychtatrle Ecyee1-ng !ust be conducted a^fter the ldlvfdua-l b"as ectusl.y entere'al the milltarr envlroment. Dui-g the eerly perlod of trei-nlng, nany aspecte of, the 1ncllvldualrg peroonallty bec@e appaent lrhlch ere not reedily decernlblc whtle be 1s Etfr,l e member of the cllilian comunity, to rllch he has nade e peychologlal edJustrnent. Thts ie pErtlcu1ar].y tfue ln connectlon. v"lth hcoosexua-11.ty, a@ucb ers eq)oure to an exclueively oaecul.lne group and close cost,c rrltb sirfpmatei ln the cource of allly l1vlng frequently nalrea te 6e)or-l conflict ore apparent to both the 1d1vidual
progEn &s can be develoled
concerse so4 the poychietrlc exainer.

olpte
is only one of a nr.uber .of of euotlolal. dletubance or personallty dlsorder. While gcme persoD dlaplay evfdence of their eotional distubarice ln euch ehB.triof a.s repoetecl Al.IOLrs or excesEfve ilrlnklng, other persontr msr anffeet erl-ldeace of the Bsrle t)rt of psychtetrlc dlsoriler througb hcmosexusl bebevlor. Xo addlltlon, hcnoeexua.Iity eIFo Ey be syopt@atfc of a nrqber of beslca.{y cllfferent poychfetric d,leturbances. ferefore, l the fece of deulsl by the lncllv1clual, ther are no BInclfic crfteria ublch wll]' po:nlt the peycbletrlst to eay tbat o glrn lndiv1d.usJ. ha fjJ<Btd. on the emBtcen gf overt bmosexuall-ty. It is eren more dlfflcrLt to ldentfy trErsour !ho rrlLl at s@e tlte f the fiture ouccrnb to hoseual e,cts. Regerleae of the tlne ad, efforb Ellent 1D Ecreenfng gf th16 Dature, go nuch depende o[ the artlcu-Lar set of-cfrclnst$ces rurround.lng tbe cG@lEE1on of hcqooexuI acto, ill tbe case of IErBong ho are ot coffiEedl hcnrocexus.ls, ttrat & more eleborate scr.eeafrg prog:rel oa the enJ.lslaeut level, w'lth tlre fev oeclftc exceptlone hlch are l8cuBed. belon, rouLcl not be reallstlc. Support of thie po8ltlon fs eeo l the fact thet caae are repeBteitly etrcountred nher ueubere have succee8ftLUy nseed e rfgorouo ecreening for top secret clearerce ed. lter prov to be conflned. hcrnosexuals. Ilhe exclualon frc4 ervlce of elJ- lersons uho, on tbe baele of tbeir peroonality oructw, corld coDbefvebly engee ds tcnosexual ecte 1s totally unfeaslble ln rrlev of the large proportion of the yoll.E,s edua.roale populatlon vhich feILB 1 thfe category.
SroaLy Bpeak{ng, booserRra-l1ty
At tdre preeent tine, the }lavyrs preventive psyctrlatry progren fe so, etructrrecl a to provitle for the psychlatrlc screetrig of all aev recrulte et the th.ree Nv.l $-alning Ceuters nA ro Marine Corpo Aecr:tit Depoto. I add:ltton, Fll nev].y elrpolntecl BlBhLlren at the lfaval Acadeuy rêcelve e thoror:gh neuropychlatric clreluetlon. lfhere are, hor.t'\er, eeveral large prograus :Iditere tbe nevly enl-lsted o epplted meobere do not receive a speclalized psychiatfc e:<sofetfou.
l'r'
'
loteble ong ttreee ar. tb Naval Reserve Oflcer ttrlnJng Corpo stutlento ln the college grogrmr offlcer Cadidte Schoole, Naval Avtation Cedeto, and tbe orgealzecl regerr/e units.
3B
Fofl 0FFtcft us 0rvtJ
i:j;.
''j.
DoD LA 7-10 049708
FOR 0FFICIAL USE Olr.Y

The ]-ack of an adequaLc psyc:tatric 6i;l'eetilu, i)'r)til'ul i)i' of feserve utrttB 1s of Irticul'gr eiguficanc:e in vlev o1' tlt.: Elze of the lnactive reeervc cornponettt. IIo{ever, the devel<.rynent o1' a atlEfectory progre! for screenJ,ng of eftlrer Organzed Ileserl'c or {RoTC tbfts conetltutes Bn e:ctt'ene}y ccup}ex prob}er. this ls tl'tre for tHo ree8ons: flrst, thee are nsufficent guallfied psychiatic trEr8onûe1 oo.active tluty to concluct the necessary exsJnlna't1()ns, Iflt the rnlts be1n6 oo wldely scattered. erd the nrrrbcr of 'percounel att,chcri to eecb organlzatloo so cro.lI. In additlon, menlJers :in thetie trr Ioup6 are EtjIL 1.1vfug.in er essentially civlli61 envlvonment att a'c aot eublected to the stresqc whlcr nrlgirt aitl fr brj.rt31n1 dj.prlue-lifJl.irtl bcnosexual- tndencles or conflj.cts to the surface.
npnbss
of ix&clrivl: rrscrv* of tvo espects of tie rese:e prqgre. Flrst, ocreening of a1l ncvfy nllsted reserve *r'ootrtie gbouL be acccopllsbecl d,urlng hel:: flrst perlod of actlve duty for tralqg. A second j-mproveroent in th 6creenl! of reserves could bc ade by provid,lg blllets ln lcey ogerled. unlte for'Fsychis.trlsto and clinlcal peycbologlote. At the present tfue, there are no blllets 1n the reeerv trrro6reu for tlresc opecialiet, although a nruber of vel.ltrefed anat experlenced officejr's have lnttlcateil an jntereEt 1n servfn{J Jn a pey tstua. The etbl1lrnent of tw or thrcc bil1cta for psychiatrlste en cllleal psychologl,ets ln eeci of the larger rnetro:oI1ta:r aess'rJouJ.d. be Bufficlent to gr.ovlde for the routine ccreenirg of o la,rge nunber of reoer\e un1t6. Moreover, during e tro Heeli tour of ectlve duty these offlcers cou-Ld evaJ-u,Bte nebe}.s of reoerve unlt6 in lor l6olatetl areas. It ls inportant tbat prlorlty be gtven to tie collidertlou of tl esteb]161ment of psychiatrlc bj-llets ln tloee. aras vlxer 'eeerv uDft6 arE geo8raphlcly isolated fro naral neclcel octfuitleB rlth psycbtatrlc facilittes, Ihls ls a ubject tJrat could IL be studlect l connectfon rritb thc I{eee've Plograrn,
IETEoD1eI cax be colreatecl by nood.ifiction
Fe6ent iteffclencieE i.r the screenln!
.1.
ft 1s understood. tht nevlJ,4 enl-1cted rcet'vcij {ll'c nonually to trp reeke ectlve cluty for treinin et e recluii trairring actlvityr 1f they ee not lndedlatl-y ordcl'ed to sctivc (iltty, vltlrj! the flr6t year. llhese persoruel r,-hoult. be scrocned pgychjatrically l.ri.g tbe trainig trEiod.. he ottrer rcserver gotng lrrunedlate1v t,o actlve uty vlll get the norBJ. psychi-etric ocrcenin3.
grdred
l6lad,. llb ee extent, tle ]ack of ocreenj.g of Aviation Cadeto by epeclellst8 1 Eel8opsychfatry 1s ccrnpensatr:d for l)y tlrc eKter(jivc roecilcl prograu coaducted by flight anrl ro,-'lioir;c !n i;)rj . i,t: 'i\lrgcor).J, Igra& Ls reccnmencled. ,
Ehode
A neuropsychlatrlc 6creen1n6 progrsu fo tle Offjcer Catliret Scbool ce be fotftuted. lf addltional blllets fol pnyt:,hiat-rlsto and clllcal psycb.ologlstB.ar Eadc evalLeble at the N&veI Statlon, leIport,
Srfury:
{,
'
. heeent pohfatrid rrocerlurxr ap)a)' to ) adegurt.r.l except 1n tboee areag covered. by tlie recorrr'uai:ior lt: latr, .Hor:i: jr1:tti't.:
. )
jscr-eerh4;
0fi r)rflr)j/{t
ijs[ 0fiJt y
DoD LA 7-10 049709
tOR OFFtctAt
ust ONLy"
on tbe basl of tbe nr.l4ber of.Bctul or potentlel uould be excl,rd.e et tbet tee.
:
ecreenl pracedures at the recrultlng level sort]. not be Ju8tlfied ho0oEexu8L6 thBt
Recffiend,Btfons:
f conrectlon wft the sceenjg and appofaaent, lt is reconended. thetr

should.be carefulJ.y follo<i.
of appLicate for
enLlsuent
B. No besic changes be nade i.rl acreenfng proceduree et the recrultllg or trahfng Etatlon levelj borver, the preeent, proceaiues b. A paychietrlc exerlrratlon shorI be lnetltute B part of tbe 1nltlel fhffcal exa4lnetlon fo Regular NR04C nlttshlpaen andl for cotrect Aqrc stuclent prlor to entf{ng the senlor dlvlsfon. c. CoD-efd.eratlon b glven to ests,b:llshf.r8 a lf.ulfted. nr.mbe of pey 6f,atu6 blJ.Lets l qrgsnlzed. reeeve unlts for psycblatriats al clf1cal psycbologlet,e as part of the,,Neval Reeerve progrnn. l!1le
norrlcl pe:rnit tbe elllttn of e@e of the.hoserua-1. lcllvidrale rto ee aeparatedl at preeent only after tUey'ha're been ord.eredt to active duty.
reeks actlve duty for tral{ng perfo.
d ELlfsted reoefl/E purur-ui, not lmed,leteJ.y orclered. to er. tended acttlte d.utr, be screeneil psychlatricaly dr.rrrg the norueJ" trro
ho6reo.
e. Add,1tlonl blets be est,blfshecl for rro psychlatriete and oue clltelce.l peyctrologtot at the Neval Statlon, Newrcrt, nhodle fslald tg pe:Blt the lnaugur:tlon of a foluEl progrs for ecreenlg re6ei\e offlcers enteriug the servfce.tb.rough the Officer Cerdidte School
9.
!r1 Elgn be_lr.ateq di

DlscusBlo:
Ehe conse$ua of most wltne66ee before tho Boerd vas to the effect tbat there should, be no d.lfference in the treefuent of men or ren bosexuals. IlreEeEt procedures 1n the A:my, A1r Force, end, lW lndtcate tbet tbee ie uolr no dlssfuilerlty l_a ha:rd.I1ng, It i6 to be notecl trat the lncldence ate of hoo8exu8l activity 1s nuch blgher for the fenqle than Are as rfrec@d l the etetistics alrajl-a,ble to the Board. 5h1e htgber rate nay resul.t fcsr: a. Closer suervision of rronr nembera of he gcvice.
b. Mlslterpretgtlol of certefn nonos,l fenole propensltles hoeenrgl ctg.

40
as
F0[
0FFtc,L
usE 0i\/ty
jJ,
DoD LA 7.10 049710
FOn OFFICIAL US*uNLr
the abno:p-l ntl-ltgry setting.
c.oreatersusceptJbilltyofbhel'et'lc1;r>sttclractivit,
nay bc noi'e
latent
hc0o6exual tnencies.
. Mititery servlce
attractive to ft:alcs vith
Is in contt'dlction to the fuct that, hrutosc)xral. o(:t,jvlty s dlfficult to detect. Eclloe)ru8.I octv!ty of femule memLers of ute niilitry hos oDreucrl to be nore d,sruptlve of mor.al-e ird dj.sclpline i.u tlrc past tlllrr slttIr ra.le activlty. Of concern, erd lrtcresb to tlre Roard', r+rs thc &Ipaxent tlee(t for a more defi1tl\e pproach and aralysis ss to rrat ionstitulE llcmoEexuaL activfty aIong 1fon a revealed .y the testiruprty ,:cfore tlc
1. the f,eoale
1rhls
Boa;cd.
The mores of preent d&y society occept the fct thBt vr$c k16 aat embrece each othcr on tneetlng anil nay lIvc togcl;her and oc(:rlpy
tle
same b. wi.thout
brand9.
6t,rces Hhere sl-ntIl.
ay connotatlon of hnoexuIity, uncler crcrn* ats on tlre part of ms'le roul.<l be ied'latell'
trfie tlifference ln the poychologlcal ad ilyElol-oscar iu(e-tp of the fengle, the greater need for qnotiotlal orttlet, and cu:'rently sociglly s,cceptedl practicec nust be evlurtcd ir: arly alJ.cgatJolt as i.o hCmOSexUallty. l"fBlly act6 uhich ot occ8siot: &r{r jl fact l.Olfll ln)llri ln excess nd.icate hcrrose:cuI tr:nd.cncies. It fs considered inrccsiI.e to provide a fixcci ard cont:j;;e OveraIL tlef,1ition as to all th6t constitutes rcnoscxttal ctlvlty iit tbe fen^B.Ie. A general defiltion'of e houo6cxuBl ct is tl:ut colrrtcl: betseen tvo or tnore persons of the ane aex ccvunitterl or engaS,c ir'r rrlth the lntent or fo the prrrpose of sextal ot'outal or'6rotlficrltjori,' There ca.be horaosexuI activlty r,rithor:t lSenJtal contac, altltoul;h
scne euthoritj-es vould. definc a honosexual Oct a$ onc vlic] prorttc',:r; orgesB. Primary reflance must, hotrever, be plnced <n anr over'afl appraisal of the ldfvldua]''s sctivlty as to vhetlre' I DatteIn is sr1: rpresentlg the habltual .rerfor.aance of pe rsons lrotosexunl jr jttcl:nrl' j
rrr
EcuosexuI activity by ttornen 1s haier to clcl;cct. \'Joruen a:rt: no:oalf.y lore secretve, are not as pt'o1s(:uots, t!t( ll]'Ll lno'r) 5t(:1u:; j /' then the mgle, !heleae tle nnl,e io qot ao scl.cctjr"c t:it,llcr as tcr pertner hor a.s to .ocale as the fiund,le.
Differences ln j:terprel,rtlon of vhrrt eolll Li t;ttts itoltrrsextitl activlty is ref,Iected in the iiferencee in categor'z&tlor )etv('u l,'.: lfarj:re Corps on tl:e one liand Jlc't tte I'lvy on tire other. '.t\lstlnrorry sbo.vs that tre tra,Jorlty of recent cases ir tlte l4rir-iro Cr>rpc ravt'lrt:t'r'
lrL
FOt?
0FFtctiir iJSt t)NLy
DoD LA 7-10 049711
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY\proceB6ed. as C1s.a6 IfI, vlth a convenience.of the Govenlrent iljsclrarget vhife 1 the Nvlf they h,ve been roceosed. aa Claos II trltlr ar rndesirab].e ilfscherge. i . .' ,' ,. ,
sg**lu: 8 Bcoosexus.l activlty 1s harder to detect ln the feaeIe. ' b. lday act6 nomal to the fenale are lndlcatlve of hcuooexuallty 1n the nale. Go Apporetl-y, there are urcertelntles fn scne quarters ae to rtet ccmgtftute hqroexuel activlty 1n tbe feeale. d,. Consenoue thet tlere shoul. be no dlfference in the handJ-lng of sa-Le or femal.e hosexutrls.
l
Re.ccroen{pttong
e. No atteopt ie ocle to cllfferentlate etween Den scl Eonen l the Instructfon witJr reepect to procedurs or diepooitfon for hto6e:fl.r-l ecttvity, b. Caeful tY'iev be nade of all elLe8atfona concereing h@oactivlty of f@ale neErbere of te 6ervice to en8ure thet e pattern representstl'e of hosexuel sorclct Xe preoent, as dlatlngulahed fr' uoE6l 56stnly eccepied bebavlor.
sexu1
10. +ggtrln{9lon
i6cu61otr:
gr9. Edus*lloJr of .Recvurte ogHooosexualf.ty. .J4.,
O l-l+ Noebe r L952 tlie Secretay of the llawy 1structetl the Chlef of l{eva^l rBonneL to est,bllsh proceluree for. 1ngle.entlg the InBrE for the idoctrlnetfon of naral personnel at Nava.I rajrrlng oa Centra - the eubect of b@osexullty. n l+ cenuer 1952 the Chief of Nerral Per6oDnel eppolted a ccumlttee to fioplenent the prograrn, Thle c@l.ttee fE stilL furctfonJIg. A letter of 22 Decenbet L)Jz frcm the Cblef of Navql PersonneJ, lbafiefng Dlvielon, Bureau of Naval Pereonel d,lrected, that the lstuctlons ou hcrnoeexrallty be extentted, to lncludte !une!. Crrett pr.ocedwes provicte tlnt tlre instruct,lon be e one-period, ltroductory, stereotynd lectue to be clellvereil to recrutta, ne.Ie a. femne, durig recruit tralnlng by e teen of officers a"ely, uecllcel offlcer, cheplain, and, a llne dflcer. Ttre general $rrle la to acgualt the recrult trlth the exlstence of honoeoxuallty and the badl effecte thet lnvolvenent riou.l.d produce. Honooxuatlty e6 sucb is 1entlflecl a a barl thlng. Atteoopt le nade to erp].ain the !ture of bctro6exu11ty. Suggestlone are of,fered to j.nstructors tret they be c{rT, serlous, enil obJectlve atd tll8t tbe BubJect be presented plal leoguage, Cse hiEtorleE er preoented, Questi-on of security
ltz
FOB 0FFCtAt
us[
OflJty
,i..
DoD LA 7-10 049712
FOR OFIICIAL USE-UNLY
ri6k 16 htroduced., ard the llel-y'6 attituclc ls pr'escutcd cn tlte subJect. (Ss-ple iectureq attetred as r\ppertdlx 116, rart tT.) the 3orat notel that rlo'planned edtcatlon-al pro(lr&l exlctc beond the
rec:nl.t leve]..
Cc@entg:
esul-ts. ' fhere 1e no reoent ffolruBtlon evallable to lndicte the degree of effectflreoe of thle eclucatlona- prograar. There le no lnfostlon to deontrate that e.ny haE has been produced or on tle otber hard t'let any direct bnefft, hes occ'urfetl. Whlle ft 8ee.6 reooreble to Provf.d ifomatloo tn thfs erea, scoe cautlon ls regulrecl in gvr-lregent!-ug n over-emraslzlng the Eeterlal ln eo fer. ns tnts tcadle to create a sene of undLue fuportance or curlostty ln thls aubJect. Scoe of trs gmlttee felt the,t thle lndoctrlretfon ehould be alded a abetted by p.epered, fil on the oubJect of h@osexus-I1ty. flr18 st.ld beve the advantage of or rrofesolonal. 6kilJ- and, careftJ. hqdf{ng adl unlfono resentatton. Tl l,{a!ne Corl>a recnrlts are not glven B rcutle regular lectue ont'thle speclfic 6ubJect.
:
A lescrlptlon of the ongolng prolrsl ac deecriber above trea reeented to the Cculttee by Clap1aln Gareti I'lio fel-t tlrat the 1ogram vas gulte eetlsfectory. Ife strongl.y .sucgestect thet the stardard, vltten teJ<t be contrrred of a.I} ctivitfc afnce indivldua]. varlatlono ln the l:reaented materlal vere sq[etnes extreme and emla:lasolng ln thelr
grry
f95e tbe Secretary of the Neyy d.lrected the ureau of l,lavsl to prorrtde scqe lnstructlon to rêcrults on the subJect of hcos)cuallty at tbe vrrfoua tra,fnlng centers, lthle pro6run bao beer. Ltrplceteal fo the l)ost fou yeare. fhe preoentetlon j6 ctivfdecl beteo the uelcal offfcer, chapLslr art 1le offlcer sd va.rlous Ied.lca.l, etbfcal, ad df,sclpllnery aspectg B.re preeented, Evfdence is liconclu.s1ve rgadlg t'he beneflt or dlsa.dvntage of t)rle preeentstion,
Pereonnel Reconendatloue:
e' h.et the present edircetional rrogran continru: r,rs tlre i'eslx)u^ albfllty of e ccnmlttee appollrt by tre Ch{ef of Noval pc:.sonncl
.
b. Ttret a efforb be mad.e to d,etennlne flre t-"ffec1:J.vene of the trr8ent educBtlonsJ- pro5r6m preliroiary to Jnsltrtlng any chsrlr4erj
tJrerein.
ll.
S.-ecwlty 1sptlcat]gli,gt_!, rggugggllgl.

Discueslon:
xecutlve Order 1olr50 of 2'i /rprl] l!)J provi<c' t:irat cer.i:a1n sultb1Itty f,e'ctore be ilveetl5ated to develop lrfonnr,lon rti to utrct:hor
Ir:j
F0ft 0Ffl0#il. ust 0lvr I,
DoD LA 7-'10 049713
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL'I'-
Dong these
the enploent or retentloD in enployrae4t 1n the Ilederal Eervlce of tlre perBoa ls clearly cotr8l8tent rlth tbe fnterests of the national eecurlty.
' t factor6'are: n(rrr) Any crlmfnal, lafanous, dlehonest, fnqoral, or notorlouoly d.lagraeeful conduct, bebltual- uee of lntoxlcate to excese, drug edd,fctlon o eexual- perveralon. (fv) .0n edJudlcetfon of lnsely, or treatuent f,or eerlors treta.l or neultologlcs.l dl8order \althout at1fctory evidence of cure. (v) fV facte vl1ch firrlgh reao to beliere that the lndlvftlua'l trey be oubJected tQ coerclon, l.nfluence or Preaaure Hhlch ny ceuae bl.l[ to sct contrary to the best fntoreEts of the natlonel
eecurlty. "
Depahent of Defen8e Dlrectlve 5210.9 of I? Jue 1956 etrd sECl,IAv Iqst;ructlon 552L,6A of 3I Jer.ry I95? Blntl-"arly Eske these suftbr.r lty fectore apllcelle uniler tbe ullftary Fr6oEreI Securlty l'ogrut, firther lrovidrng that, unless other oecurfty factor are prfumrfly lnrlolvec!, qctfoa to$ard Beparatlo! vlf.I be lnstltuted lr theee ceses riler other aplrroltrlate regu.Latlons scl d1rectives.
fle Interl8 Report of the Subc.snilttee on InveetigetloEs of tte qctttto on cnncllturee of tbe Ser!te Snete Docuseat 2l+1, Stot Congreea, tl Seselon 1950 (Pait fT, Appenttlx 2lr) reports an lnvestlgetlon Jto the FnI-oJ4Bet by the Government of homosexuale srxd other sex peDrts. Tbe follorlg guotea..re lnrtlnent to thie problen:
Eubclttee ujcerely beJ-1evee th4t per8on8,affllcted Bexral eslres Hblch reult 1n thelr engagfng la ort acte of perverelon shouLd.,be coneidered a proper caea for 'ettlcel ad psychistrlc trealent. [orever, sex pervrte, Ilke e I otber ereoas vho by thelr overt ecta vfolete noral coclee acl vs ard the a.cceptecl etncliarls of cond.uct, muet be trieet as tra.asgressora acl dealt r1th eccordln61y. " vlth
neet accepteble etand.Eds of persotraJ. conduet. In the opllon of thla subccmlttee bonose)ruals anil otler sex perwrts are not proper'peroons to be enployed in Gover'eEt for ttro reaeonsj flrot, they ere general-1y uneultable, nnd eecondr they constltute Eeeurlty riaka.'r
r'lfboee cbarge rtth the r:eogoneibflfty of olleratlng the egencfeo of Covernneut nu6t lsl8t tbt Goveruent eoployeee
nlfbe
"vert acte of eex perverelon, lncludlg acts of hclnosexuellty, constftute a crlue uncler ou Fecleralr.Sete, an ututicfpal etatutes and person vhg coff[lt 6uch acte are lar vlolatore. AEld frcra crLuballty.and lmorellty tnvolve In sex perverslon such behavlor le eo cotrary to te noual- accepted sta,rdarde of soclel ,bebavtor tbet ereone who engege 1B uch activlty qre looked upo! Bs o.ut,gft6 by society genereJ"Iy.'r
l{4
FOR OFTICIA. USE OffI.Y
ji. c. .t1
DoD LA 7-10 049714
TOR OFFICIAL USE, ONI
I cootlnuatlol trl tulsui.talJ.lJty I'tr<:f.ril'u tlts aentlone:

,
l;ttcrxruntttee
a. I'act that Pervevts are frequent.,y strit-)t:<:1. i:o tlac]snall' b. Generally belJeverl that overt nci;s of Fl'v('r'6 j()l indlc^rtxl l'a,ck of eqotionaL Btebillty and rcalcene t}s. urortrt f'lr<'r r>f an lncllvldrral . c. PreBence ln Coverurt:nt'tedu to hivo ! c())'r'(){;i e efftlct. tlt felLov eployeeo. ,; d.
Teudency
to
seck lrio own lilrd ond y,ctlit:r' :i ve:cts alrrtt'
l jrrr.
I'The concluefon of the suhcowlttce tha0 r hott>gexua"l or otber sex pervet't 1s a secufty rlr.Jk js not baaed unn 'nere c.onJecture' That conclusion ls predj.cate':l upon ceefiI revleu of tle oplnlons of thoee beet guallfle<l to con8iIe mBtl:e].s of eecurlty ln Goverrpeni;, nanely, the lnteJlgence agencles of the toverruuent. ----. AIl of tbeee agencleg arl-' Jrr cornplete a8reertent thrt rlex pervert6 ln Goveruct constltutc secrtrlty Jslrn, ''
he. Subc",Flttee reutlOnu re fOJlotrjrg Axton8 occu:clty 'oct<_rrc:

mo:ca. f
a. Lack of enotlona.l st$billty Brid. $es,knes of' tlren eusceptlble t bledtotulen.bo of eeplonauc {Jenl;r .
reJ.atlonohlpo.
ib(:r nal.ef;
b.
fnd.ency tO con3regnt<: fut:i1i11,t:r r'ccc'nL.:r'r1,

bl.clqnr.rll..
ll.jr'1 .:inrle1.111:
, Suaceptlbulty to
' .
the fact that there rre otler pt.t'nr; oJ' )rrstan belvior' vhlch shoulcl bc considerr:d frt 1irss,rrg ttnrt ;lre gertilal st&1,u3 oI . eultabiJ.lty or secur'1ty-rj.$ktlorbt thet Covr'uut)ntdrunkars, ralitual rploJees. I'here Is ]-ittle perEor vho,have engriged 1n crjminal, actlvltle5, atd to8e vto indulg in otler typeo of lnfruor,r r>:c ocJtdeloue :elsnrall cr:nilirr:t are lu() tlcrtltbLe fo' GoverEnent ernpi-oymerrt and cor8ti't;ute set:tn'ity ;c1slts. Howsver, the strbcounittee, irr the resettt, inveotlgati.ort, ha8 proIErly confi1erl 11;sr:l.tr to t;l l)ro,.1.()rn cf sex perverte.rl
i'tEeroua ce-se6 \r'e rcj.,cd
ulfbe subcomlttee l.r polntlng ot; t;c rln0lrl.l.r'ilit) ,)I' perverte for overuucrtt crrployneriL js 6t 1''1'e ;r1'
to 1,llc :rrr'i[ rrlr]r! (:Lir,'cscut;e(i of hcno6exua]E lvolverl in securlty lnf rrrcLorrs, i)(11( t() te exteqt of egplo!âe. Exarupleo are discrreced irl le ur 1.1c1.,,' by iijclrartl aJ1d, G]dy Harkoess vhlch &trrylearerl in Septe:nl:rer l-9!i5 ilr;irc of lcsdcre
e:<ropIeo
).:,
'
Id)fr
()FFttAt
u,ff 0t{Ly
DoD LA 7-10 0497'15
TOR OFFICIAL
USI ONLF
ttgest (Pe"rt 1I, Appeudlx 5I). O the other ha cages were brou8lrt to the attentlo of te Boail vjxere. lndfrlduals eepeJrated aftr 1o9, bonoreble and feftbfiil ervice have'oulaequently beea r.ncovered, as
ha@osexua.lB
Ev'ea on the ba.ele tb.at tbe K1neey report exoggeratea the percentage of those ercclueively honoeexua.I l sture to tho6e lrevlB Ba rlucb oooaexuI ag hetrooexual natureo, there nust be a large . ntebet of tbege cetegorleo i the aervlce vto hs, newr been tllgcove.eal q vo rrlLL not be clecovered prtor. to seperatlon,
Ibe Boerd vBs lab].e to n.trcoyer eny otattottcal dete to proe. or clloprove.tbat bcooeexuaLe ere 1n'LuoreJ. fact mo.e of a aecurlty rlek than tbooe eugogeit ln other unsoclBl or e.ctlvlty. Eve4 the nunber of ca,ot of bLa,cln.all. revealecl as a reeult of past lnveetlgtlone, nlrleb r're c1td to the Boardt, fs negLlglble.
lbe Bo^ral feeJ.s thst it voutd. be preermptuous to neke conteat{ong to thoee erlrres8e fn the Cogregs and by <ecutfve Or'(le! on tbe ba^Bls of t+fornetfou evalleble to tt.
cgDtsJry
llxe Boart 1s 1n a$re@eut that e h@osexuel 1o not reces8erlly EoI'e of a eecr.Fltr r16k, trEr ee tbeu '6i[ q'lnJnnl cotes.. l\rther tbe Boeritother trarsgres8ors of noral r.scggnlzes thet tbe prol,eusltleg ' ulerabttftlee aosooleted vltb hosexuI a,ctivity, ea l tbe c86e of pr@ltscuoua heterose)(lral actfvlty, alo provtate serlou8 Eecurlty lJ[trIlcetloBs.
gt*ry a. qrreut Executlve td Deiorbentol securtty ordero anrl lstncttoe requfre fnveo1getlon erd el-l:slnetlon of selal- Inverta, lDcludlg h@osexu-lsr froa Goreruent serrlce aud nllltary soTlce. b, Sex lErverts, 1nclud,fug hcAoeexuale, are not hcLled under securlty illect1ts ulf.eso other eecurtty factore ar ptimrlly tvolved.
otbe nalefatolg.
centage
e. of
No
hcooseh.e.Is
statl8tlcs.I stuclle8 ae avallBble to lnfcete the perfapllcated 1n security vloletlone cErFaredl to
d. ltowh lt 1s trot felt thBt hoosexu8llty 1s nor.e of a cecurlty rcbleo tha other type of coocuplecence, the prolns1t1e6 nnil vuLuerablllties of bqoooelals alo provlde serlous eecurlty LoIrllcgtlons. e. If be Khsey report ls ralltt, there nust be uwerous h@ol 6ervlce ho ha/e .not been'dfscorrered, qnCt lfLL[ not b d.lecovereal prlor to eepaeifoh. fhfs doe'e not neceoerlly fnply a luaceerlable aecurlty rroblem. ,.; ,; ,.
aetnl,ls nov
l+6
FoR OFFtctA[ USI Of{t'l,
l'
Do LA 7-10 049716
tOR OFFICIAL USE 0'-f

Reccoeudstlons
:
a. A ettlatlcal tuy be lnj.tlated by the Dlrtrctor of Nval Intelligence f coordlnatton ritf the Chlef of Naral ftrsonnel and sten6 of the Me.lne Corl)s to levelop factual Lats on ue lncldence of gocurlty furttcetlone 1n hc-coxrel casee ae \relL i! categorlee t!ro1y.g tUei tyee of moral ttrItu ancl crln1nal actlv1ty. fhlo gtudy horrltl be extended to other agencieo of the Govrerrerrt 1f ' 1rractlceble. b. bat casee lnvolvlng houoeexuollty contlnr-rr: to he lrar'rllcd on ot'Tre th8 Eecurlty groundo, vhere practlcsble. . 12. Ivest-leat1veD-1ec],eelon.
pocecluree.
By sEglAv Inetructlon ,l+30.134 of 3-0 Arrguet l'9511 tbe Dlrector of l{a,va.l Intlllgenco 10 asslgne lnretlgetlve Jur18dlct1on ancl rearrt'' sfbfllty rlthf the Neval Estsbllgbent of, sog othe'g: "MaJo! vlolatlons of the llnifom Cocte of Mllftary Juotlce, eugh 85 nurder, nanal-eughter, r&pe, laceny, robbery, .forgery, nayb, oodcuy, eson, uutfnr, oeditlon, ertortlott, burglo,ry, perJury, and certslri conduct Fqlshable undtr Atfeles 133 ard l.3h of t1o Codo, such a rlggllng, traf,flcklng ln nsrcotlco, black-market ect1vltlea, ancl vlolstlo of cutc!6, poeta.L an cu*ency reguletlone."
In addttlon, sc'lAv Ietructfon 55,6I of 3I Jaurlry 1957 requits tbat the D1rector of Neval Intelllgence render lnveotlgatlve serrlces, on reguedt, f coectlon llth the evaluation of sultablllty fectors 'eferred, to in connectlon v1th tbe illecusslon of Executlve Clrder 1ol+5o, 1tu CII ebore. , j
foreiglng reeronslbt.rtreo wlth reo:er:! to aesral aleconduct, ad hoosexua.lfty Xrr rartlcular, the Dlrector of Naval IntelLlgence is6uecl oNI Instnlction 55ao.1rB of L5 octoter 1956 as gu!.rnce to hls fnveotlgatlre agenciee.
In fenentatl"on o
t,he,
lve lveetlgetlve peroonnel-
It res rerealed ln te testlmony thot certoJn largt: nawrl atotlolu rltbf. the ccomrard. In these, 1t lo c@rot1 grs,ctlce to lnltlet the fnveetlgetlotrs vltlrout reference l:;o the Director' of leva1 htelllgence; hovever, oll"l lE calletl in nt (ert8ln t8gel of the 1ve6t1gatloo la nany csaes.
Repreeentttves of the irector of Noval Intx:.l16ence cxll-ainer 1 deta1l the procedures ad FoLicleo fn forcc in the 0ff1(:e of lloval Itelllgence rltb reopect to the corduct of lnveotigatoio ond '!ulr'r.icv;. Tbe fo]-lo'rl!g ae the hlghllgbt c'f the llreentatlon:
tt7
fOfi 0Ffl0t4t /s[ {}ff.t
DoD LA 7-10 049717

li,
, .. i''
FOR OFF(]IAL USE ONLY
e. IDve8tfgetfoue fn thla orea are Jlt1etd' only by rsguest 6f s mentl or otber responslble Butor1ty, .e., not on the lnltlatlvE of tbe Dfrector of Nova.l,Intellf8cce or hls representatfree' b. In 811 tnveetigatlons, llterwles 1e not ttIt untJ-t ar e! pcrtfant lnveatlgatlre }ea.d-s heve been covered. c,
uncr tJ
Trr 61ut{g an
rterrlev:
(1) Ele 1dlntdual ls firet flvarlably arseil of bfs rlgbta of MALItf Jue'llce. (2) [te lndlvtduel ls bforf,etl of, t'be Pu4)oes of the ltervlen but 18 Dot norually 6fyen the 'eeultE of tbe i-oveotlgetlon or ldcntlty of 1-ufomants. Soretlle frqg@ntary lnfonetlon 1E 'cr,Gl to lattftete tbe lterrogetlon. (E) ft e roaa ls tvolveAri she fe alrrars offee tbe oplt;rstty, vblcb ls rareiy acqeptgd.r. to heve aother nwan reeent.
Cocle
of force by lntervteer are Dot tolcratcd. (5) It le ot Doila,I proceiture to aek ldivlduala 1f tey ileefe counsel rrlor ta laterrogetlou. (6) !!re neaalng of terns usetl are exilalaed' 1n orclor to rectude ret'ractlon of confe8ston op gr.ouncl of, b'ck of und,erotandlag. roccqendtlon re DEde tat, 1 gcloe cre, 1 lfeu of or rlor to a Ol{I lnret16et1on, 1t rght be bstter to beve traloof, ler8oet rrcu (curer Il3fty otftcers) llterrlelf I,er8oD8 errpectetl hr'msexuI1ty. llbe paycbletrlc exmletlon sbould not bo glven af,fer a IErBot ba been taterrogated for boua or bI thst tL, ho 1e e
(l+) Ibreate or.rae
aBturb lnrson.
It la concedeil thEt ln uany fstances e greltrnlnary lnrcstlgtlou ls eeeentlel 1 order to deteulne rether or Dot fere 1e a caae of nerlt on v1ch to bs,se e reqtreet for actfon by te Dfutctor of Neral IntellJgence. Sucb re1{.{'sV tnveotlgetloa obould bolever not bo rseil as I basfs for fafLue to requeet the servfceg of tbe DlrGctor f fevet ltefgence uor te fcte vsrrant. fiteroot, crc ccae1eratlou uust be gfren to to beet lntereets of the se'rlce et legB ad tbe f,at tbet usy fDveBtlgstloEe heve bcen cIE.lset atl utIllfled local octlou encl delay j requestfng tbe serrfces of tr&!xd'
lnvestlgators.
In thls co!ectloa, ilt uet o fJelnereQ, tbat e,peychlatrlc eva!atloq tc ory as good as tbe facts nd avallabte to tb ps)'cb1.artll't'rist. ffhe::efore, tbe facts f ter lwstigatfon ahould b Edr eblc to t'he psblatr1ot naking tbe ova.hrstlon.
l+i
TOR OFFIC'AI USE ANLY
!.. :i.,,
f,
.{
r.
'Fq
\:
DoD LA 7-10 049718
IOR OFFICIAL USONLY

S@a.ry-:
t{avf
e. The Director of }avaL lntLl-lence 1s by ll'rcrcta'y of h: dlrecttve aselgnetl l\e8ttgetive Jqr16d1ctIorl uil reelnnn1b1}1t,y of certBln tr8.to vloletloD of th Iln{foro corle of Mllltary Justlce, fcludfg tloee'qatgories'coverlng se)cual rervere.{ott atrl lornoee:ota.:l'.f;y,
b. Certaln aval etritlono lave local lrve:o1;1atlve lle-e'rrre'l' c. In Bo far a ce be detellned re6lx)trollrlc genciee ol'!ht: Dlrectr of Neva! Inte)J.lgence groviale all tle rf6r1;o accor<lc'd l.y Jtr and, otter 1ntrcttons.
_:,
d, llre Dlector of Neval, Intelllgernce only os rquest of esponolble authority.

Rec@qdatlonB:
eorIoye by tJre
jnltJal;'-' iuveuLllatlottr;
e' lbat uo chengea Dbector of
be nade l.a procedures or metliorlo culretrt

Ne4I
Intelllgence Jn lrvestfgatlons of
hcologe:nra.l offensee.
. b. hat the 1rvestigatlve servlcco of thc Dlrector of Neval Iatalllgeace contlnue to be reqrsted lla scordnce r1h ti I'euponptbtlltlee aslgued by the Secretery of the Navy vhenever ie lnfonoo,tfoa 1 tbe cae mrrate. c, tbet the i*3a :brt thd 1.tlvestrgatlon c rtdc: vl)rrlrlc 1.() tbe peyehiatrlet erBJ-uatf ng the, j.np1v1duaf . l-3,
Deterlentq,r
Ae tbe Judlclal atc adnfnlstratlve Inrnftlvc del:errert-6

Dlscu+F ton:
pn)vllerJ
ors coDsfders certeln epeciffe erea
lhe enser to tttls gtetion
c{rn be
fn tio affinetlve provlciioi lu vtlch the offender n8.y fBII.
Tbe loard fornd e,Sreerflent @org the rltneeses tb6,t the threaL of court-Eatlal o adolnletratlve illEchtrge hd no eterrnt effoct ulou the tne boosexuul, Nor ruld the Clees I o?fe:der be Iong Octe:re by tbreat of cout-nartlel. Ilouever, t'he Jnoelble experfroenLeii', tbe L@attre and the ntndenclee" n,8. a.re to varytng degreeo, decnIetlt ulpn tbe perblcular per6otrt1ty fvolved ald the hcorcoexual drlve uerreni., deterred by the fear of crl:lal or xultfve aLtnfotretlve actl,:nHe rst conSlder tist, rt'rl 1ke the mltor purtlolnrents uuually fCrrrg fOr tbe O-forclble hcrooeexuI Bcts Jr clvlllon l1fe, convlr:' tlou by cou.rt-roartlel or edolnlstretlve cllsclra'rge for hoogexuI octe !t o[ly resrl.te fn eeparatlon frfi tJr aervice lrr.rt rr1.rgo abotrt c Lrrru of rlgbls notrs-Ily ve'[abt-e to veterano' fn u]ltil, strcll- l(l
'"t
.t
:flt{ O:u(]tAl USIi 0t\t
t,
DoD LA 7-10 049719
FOB OFFICIAL USE
ONLYL
cio.lc sdJuEfuet, for he ,cotrrrlctct or adDlDlEtratlve1y cllechargect haexusl (uncelrable tyn), pon rt-eutry to clufJ-lao l1fe fs dlf,flcrlt.
Dfacharge rder oter tb.a.n hotroreble cond'lt1o[a for hruoeexu-l bbrrlor 1s a acceEse,r:r !esur.to crrb the 1dlvlclual nbo, to arold nllltry eerrlcc, fs ylLtlng to t cLasslfledL a ttrls te of offender.
It l orcrent to tbe loerd thet deterrents fur tbe foul of poaalblo trll by eourt.'uartj.1 or adrlstratlr/ dlgchgs IIILI to 8r retceledl degroe be effectivc upon tlroae tdlvldr.le vbo hare not adopteit bcrooeenra.lfy sE e t'ar of llfe'r. llhe oar haa founcl no subtft for tbls nnlt1v'e actfga shfcb vouL ln eny aense be coueldlered, of vae a a, deterrent. '',
#
Srry:
a. Frltfw actfon 1n tbe fol'n of courtdotfal or afu1etretlve drechrg! 1 r ttcterent to s substsDtlet degree for not fntlfvlduals. b. lDrls ptraltlve actloa, 1D Don-frclble cgseo, s trore serre? tl , clvllla 1ffe. c. Iber.e ls no plauotble eubgtttute virlch rculd roduce an .dctrrence.
cqua.I dcgroe
of
Recccqlrtfona:
a. Ibt grovtafons be retalngfl for eenratllg,preonncl for hoenral bobBrrtor by court-iuartis.l bi rfawiable e&ilstratr're
l^hn6e,
b. nrei tcre be no r.elxatlou f the broatl concept tht the Errfcc carot tolerate hcuoeexul bebaylor.
Go That runtluont, tbough vrg 1-n degree depeuttent unn tbe clcnetceE ettendt 1n eab case, rrtLl b,e ueted out f casee of bos6q.e]. bobvlor.
d. llbat t'h con6queuce6 of unfwrabl dloebarges b Eorre forcefirlLy anct.frcqnently brougbt b_*o attontlon of a'l.J personnl. 1l+. 6tq11rtfc* .Aperysls
acugfoa:
t'
I orclr to dtc)raln the 4ag1tude of tbe hoeexual rroblem ait tcther @.61s shouL be .aced oa BnJr rortlculer aspcct, te Doart! roqutstod tb! Chlef of !aval PersonnI acl Ccm.sxdarlt of the tllna CorE t rcovlile ts l.Bteot avall-able atetlstics concealng benl.
50
FOR
Ort,c,At usE 0Nly
.i.
DoD LA 7-10 049720
FoR otFctAL
usr oirr
The BosJ.
lsdo e\aflable e detalLet prelininary stutiy of el] etliste(l ca6erl co;tlir.C to Deartoental attntfon dubeequet to July 1956. ltlrt:rrgr tlrc strtil' 18 ot sufflctentty brqad to ttaw concluslon8, the resrrJ.ts al'e corl8idc'r(i.i of sufflcient lntreot to attach as enIosure (3) hereto.
va fortunate
I.n
that the Chlcf
t)J.' I'll\.erl-
I'cl'st>;ttttll
In genera.l the Boatd found that little if any eft'ot:t riu irc:(rr expencted fn e8senbllng stetlstlca]. lnfonetlon for use j.D rr olrel L analyeis of the probl.en. lo the nlLitary fielilr the lloard vas al)Ic to obtafn otatlstics shorlng the nrmber of caees, dispocltloir ar(l 1c1ence raf for varfou )eers in the Amy, Nevl s.rd 1r lorcc ad tbe prelllfnary study of sqoe k76 ceees fron te Chlef of l)aval Pcsorurcl., refered to ebove. In Eo far aE could be determinerl, ttre f(Ilsey llcport cotrtal-Ds the only vaJ.us,ble sttlstlcal- otud.y in thc cJ.viljan fiel:r.
geaerel lntereet:
oelnrated.
i .'
. r'
he follolrtng observations
lravn
fron lcae u1tjsticr a'('
(,f'
e. xu,eted personnel. Tire percentage of actl.ve cluty r;tr-ettgi;lr ou:Effiffi-@a cloe not vary radlcat)'frcm Jeal t ear. For 1955 tbe pcrcentagc of ectlve duty etrength sefsateC ras .I!38 f,or the NavJ, .132 for the /l:r Force, .()1i32 for tlrc /rrny; nnr .16 for the I'Iarlne Corps. b. Offlcer trErsonnel - Navy. There is nomerrhot nclre veriat.irr 1 the perceffiive ctuty seporated frcnr ycar Lrr yeer tlian ln the cae of enl-sted. personnel. Ilowever the overall rer.cetage rte of 6epration6 hes been constart fo the }est thlee )et'6. In 1956, the percentage tluty strength separatecl ras .t,,5J s.ctive drty, .9ll- inactlve duty and ,O2) oveall.
semple
c. Tle Cblef of Ne,val Personnelrs preljnfnary of enLlsted bcnoeexual cses ievleverl j-nc{lcate:
(f ) ttu roeJorlty, 'od
cBGe6
otucly of' r r;rueiI

1;o
of
Ege.
are 1n i;he 6rorrp ).ii
20
ri\:ru'r;
(e)
mre na.Jorf
ty of lndlvlduals err in tlrc firrt

perceDtoge re
crljritnei:,
(3) n sffghtly hlgher

on shlp
in nenl;{l group If.
or station.
(l+) 67,gfi occur ln civlljan Eettlngri, vrilc orr.y .i3.1, rrr:t,rrr
(5) The greatest frecrrency occurled lt ltr:rst ,:rrnrplebirr.", hlgh school, but not enterlng college. (6) lhe hlghest incrde:r1ee jn the gronp irr rats, Journê,I16ts, and llevec ,
(f ) mu
highee
fi',r,u iro:;rrj1;rll
t frr:quency :s
qt
{rno)$ tlrose 1''r.u l.naIl. l;tir;ir.;.
F()R ()FFtciltr tJSE 0r!t y
DoD LA 7-10 049721
FOR OFFICIAL UST ONLYL
(8) fnatvrOuats hs.vfg a dtsrupted faruly bacrourcl nay ebov sllgbtly nore teuclency to.Eexu,al aberratlo.
bcoosexua erIrlence6
(g) tte neJorlty heve hed both pre-eerv-Ice end fu-servlc
lhe Mtl-ltsy Deperfuents are J an excellent ooltlotr to provldc essentlel at8 i tjxis fleld end the Board eo reqc@eDda. Ehe BoFal requeote reproeentattvea of the Chtef, Brreau of Me1cte au Surgery to rvlev the prellnL:oary Btudy rmtternar by the Chlef, of Narr&l Fersoruel to dtrzitno EddLtfonl fectors tJret ebou.ld be cored to ensure the !orrrE fltrre value ftcu e psychletrlc polnt of vlev. sco of theee factos s.re revleHed 1n Sectlon C, Item 5 8bove. Cplete reconendetlone r!LJ. pot be ava1le,bIe, howerer, prlor to the eubleelon of hle report.
Stoo-y:
ccrnlD
e. Fercentage-rlee tlre nrmbe of to e'rnrinlstretlve uotlce ts sB.lI. b.
cases
of
hoqosr
.u.I
behavl.or
never cllscovereil.
Ehee are probabLy rnxy hco6exg.e].6
ln the ser\rlce thet
ae
c. eeutly avelf,able otetlotlce on honosexual behavfor aot eatlofactory. kept.
are
d. Ihe Mlllt.ry Departents ce naJe large coutributton totard uncratancllng the problen of, hcoosecua.llty 1f tbe roper ettietlce ere
:
ReccmeudAtlone:
B Ert the Cblef of Nava1 Pergouel 1D coordiat1on rlth tbe Chtef of tle. Dueau of Uedicle anal Surgery contlnue tbe develoncnt of B statlstic&l basls for etudy of the probleu of hcoosexla,I1ty. e factors decled upon shoulcl be eueceptlble to IBl card portlng 1f practfcaIe. b. [hat rectlcablliy.
perzBBeut bas16.
when ornpletecl,
e trtal
'rn be conclucted
to
detra1e
c. lxt 1f tbe foregolug tet oanple le d,eterrnLred. to e prectlcable, th collectlon rd, oelysis of date be coatlnuod oq e d. [bet tbe Aray aud, ,1r Forge L,e advloed i the preeloee and, tnylted to partlclpete l ord-er to assenb].e a bedy of sttlstfc&L dete fo fiture study.
52
;;
.r;,.
DoD LA 7-10 049722
FoR oFFrcrnl us*urury
15. Po1icles i
ore.Goverrucnt A8elsjT.:
s' CiY* Servlce
Comission
c.rap)-oyeeo Bre covers{l by CIviI Service ReguJ-atfons. For nany yera these regul.ations have ffstd 'ril@oral, ldecent or no'borlously d1graceflf corduct" (or LufJ-ar geaerel plrraseology) es grounds for reJection for., or' oeraleticr: fr@, feera,I expLo}'nent. stnce 1950, hoexusllty gs been oreclfice.l.y If6ted. a8 n "rsuitablllty'r factor barrlng cmployroent.
Betneen Br-gf
-olcy of atl feeral civilair
It ls fuportet to dtstlnguleh "sultbfl1ty" stardarrls ulr jci' the QlvlJ. Servlce C@lsslon ettenpts to enforce, and "secur1ty'r otandaltic vhlch ae enforced norraily by tbe varlous hlrfng agenclee under cntlre-r d,ifferent crlterla. ..side fro its lnvestlgetlve f\mctJ.on, the Civll Servlce Ccmlaalon nakes Fuj.tgPlllty dec161or6 for ne,rly alf rorgeng1tlve logltions. Declgions involvilg sersltlve nojtfor:s a.r(i mi.r by tbe hlrlng eBcy.
Separatlons for' rulsuitability arc ordlncrr':iIy rnde l.:rir:r' CiyiJ. Servlce procedu-res, NCPI l+) ana 2lO contfi)Lliryi. Neatl.y ]I cases of h@oselcallty or homoeexue-1. conduct ere 60 harcllcd. 8are.ll. fe e cgee iuvoJ.vlng bcrosexua.Ilty dleposed of under NCPI 29, the Civil Servlce reguLatloE concerning ecurlty.
et,Dd.ard.
Dore
The ve6t nq]ority of alL federal agencles ure covered l-ry C1vll Sevlce Co.n-ieelon ruleo, {ncludlng tbe Departuent of lfense. Honever, there are some notable exceptione, uch ae certaln profeoaionrrJ, end. po}lcy-naklng euployee.s ln nearly evEry agency, ed all, or nearly all, eupl-oyeee la certal iinteI'1gnce or classlffed defense agencles, foese exceptd i-rdlvlduals'and agencles ae coveled, hovever, by para-lLel regrrletj.ons of thelr orm, wtich 1r r;one inet$rces a-e lcoba:l.r
..
6trict tbe Civtl
Se'ice
[sultabf1ltyl
st8,nd{u'ds.
About 2$ of e.Il Cv1I Service trve$l j.gtjcri;i i'corrii, . reJection or eeperation for suitebility reesons. l'lrcrc rlrL. to :;e1: figures on the n.u.ber or percentDe of tese ln vltich lrmrosexurt-l.ity u, boooeeJ.J. conduct nas a. factor.; hovever, 1t 1s believed to lx: onull, Several different 6u1ts.b1]ty criteria couLd be luvolvc(, so it io dj'. ficrJ't to nake ari accurate sslinct.
te Civtt Servlce curiseion jud(e6 eecl cese Jnvolving aLlegatioue of kmosexua-l conduct bn ar lndlvldual bnsirr, rea-lizing tlill one ct does not nece6eriLy in<ticate honosexual-ity. . Thus it ls neo.iblt' for e oe-tlne offender to be cleared for employnent, sulteblllty-\rlsc,. It fs 8-Iso poeeible for 6uch e person to bc r.cjected.I>.y rr lririn; {re)rc" for secu1t:r reasons.
Tbe ClYl] Servjcc Conunisoion must rnrlrc u de1:cflrrlrlu,tjol ,rr sultabulty rltbin elghteen montho after be;5.ruring of c:nploment, or
(?
FOR (]FFI(IIAL IJSE (JNI
DoD LA 7-10 049723
TOR OFFICIAL USE
ONLY\-
fen.le euployeee.
relea.se Jurlsdlcttoa to the hlring eency. After eigbtec[ uont]s, fuII Clvil Serrlce procedures ruat be utlllzed in proceecling agal-uet an eaoyee, r Lttle lncldence of bomosere.lfty ccuee to llght anong
fbe CfvIL Serrrlc Ccmlesloa eccepto Job eB1catloug f:ron ln1v1dla.fa lscharge frcm the servlce rrltb otber tan honorable, 6.1d tltb dlgbonorebl,e, dlechargee, prorlcte<l at leeet a lE has elepoecl slrce tlecbarger (exceptLon for treaeon, deeertlon 1n face of enemr, lose of cltfzenahlp tyn of caee). No ffgus arrellabJ,e as to bow nany euch lecbâ,rgeee hane erplled, or been accepte ftcu ap1cat1on, but eecb case 1e conrlclered. ou al lalvtdus.I beels, coiluct elnce llscharge blg evaluate es vell. e coniluct prorolslg the d.locbsrge.
Fersong dlecharged. by the CivJl Sevle Corlsgfor are not peroalently bere f further fecleral eoplo,aent. It 1e rether dlfflcult for a b@oeoxua.l to ohov rehebl.1l@tJ,on ho'ever.
Re Cross Polfcy.
As a natter of lntre6t, th Boarit hes been lnfomecl y the Securlty Dlv{61on of the Aerfcar Bec[ Croes thet ln<lfvfcluals fnvolved ln hcmoge)cu.sl conduct ae sl.ws.rlIy leufsoeil, no ettenpt befng Egde to dlstlgutEb betr+een habltuRlsr oue-tfne gffenalers, or lrere tendency
casea.
c. VetelBns Atulnlstl?tton Poucy. Illtb reepect to the accortlhg of cert.1n rlghts and benefits to reterare, te .Adnlrlstretlop purugo the follorlng poltcy: (r) fr tbe dtscherge 1E honorabLe or under honorable condftlone, firLL righto are provlcleci. (e) t tbe dlebarge fo uncleolreble or punltlve, due to hoosexusl acte, lt ls u6ual-Ly consldere to be a diehonorable and tbe bolcter le bared, tnoo any rfghte or prv1Iegeo,
trh,1e poIlcy le eaforcedl rlglty. 19 Federal neglster 6t]B speciflcy rowldea thst aft undeslable clischarge, vhether or not to escape tr1al by general cout-Eârtir tf].l generally be consldered to be tlletronorable ad a bar to beneflts une the Senrlceoente Read.Jwtnent Act, as enencled.. r ,, ,. :r
d.
U. S. Coest 0uard
.:
..
,,
.l
Coeat Guarcl are governed by
Wlthlu the TreasurJ Deparlment, unlforoed, peroonnel of the e irective concerning hcnoeexua.llty vtrlch,
54
+):
.:,.t
DoD LA 7-10 049724
FOR OFtlClAL IJSE L;rLY
to a large extent, le e copy of tbe Navy Deparbent lebructln

6ne BubJect.
on the
f6. Attltue ad Bollclea tonard tr@
Dlecugslon:
the bellef of Eor obers based upon tltelr olr1 ernrlence to tbe lDoad during thls qu:ry, tht FreBent lay soclety generaDy flnd.s boeexrI behavlor uneccepteble sn lndlviilualo, ro by thelr actlons bave becose ctBBEtffe(l 1n thelr comrultieo as h@oeenal-e sre lnrson rioD Brata. Tlere .fs clear evldence that certefn segente of ociety, Fuch aB the ueallcel an tegal profeestono, hre bee attptlrg to preoent clevlat'e eefi.a'L ltercourse as natter: Iees eerlous J 1t8 crlEfta-L eepecte tbanr rfeeent statutoT IrrohlbitLons pontray then, llhe erlcan Lw lnotttute, ln resenting for conolderatlon by the Varloua legfeJ-aurea tJre rtbdlel Peal Coilg" deals vltb a]l. tyTe8 .of sexu]. off,euaes ad h48 t<e a uore mocLeete approach both touaat the offeusee ad the prnlebuetE to be eva.rdeil.
an the testloty IreBelte
ft
1S
ID \afylg ilegrees devlate eexrallty has been regardedl vith Fll t1ee a.nal clvtzatlons, ed, subJect to coaleuretfon by rellgloue fqterdlit or serr secuJ.s.r Irulohent. Propoge.ls to oxcLude frou the crfnlnal IBv II eexu^l IvrBctlceB not f$ipl,vl force, adult cor,ruptlon of slngrs or nrbllc attenoe are base utrr rrqrlouE grouadsl No han to the eecular lterest of the ccmufY lB 1.nolvett 1n 'yrlcal sex prectlce 1n prfvete betteen couoentlng adult prterE; thla eree of prlvete morals le the cltetlnctlve concern of Splrttr'l authorltles and las been go recognlzd 1n e recet report by e gmuP of AEI1cel clergy s l the case of i]-lfclt beteroexual reletloua, exlotllg ].ar 1e eubstentlally unenfolce an tbe ltractlcIlt1eg of I'ollce a1ltratlon ut be couslderedj exlstence of the crInlnal thret yrobably eters ocme people fron aeetslng poychlatrlc or other asslstance for theee enotfonl problers.
ltnse avereloo 1n neerly
ID soclety at lerge thls ner approocb totrard eoccny snal .latedl offeses nay ell be neceseary, Eorever te Board tue$brg, beUevtug beslcally 1 nore enllgbtcnd.-.erproech to the problen of hcooeJcual bebavlor, contlnue trc recopize tbe necesglty rlthI.rr t}e nval gervlce to adhere to tbe trcJ.cy of generE.L non-acceptence of the hcmoee)(u8L offender as a naber Of 1te orgsnlzt1otr. l.toreover, tbet u1t1s d,eterrents, thougb tbey ney be lees Bevere thar heretofore muot be aI41ed. for the rrotectlon of the uorale and lntgrity of tbe ssrylce ea s vrxole,
Sul@.l-y:
. a, E@oEexuEl bebavlor tod.ey 18 not to a.ty neeeurable degree Ote acceyteble to soclety at large tho heretofore. b. Certet sepntq o!'aq"futyl(tred.lcI end J.pgeJ.) ar'e attptlng to fo:lrulate a leso sever gtlftyde 1 certafn arees.
I: ,
FOR OFFICIAI- US ONLY
55
t.
,'t\
DoD LA 7-10 049725
.'
TOR OFFIOIAL USE
ONLh
fltre.nev-al eerwfce sloul-d nalntain a olicy
of
hc@o6erual beheior.
Reccrrmg11att "
of non-ecceptablLlty
a. l.lalntel-n l great part the present senrlce approach to the problsr of hcosexue behavior. b. Be alert to keep aea"et 9f ery widely accepted cbenges ln the ettltude of sgclety 8,t large t"*eid the overnl't problem. cr llhe servlce shoulcl ot nove aleed of clvll1an ooclety nor etteapt to eet substltlerly cllfferent otanclards fn atttude t;orrard or ectlori rl.lth respect to bmosexual offedero, I7. *et:Sgrvlce
Dlgcl4relon:
A9J.ugtutent.
llhe Dltectr of l{aval lntelllgeuce nae provltted ttr ldeattty pf, 37 lrdlvlctua,Lo, seLecteal a5 a ststiElcally v8.tld 881ple, wbo nere dtecbnrge<l fuco tbe naval. Ber1ce durlng the lete fl 't e3 1955 unaler tbe lrrovlelob8 of ECTVAV Inetructlon 1620.1 by reao! of hco8exul actfvlty, rlth a rguest that epfroprlate lscreet Xuqulrlee be Dsde to detersfe eacb ld,tvlua.ta. post-aervlce sJustet, on tbe pofuts or.marlzetl herelafber. frfrty-afx reprte have been recelledl, of vhlch oe i6 f:recoplete. .Aaalyale of tbeee rport sbolt the follovlng:
B. Content qf S@ple. llhe oanple lncfudes 2 CPOto, 3 Polte, I Poer + roSiElE-EuT,'ffi-Futs, 12 sAtsr FAre aad AArs, aD l Recnrtt. lbe eba\e lucluileB one l{er SA. one reFort is lncup}ete ancl oue fqdlvlduel hao dloeppeared. b. tfarltat Status. Nfne (e6) Here or have, 6lnce discharge, naf,rled:-'T,e-se ba been d.lrorced,. fre (r4) have one or noe cbil-dreu, lbe Ilave fo receutly roarrled. IVenty-four (68) are lqosn to. be efngle, Ithougb three or four of these Br datfn6 g.lth IEgsIEctB of B8rtage. i
been
hc@e..
c. Dcolclle, llllose uazled are gregueed. to be nefntfqbg e of uffirourr lrgle xen uoe rhereebouta ls knovn, nrne (37$) l1ve rrltb perente, ffre (21) llve rrltb a :orent, three l-lve vltlr reLatveor tno +Ione, ad on five'there 1e no lnfozetlon.
avalJ-able, on-ly
d. hplo]'Eent. Of tb1ty-tto on shcm poeltlve lfostlon cr tvo, both recently namie<l young eppretrtlceo, one rlth ouo chlld lrere reported uneoployed. The remalnlng thlrty hare been contlnuouly, e !o Bcoe case6, very edequately empLoyed or occupi:ecl slce lscbs.rge eo follore:
OR OFFICIAL US ONL'I
'a
rt
DoD LA 7-10 049726
FoR oFFtctAu us.E or.lv.
\-'
2
J
Iters B,lslneae. .... ... ,..,,.. Store Clerk Offlce l,Iorker .... . r... .... .... Studcnt (nccUnfcef) ".,. ft!{a'l lcrker. ..... ... .. lFtc!, Dlvet. r. r..i.......,..
Bout Sa.leenE(.t1, Batery) . .
'
Iboer.
....
e 4
*Botb uarfedl.
e Dlectet qufriea of nelgbbore ard, eooyora ellcltodl thc fol[orrtng concern{-g the cu.rrent civllfa rputtlon of t'he fillvft.: (I) gv.le
General
'Vey.
R.eutiBtlo.
(crelt, poI1ce, cc@unfty) 16
ErtceLLet.
lfo derogetory f.rrfo.....'.

. .... . .,..... Felr.. Poo!.........r.r....,r... ....... Bad... Itbrrlble (sfc)....,or,... Unlsxonn.. ..
gootl... Good,..
L6
**4
2 2
ro[L.
T
.
'
t IqcludeE one eva.lusted ofor to nsrs arreEt on l/ZT/57 for eexu&lfy Eo].eatrng a IJ year old boy.
Includee tvo Flth.Jrwnlle sncl trJor tlon recode.' ." ;"

i
'
t:
treff,lc vlol-
{2) Cgprlty
Opirlon oLgauee gf-D]?chsree.

3
I'fed.lcal, tEC... ...... l+ tbder honoreble cosdltlons.I7 queetlonable d,leeharge. .... 2

Bad
Bonorble..... r............
dlechaJge...... .. r..... I tlnbovn/no tlon.. . ... ,,. 9 lvrAL... ,. .. ..-35

Se<uaJ-
(J) Aplerent
No
Orleotstlign, by Cc@Jntty Report.

..
Juated,
Judd
Opllor.
poolti'rrely norne.l.,. !
queer/od.
..
trEAL
57
..._36
....2\
FOR OFFICIAT USE ONIT
,l
Ji:
':?,,
,!i
ilj.'.
i,
DoD LA 7-10 045727
'OR OFFICIAT USE ONLY (l+) 43rerent, hcroosexu.al orlentatfos
at
tlne
of uresfrsble
.. . ... tluhmn/unc"t"*.....:.. ...'..t18 apnrent ft act)............. ,,..,.. 6 faseive Erter (l-e mona ecte). Eqosex'l betner (afultte tendency, ..f 3 clelneil }jnltd exgnrlence) TOrXAt. r ,.... F * Ineludes one UD strlker, /ery succesefi]. clYfl
tcoose)<ua.I (edDl,ttedr IoDg Buapectedl, ad.Juafuent.
'*+
Srwary:
Includles
to
BeBfor
petty officere.
rnileelra,ble dlacbarge r:der the provlslons of SECI{AY Inetructloa 1620.I has b8 reJ.atlveJ'y Ilttle adverse ef,fect on tbe post-eervlco adJuoent of these fillvldua,l. t cqee analyzerl, at least BJ$ are regul\y Fl oyedl, l elvll-la sftBttong vtrfch cconre fenorebly vlth tb t-treewlce staho. 60 eoJoy e genere.I renrtetlon 1 the ccnounlty and. aa creillt rlsks of good or bstter vbll.e notblng I)osltlvely bad 1s iogrm e'oout aDotbrT6---ffi, onlJ' as havtg 'a lor or bad rerrtatln. Ue cwrnltyIL ueie-charactertzed a blfeysal thet e+ or 6l leen d1.echargotl bororably or udJer hooabl.e cohitttfoo for scme reepecteble reaaon enit ve[tuio no opl.ulou on pnothet t or ZJft, AoIy 3 er eos1eal to ba.re gotteu e bad iecberge, of blch 2 vEre gneslreil f,or bcuoeexuattty. One addltlonFl dlscbagee ccirltte s b@o-
It le evldeut fAcm the dte coutefuecl hereln tbst the fct of
sefual offelse rb!,s the srrvey as l ptogre68e Study of tbe e'ellale rcoda op t'be 1-odlvlulre h(Eoeercunl orientBtlon at the tre af dlscbarge 1adlcetes that Bt Iesst hlf of those dlochargecl nere cleorly adnttted or long ouopcte atrcl evlclcnt hoeexru-le 1 tb Bccepteil Eenoe of the trq. It le eytdent thet fn th ebsence of flgrat bcuoeexu.l h"eblts aJld 8tt1tde6, te clyll ccrn1y has Lltu.e lanovledge of or 1rtsreat fn eexual orlentetlon of lte nmbee. [!be charecter of ot :aEoD for dfecharg ccr tbe nval eervj.ce 18 e rnatter of llttle concertl to eitrora J-n uaoy llee of enfrprlae, ereo nhere the poeftfon l-uvplres ee trust aa r.eeooelbltlty.
D.
SEOUV
Ietnctlon 1620.I
,:
1,
Follcloe r,pl proceuea r.fjn reepect to hcmpse)cueto erd bcqotxuI e,cts Yftbln tbe three nflftary tlenrtoento ere coatrolledl ln gperal, by Dearbent of Defetrse l'ooraldhe of IL october 1949. Eence
cA
FOR OFTICIAT USE ONI.Y
'
:il:i'
"1J,r
':.1,
'1,
.1i
lrr
rlr
DoD LA 7-10 049728
FOfi OFFICUIL USE O{LY
lsc tarletlous J nJ.lcy aa ceure #ttut te three erertuant Dspart*a,ir"e prin4rllv ln ae8'd l bic! t3 ;-!"""il*tt;;; wrlaet of Defenee rrecttv fs U*sIi hiesetl or elf'ent' sucht'hls tily tlous s ae consldered to be s{glllcat fgl the prrtroso gf sr out]-lne bLos. a. cnerral IUcy Stateoente. PqrFt aenretX'ou of tn conevice. The 44g-c:rGttve fleal bcEosffih ag t'fie g.ov1do, bonver, 1h "I[dlvicluale ubo cn'ot be reg! alngt'c act ea cofledt bcooeexutsr but rtro. hare bee Jvo1td l e ar e.result 9f {matru'{ty, curlootty, or ltox',catlotr h tbe lgJ'chlatt.lc ol-luat1tr coeluclea it"i'tn"y a. ut cooflned brrosexuale cdt i rot posBess troa hoeexua,I tndenclea, sould aop,Lly be rotlHlil f to grrlc6.rr tbe A1r Foce 1rectlve Inovl(e tt xcelrtt@s to peruit reteutlon f tFGffi Bre IEoIr ou$ "nben tbc otfuc va c*ltteif, rroBooeil or ctteoptecl, undler the roat unusual extcDultfJg C1cr.uÊtarcee-nhen- lt 1g detIItlne tbst the Enber ttoss pt bal h@Otetlal teudenlee, e beu tbe ueoberrs abl-ltty to Perfo tlllttty eervlce bas not beo ccmlroluteeil. Iutoxlctlon of lteel.f, 18 Dot conldteredt an ertotrlet{tg circr.ustance; f18 ls fstlcu1a\y tn nhcn nore tib.a one act, nopoeel-, or atteopt ts fvolveil. r' le Nev:f tllrcct1r Eakes no such illstlction a.e qroi.a above la 1ts etete of poltcy, sl the av} rnFtt1ctloq flrther provfdee tbet Psychletrlc oplnlon tat hcoeffi offese l. ngt s I'true hoeexua'l'' ls L@terlI. b. Clese f Def,fnitfqg. No d1f,feretrceo, except tbet'te fs deeue t be rperson unile 16. !fiffi"hild Ay dtctrffiA
f rcrdfg bere es "habltually aesoelateg Yltl flaulrtt8s boJo:ffiE to be hcstosexuale.'r Air Force frrtber ltl.ovlds t.et ne-eerrlce acts rfff e conelder'ed fn deffiG-ft nbettrsr tbc Eober hs,8 b@oeflr"l tndenclee or habltuqlly aseocleteg rrltb Irrous foor o bln to be bcloEexrral,s. :A1r Force elso provid,e thet rrpn III ls tbe eproprlato doubt exlste es to nhether cres ffio Isbel, Clato fI rrlll be r.ged,'. rv provfdes th'et tbooo nbo Uaro nvfea" th tendeney vll-t nomffi be retatred 1 eer{t'lee. fbc uay bc otber cllfferencee L.jo fetr not clee,rty revealecl by tbe dffltlos l tbe varlou.B lrectGiffr1cb csr be brought to lrght only by carefil a.fy18 of Iarguage u.seal ltr oter Bor.tioe of tb tbee tllrectlvee, fnrtlcr.Irly tJre t'd.1oeitioa" nregraa. DifferDcso 1n 1Eg8 ueel 1s Bo greet that difference8 1n practfce are probble.
conslderableffi
Deflrttlons.
one vho
raseoLogyffi: d. clasa Irr
c. CIse II Deffttfone.
No
baelc dlfferenee, althougb the

,
.'i'
f,lre dllfferences
New d'lrectles prorrle tqy sil A1r Force except ceees lnvIvl-ng '!na.Jor uentI dlorere", a^ss berel esl trtrosutlon ls not cleeued, feaslbler eil tqs vberl (lU forcu only) trla1 fs not irx the beat tntereet of the eere-lco' IhJ-ffiE,is qrre then treete'i as ciess I cases.
slnptJ fcr
e. Dlsoosltfoa of Clsss I Caee.
ttlal.
59
FoR 0fFtctAt
ust
0f{LY
/.e{
#.
'.9.t.
if.
,,
;41.
,i1
t,)i
DoD LA 7-10 049729
rOR OFflCIAt USE ONLY
If c8.sea. Eech aervlce preacrlbeo ve to 1scb"er8 udil other tbai honoreble cotrltlons. OfFlcers are pernlttecl to elgB lor the 8po of tle servlce a,l to escape trlal by court-esrtl8-l J tbe How:autt .tv; Alr Force rsignatlons are sEpsrently teudered neroly Aray providee fo board apton ff trlal for 6-e good fibe; le not f,easfble. go alo6 Alr F;Ee. I uaugua,l coae8, such baral rcf,err'1 !18bt result f e tn#E-I-charge hlgher t'h unileelrable' a. Dlopogftlo of Class III CaEe6' Ireefuent of thls cete8ory Btlou untler otber t'ban bonorrs.rles lf sble coaclftfonar delEndent upou a rride. rtriety of cJ'rcustaceg, aual coaileuee anala1e le not fealble. Ee Nevy. cllrectlve 18 allent' a5 .to :-tentlon. h. Coututs of Reporte. Subatsntlnlly the Fene fu each dcnstAmy regulre I stetrent tbt tb ftf!,ent, exeBtffiEG-Ea yrdu!.l bs or b^6 'IIee ur-ef of co\Dsel. Aray.lleta ltrlfls tt{ins to be lcludett 1D trrsychlstrtc stualy. Aoy re[{fto elso Yalrrer of oo.:erd atlou etsteopnt ten eppllcaIe, l rEerve cgtes. 1. IreI of FlBL Actlon' In Nerry, gr-orj s19[ ls ta] on fia.L-sc-tfon s tsen by the uaJor ttre uepera@ ced f,or ea.llsterl caseel--frlcer caea 8ro ffra.tly dscfdeal ln te Defnrtueut. I Air Forcer fiuat actloa nr'be teken by 'hqJor olr coBairar" nUo-E@r to clelegete fls.I actlon to offlcere exrclE lg geaerel corst-nartiql JtJrf eictlou. rlal Itlon of
Class by
J. 4ood Ccopoettion. AU requlre fenele anct reserve repeeentatlon l apron1ca.ee8;-ltr lotce epeclfiee rhu'tur" offlcero, Frferc,bly flId gra.de
boa
k. Boarcl Bequlreeute. ectloG"ffi'G.;
4gy ad
$!I
reeeFrlsts n8y r.elve
I. notlffcetfou to ReaBodent. Alr Force proY.ldeo e copy of ffitrGTi*t trErEonB about to bgroce'Be' r, : :. m. neltre8eEtstfon bfo SoBAi Igi qd .4,1r For-ee prorfe couDaelrhlffi : . 2. Deflclenctee l eubJeet lnetructlon, In general the teetluony, anO otnd ug ileffciencles ln tbc sureDt IroUcy antl prcceures ylth reepect to banIfng bcoosexualo:
re6uLetfons
i
glven to ellnletJng thte clse frcnq the lrect1ve. Ibl confuelon bs b'eeu cv.ldat 1 nedlcaJ, as $e]-l aa persornel lnlBtrettye chaoDelB.
a. fEbe clesslflctlon le ev6rdrd. atl leade to conflrelon. This 1a eoBeclIlJ true 1 the case of th Class III deflttfons, Hlthaut excepttrou 1. tbe nllltary rrltsses recrencled. thet consltleratlon bc
TR OFFICAL USE ONLY
rlti
',i:;
DoD LA 7'10 049730
l,'r
L
TOR.OIFICIAL USE ONLY
rlell
evielrstloa of .t'he lndlvtdual artt seelib fn .t'be EBln d.etrafnetlons, of knonJag rlgbt frra rroug eual ebfllty to fqLlor tbe lgbt. 91n11ar1y the ten paboale 1n the curent d1rectl\e ha been uoeit l lte legal seuoe, vtereln originally tt na ftouilc to be lterrreteal ln the uecllcal 6erue. lbstaoqy ehoE that s@e attentlon shouJ- be peld to the paycho-uer.uotlc eslect of tbe qase a5
neceaaarr 1n Legel c&seo,
a"E
It 1s bUevecl, hoyerr=r, thet ,rhl1e a claelflcetlon 1s neceeelrr for of IraoDDeI afutt6trgti9n, 1t le Eeaslgleea antl sbould be ipre for qed,lcel ae5cta of the'probl. b' [be preoeut lrectlr !e too r1g1 and LrflLecfble' Me dieposftlon of pereonnel al:lege tb be hoeexuI or to ha\te ergcged' f bcoeeJ.ual qcts 1s rlglct once they bve been claLf1e<l. AlthoWb the dfrestlye lr.gvj, lee for etutly aacl dlapositfon on a lcl1vliltI caae bas1e, the reeuLta of f.ntroeutatlon ehov etr fnterpretetloo thet Uttle lscretlon {s elletreal 1 the flnal actloa. c. Ehe cuTont dtrectlve ptqcee e aegetlve eubasle on cl1lcel
In.qpose8
tbe psychotlc espeoto.
d. Tbere lE fnadeguate eophaslo l the ctrrrent illrectlne upoo autl8sfo4 and revfev of the coslderal era-u.Btfon acl r'eccmendgtloua of the cceo'rg offlcer 1 tbe case. It 1s bellere tlrat tbe cqadlg offfcer, bsvlg cloeely obeerved tbe 1nd1v1du8l, fB l^ tbe best posltlon to erntrate f,utue uefirless ad. effect on t'he senrlce end comantl by poeolble retentlon. e. lhe neeent dlrectlve fatls to cllffereutlate betren tbe ttr b@oseJcus,I en th fndlvlqal vbo, altbowh b,e has co-llttd an leolateal at, 1s l fact Do-hcnoeexual ad csr 8t{11- Provlde ueerl servic to te l{arr1. level-.
f
. There fs no pro-elon fo
I
ned,lce.l revlev
tJe. DeanbentaL
Rect'i'eDalatloas
attacbed hereto qe enclosure (4).

E.
fn the
preoeat
E. Erat 6B1q1encles uoted
dlrectfve, as a,cccpllshecl lu
abor be
elinleteil by
he propoeed revleed dlrectlte
revlelone
a Boar for Correctlon
I. of of
Curreot..l.struc,tlong.
fhe flavy Dlecbarge Bevles Boerit anct the Board for Correctton NBBI Recorcls have o, epcclfic lnatructfons reLatlve to the revlev cases of trleraons vbo uere eenratetl or dlscharged. froo the naval sersl'ce becalge of hcoee:nul actlrrtty, Alletratfve reguletfons alal nocecltuee goverln8 the Neyy Dlacberge Beviev Boerd provide, ln
61
i. l.
I
FOR OFFICIAL USE OI{I
DoD LA 7-10 049731
OR OFFCIAL USE ONLY
[-
pertlaeat pst! t'I order to varrent a changer Corrctlor, or nodlffceilon of tb or16laal ccctnent evldenclng separatlon flce the naval eervlce, ft ls t$cunbeBt oE the petitioaer to ohor to tbe 6atl.Efactfon of tbe Bosd, or 1t BuEt otherrle gt1fa'torlly appeer, tbet the orlgloaL tocrEattt $ss lap1.O!r or llequltably leeued urxder etEalards of nerel 16 rd d.locitue exletlg at the ttne of 6ucb orlgll Beps,ret'1on, or uner euch etands,rdtrB cllfferlng tberefroro fn the petltloner'e favor hleb subEeq!nt to ble oepdretlon lrere Eade.e)4,rsly retroectlYe to oeperatlon of tbe tyr end chracter.hd. by the petltloner. fbe sts'ntLads of E"BVEI Iv acl dllsalpllne herel contenp:LBtd are thoee etar8^rds atated l statrrte reguletlon, burea.u uanuale, dfrectivee gf the Denrhent of the lfavy, an otber approprtate autborlty, together lrlth lntrFreta' tloe tereof by the cours, tbe.Attorney Generel end the Judge Advocete Generel of the NevJr. rr .,dltloua1Jy, the reguletlone provlcle thet hotf,cl t'he Dlacharge Aevlev Boertl ftnd. fn a psttcujLBr cse tht tbeTe exlEt, r.r.sa.I clcEtasces whfcb vould reEufre a retoactlve epllcetloD of revlsedl lacbsrge et8us.rds or e sI)eclflc ralver of Bn 8ppllcebla reguLatlon J order to peEft e chenge, correctloa, or trocllflcatlon eeeentlel to tbe acbfewent of a Juet end egulteble reeult, the boerd lay sct forbh the clrcrngtaneeg l lneororate 1r lte declslon a rtceniltfon tt, tB Secretarr of the Nevy autborfze the retroactfrre epillcetfon of tevfsed dlechage stanil,rds or of the aecfflc ralver of te sPplfcble gul-Etlo la gueetlon. Apet fr@ the foregolng reguJatton acl the geer&l gutdce recelvet fton prlor bqard decislons vblch bsve been aplEo\rdl by the Scretary of the Navy, the Dlsehs,rge Rovler. Boarcl bE
ng other gurlnce.
Ehe eguletlons of, the Booril fo Correctlon of Noval Records, as approveil by the Secretsry of Defeu6e, provlde that the ftnctlon of tbe Boer lE to conaftler. aII appllcetlons properly before lt for the ${pose of dletenlntng the exls+nce of an error or a.n fnJustlce ad to Ds,lre Bpproprlete reco@endtfone to the Secretarr of tbe Navy. Tbe ba1c lv ntcb prorld,ed, f,or the estebllebnent of corectlou boad autlrorlzeit tle corrctfou of aDy 8111t8y or naval record rhere sucb ctios lo necoooary to correct an error or luJueticer but no precloe deflltlo of. error eu lnJuetlc 4,9 08. In.fectlce, dete:ninatlono a to the eriEtnce o non-exletence'of erior:or jJuetice ere based or the epplfcable )-av, regulatlons acl polfcy exlstent at the tlme the alteged error or fDJustlce occurred. ' Ihe Eord. f,or Corectlon of Ne]s"l Recorg unaler itt of LL A4usf L95r+ 'ecelvetl s@e Secetrlal guldance as tbe relrleu of, ases lnvolvlng e punltf\e cllscb'rge leeuecl $rrsust to a 8etDce of e cort-nartfe.l, but no guidanrce hss been Eiveq reletlYe to tbe revlev of cases furvolv'lg aflfstratl1e dlscberges. In a]-t rrobabtllty, guldaoce na not coneldertl neceaog,r a8 tbe Boerd for Correctlon of lfaval Beeords ryleB tbe clrclmEt8'ncea attenllng tbe leeuaace of 6 a[l1tratlre dleeharge only after the cae has. been revlerlecl aud elecl by th Dlocharge Review Board. Ceee of pertono Idnfl8tretire1y eelnrateal frca the u.evat servle becaue of honoaexual actlvlty crrlae only e very sEI[ percentage of, tle caaeo r.v1e\recl by tbe Corrctloa Boadt. I lte revle of Euch c88eB, the Corectlon Bord ha^s scEe gulalrce fro! nlor board, deClslone sbich hsve been qpyroyed by tbe Eecretary of tlre Navy.
62
FOfr OFF,CNI
USI
ONLY
,1.
4:.
.t '.!it.
lr :I,
t:i
DoD LA 7-10 049732
L
toR otflcrAl ust
2.
ONLY
Recg@egded Bdltlons.l 4ldauce
In coDlectloa tL rtt toAy' of tbe lDstructl'ona of tbe NaW DiEctaree Revlev Boor ad tbe Eoad for Correctlon of NveL Rords, drra Boa.rd caefully revfBrd tbe repqrt of I Augus L956 at t6 slBalal board, convEsd, to lrepare an Eutlt to th ecretory of the Narr} gro' pocecl revlse,rgu].atlone aurl rrocedurde for the Navy D1chsrgo Rcvlcv Bos. Te f]gs etrd recollEenclatfona coEtafneal lu thst rel,ort rGltlve to tbe reylerr of caseE of persons cllscbargect gr Eepareted frcn tbe g.B'r8.l servlce by reasou of hmoee*uI tentlenefea or behavlor, 1n generl sJre concurrecl Ja, but rlt rod.lficetloue a.s rrlLJ- be notetl belov.
IEatuch as the last DaJorfty of casee revlered by tbe Dlscb.arge Revtca 3oa<1 ad, tJre Cor.ectlon Board couger. persons vhp tere separeted or lechargetl dhrf'g or auboequent to lforLd I{e II he nelrbers ad
flllar ylth the historlcel for the dlapoeftlou of csaee fuvolvlng hc.osxrB.tfty f,rcra the pre--llrc perlod. t the lesent tfne. I add,ftlon to detelufg.the apgllcable ].arr egultfon al gollcy tbt exleted. at the tine the caae lu gueetlon $ea pocessedl, and nbether or Dot they rre properly applfed, gaf ege should. be dectded on lte
cerelolnent
stelfs ot
be 8otLs ehorIcl be tborouglrly
of a,(bfletrative
procecltrre.s
tnd.lvld,ual uerLts.
Httb apeclflc reference to cases of lrsona dfachargeci xrreuant to the provlefoue f tbe Sec.ete.rfel lette of I Jaauarl I9l+3, tbe Dfscherge Revlev d Corrcton Boerils ehouldl flret deteplne: Not 'rl{as tls tbe hbltual bebE\rlor of th fldllrfdue-l concel:t1ed?'r, but "Was tbe behsvfor of the lndiytduaf retrnesentatlve of tb babltual trErfornce of lr8ous ctully bcoosexual 1 tbel 1nInetlon?rl If the hcooee)fl:.I behavlor id. not fa.ll lto the pettern of perfo:aance of peraouo actually hoaexua,l, onslleratlon ehoul"d e glveu to tbe proplety of barrfng bart-e the cese untlr the d1ecttve. Addfloually, i conectlon ylth the revles sf al l. casee of persone dleclrargecl or eenrated fr$! tbe nve.l Eervlce beceuse.of hcqoeeJcu8-l behavlor, thle loard rccc@etrds thst the }f,ecbarge Rew?ev artl Correctlon Bosrt[s conglder te follortng:
9. I tbere B:efL8be to tbe Eoarcl e coatenForaneous ueillcal o'psychletrlc evaluetlon pertiaent to the hcnoeexuallty? Itss a tecb.llca.l l.nteryr'etatlon been groylded to the Bortt? b. l{as tbe c.
t alste Was
bcnoeetcua.l
bebevlor a nrlfestatlon
of
lILneEB?
thls behevlor tht of an linatue
adol-eecent? r.efence
tl. Ilben dld the bcnosexus.I behavlor take place rlth of entry lnto the Ber\Ice?. , , ,,,, e,
Eov certouB an ofense rres co@ttted.? Hhat
of th
gffeD.se upou
m tne lulnct otbr tdirrla'Ls 'or the ne,val. ervlce aa e vtole?

63
FOR OFFICIAI- IJSI Of{LY
,;:'
r,
l
/;,
DoD LA 7-10 049733
t0 otFlclAL usE 0NL\'

t.E8^sacrellbleshor.jllbeennadeoffractrcleceptionror coerclon 1 the proceetllngs vhlch led. to dlacharge? g. lfbet ha been tbe lninci br the ad.eree ctlccbarge on the tDdirful eubeequent to hlB leavlllg the serrlce?
b. Hbat noql-d. be tJe Smpact on naval tltoclpllne autl efufnlstra' ttos of, f8prolrlng te tyTe o cfU,i.actei of the lacharge 1n thl ancl
gther Bfu.lla.r
ge
cases?
'
theee questfone Ehould provle the Lecharge irtr a generer 8ultle towerd e felr decfofon lD aDJr c8.8e J.[vo1wLng hoEoBexuallty. . An approach of th18 oort, on an lxdlfvldlt,1-cse bBafs, ts 1 conptete eccoril.lrltb tle follOvlg stateneot of pollcy vhlch nas conteinecl 1n the.eerler dlrectlvee ard 1s
Bevlev 8rd' correctlorr Boardo
slsters to
clearly 5nplted l the

eo
propoee clrectlve:
csrefirl, thorough, an d1l'fdual- atu(y tbet f1xel treebent, ectlon, or dlepooitfon rrlll, be 1n accordanco rrlth the lateet eccepted necllcal, ooclologlcal, ' arit legal ltleae, aceordlng to the particuler cstegory lnto ttrich lt f 19 ' F. srffia.y of Rec@endtlops:
rr
ttsech case needs
1.
Genral Reccmendatlons:
ect duty case,

.1D
. Wlth reepect to the t'one-tLne offentrrr: (I) .A Boychlatric evaluatfon ehoulcl be naci;atory j
61"1
(Z) A cc*ondrng offlcers ev,luatlon al-t ctlve duty ca.eee.
shouLcl be uanclatory
\ j) CIss I offeners.should. contlnue no:alJ.y'to be trled corrt,-uartlal. , i,,, i i I .' i (4) llon-fese I offendere ohoul.d, be goupe genere.lly eo to vbether tJrey are, or ere not, true, eoofl:ecl "lrey of llfet' ho.-
by geaer&l
BeJu.af,.s.
ceae'r
(e) Couffrued hoseno.ls shoulil be senrated in nll
(b) Dlsposltlon of others to be baeed on overaLl cval-uatlons by boarcle of offlcers but

sboul-cl be baeecl on flndturgo and oplntone
(:) fte tyIE of dfscharge bou-]-d not be fafJ-exib reecribed. of boards of offlcers.
.to voluntry coufeeolons:
b. Hlth reepect
6+
F0 OFFtc,Af.
us[
aLV'
'"iY
DoD LA 7-10 049734
("FOR OFFCAL USE ONIY
gboull be:
(r) go ercorase vofuntary confea8fons, a ler8oD volunta.rtly cgnfessfg e'nn-repetttLG lsoi-ated" at under a&elforatlve cfrcroetaceg
.roe' Dot
*ur"*r Hffi"t";:":T5:t*"
1f, psvchlatrlc evalrtlon
(U) Seraratecl 1f hrose)ual tenilencles ae preoent but vftb te tyf,o of lecha.rge arreted by hls sorv1ce fecord' (e) f?re ebove pollcy not to epply to Clsse I lnrsoro' (S) $o etcourage peroorutel to confess to hcEosexua-l tud,encleat prrovlcle that lf conflued by psychiatrlc evslut1on, ancl there fE tro e\rlence to 1nfcete an ettenpt to erade nilftary aervice they rIlI norna,tfy be senratd Yfth q tyle.of 18eh8ge of no lorr character ' tn reultsbfe. HoHe\er, one wno 16',dete.'Eluel to have been g cof1e boeenla]. at tbe tfe h'entered the se-Ylce, hev1n8 knovfgly fa1ledl to cllscloee such faet, roay be df.ocbargecl rrlth s' wldeslrble
dlscharge.
('+) Ebet no erpltclt ststeneut or 1nicetl'on be na'de 1n or aot any obllgatlon exlste on tJre tnt of l0eallce]- offfcrs to rake a offlclal report concernlrg hcqoeexqI sttrs dllsclooect to bl 1n conflclence by e ntlent uniler teatoont. thus tbe preeent rractlee, vhereby ft 1 left to the eound professfonEl JudEet of tbe nelcet officer, 1e tacltly recognfze DA accept.
nrbllshed, 1ectlvee vheter
c.
r.{1t}r reepect
to type of
loc}rarge:
be
nde unndtory behavlor.

ancl opl.ulou
(f) Uret Do llartlcul,ar tyn:of adt:.strstf'/e.atlscbEr8e for any particular type of hoeexua-l or hosexra.l
(e) Urat the type of atlecharge holcl.be eeed on the ftual'.ng of a boa^rd, of offlcers, a^rrlved et fter conolderetlon of the servlce eroonra overaLL record, es lrelJ- as the elrctmstanis of
the llrdlrrlduel cese.
. lJlth respect to treafuent of eo-cpod Claee ffi (f) Uret ClaB III .a nov def1ned be eboll8hed,
(e). Eet Jdlrrld.ule forxerly llcluclect 1n Clase i . i :, ", rocossed as a(l+) above. .
,.t
Offencler
rff
be
tlon be rcported 1n each ectlve duty

65
e. With respect to c)-lqilca} evsluetlonsl (f) gt*t a detalled. snd c+rprehensl.e psycbletrlc
caoe.
exarina-
FOR OFFIOIAL USE 'ILV
,'.; 1*f,
#
.rk
r'-:.
;'l
r;,
'ir
DoD LA 7-10 049735
TOR OFFICIAL USE
ON.
(+) met all- exmtEetloEs be conductecl by neillcel offlcers trefed. l t'be specllty of $sycblatry.
(5) Ih"et all rports of cLfl'cal evaluetlot be rovisrBdl .by tbe Chlef of tbe Bueau of Medlclne ad Surgpry befor tbe case ls ected. upou by a tlapoeltfon boardl. Proceluree shoral pro\rtcle fo!
)clEd,1tlous prcess
f9.
(6) tt te IlBycblatrfc evalratlon be gfrren egual retght tfLt a.lnfetretive factore ln detenJlng lsposito of, casee lnrolvlng
bcooaexua-l1ty.
Hlt reepect to reviev rroeeclureo: (t) Coutfnue the preoent Dela,rhenteJ. revlew procedlureo ylth tbe addl.tforol of revfr of the cLinical evaluetfon arcl reccmendts,tlon6 by the Chlef of tbe Bureau of Meclfcfne nil Surgery
Bureau
t.
.i
(e) Frnlsh for the gulclance of alfpoltlon boerL fn tbe of NavBl Fercouoel eud lleedquortro, l.tarlre Corps copleo of the report of thfe Boerd,
S. I{ltlr reepect to resionslblllty to tbe siv-Jll.ar comunlty; (f) mat tbe Chief of Naval FergolleL imd, the omonnl of the I'fare corpa s''err j onty in caBes shere-tn the bco6)u81 ha,E been ilete:lnetl to be e 4rb1c Een,ece or tbe qffenae fo ntflch he rs.s eenrete lrolred chlldlren, report the cae to the Federat Buregu of lnrstlgeion througt nor-l- chqnel for Euch ectton s mey be neceeeBry fn the public
1terst. appolbeut:
h. Wltb respeet to
sereen{ng
of ep:.llcanta for
enLianent
e,n
(f ) mat no basfc cbangee be rlsde n ecreenlng rocedlireg at-t'he êcrult'r'g or tralnlng et&ttou levere; horver, th neeent procealures shou]. be caefulLy fol]-or.
of t'b,e f!1tlat phyefcal exsfatlon for iegular NRI nlghlp.eu au for cotrect IIROTC stualeuts plor to enteli.g the senfor dlrrlefon.
(S) mrt consideratlon, b glven tp estblfshlg r tlntted Dr.ubr of Fav stetus blrlete fn organlzecl rBerye unlts for poychlatrlata and' cr1fcal poycbologlets as part.of the Navs.l Reerrr prqgsE. l[rls ould trEr::1t the elurnatloq of ecue of the hcsoeexus.L tndfvtdrets ho gre seported at preoeut onl.y after they hare been ord,erieil to actfve
(2'|. lb.a,t a ps)biatrlc ecmfuetfon be inetituteal 6 prt
'
d.uiy.
i.
(4) nnr1s6 resefie persgrrnIr not iuedlately orcl.ered, to ectlve duy be screeoecl pychlatrlca\y durtng the norl tro rekE actfi duty for tralufg perlod.
sxtendpil
67:
.I
FOR OFFICIAL USE OIILY
DoD LA 7-10 949737
(r
FOR OFFICIAL USE
ONLY
(5) eaftfonaL blLlete be egtebLlshed .for tflD peychlgtrletg cIl1cal peychologlst et t!,Nava1 Statlon, Nerflrt, Bhod Isltbal, to pe:tt the Lnauguratfon of e f,o:na]. Broga for screenlng reserve offlcers enterlng the eervlce tntoysb tbe OCS Fogt@.
nnd one
1. Hlth reapec to teahnt of vnen: (f) fbat no attetpt be nacle to d.lfferentla,te betveen Een anil Fcs,en 1n the rstructlon r.r-ltir respect to procedureF or dlspositlon for hoeexrral actylty.
(Z) ttret cerefuL revier be nad.e of a-U erBetfons concernlng h,ooorual ectlvlty of faLe mmbers of the Eervlce to ensure tht a IEtterlrt representatlve of boserue.l conduct 1e pr-eeont, es iatlrrguiebed, fr norrn?r oocla]-ly ecceptetl behavior.
holoeexr:allty:
J, Hith reepect to lndoctrlnatfon ed educatlon of recrults
on
(f) ftat the present educetlnal progrsn contlue es tbe r8poDslbfllty of e cmnlttee appolnted by the chlef of Nerar pereonner, of the
there1!.
(e) ttrat a effort be oade to cletesfne the effectineneee preoen eilucetfona-r progren prelf.ufnary t bstitutlng auy change
on other .tban securlty grouuilsr' vbere precticabLe. 1 Hlth reepect to fvetlgetlve proceclures:
k. tlth rs6pect to securlty lpllcatlons of tbe hcnosexual: (f) R etatfEtlct etupy be inlttBtea by the Director of Nsvq,l rntelJlgence l: coorillnetfon rrth the cblef of Naval persoler ad co@ar'rnht, of the Marfe corpe to develop factuar <lata gn the lcftnce ef securlty lDpllcetl,one 1 hc@oeeal casee a'6 HerL as ln catgorlee lnvolvlng other tyna of moral turpltude ad crinlnal ectflrity. [ble stu(y sboulcl be extendecl to other egencls of the goverrment if precticebJ.e. (a) nrat casee ivolvlrrg homosexuallty contlnue to be handled,
(1) Shst no chanrges be roade n procedures or metbods currently -Fl-oyetl by tbe rector.of Neval" rntelrigence ln fnveetlgetlone of boaexua-l of,feueee. (e) fêt the lnveatigative serylces of the Director of Neval rntelJlgence contfnue to be recluestecl 1 accordrce r-rth ure responoibllltieo asofgned by thc secretary of the N,vy wtrenever the lnioruetlor 1n the case varants: (3) IbBt the fects fron the inveatlgatlon to the peyehlatrle eveluatlng the lndlvidue.I
q
te made evsflable
,ir
l DoD LA 7-10 049738
FOR OFFICIAT UST ONLY
rl1.echarge.
m. }Ilth respect.to deterrets (f) :nBt provislon8 be ret8led for Betrretrng pereonucl for b@ose<u+l belavlor by court-nantial or r:nfevorable adlniatratlve
(a) mat tJrere be no rel-aJ<atlon l the. broad. coneept that the servlce carot toterste hcooexual behayfor. (S) Ifrat punietrnenfr,thorryh varyfng t.lc clegree d.eend.ent upon tbe clrctustcea ettndat l each case, rlIL be ueted out l
co^sea of,
hoeexrt8l behavlor.
(4) "4't the consequencee of unfevorable ctiechargee be mor force.rlLy and fuequently brougb,t to the Bttentlon of 'lr peieonnel. n. Hlth rcepect to sttletlcal ae.lysea: (f) Urat the Cblef of IVavEl Personnel 1 coorttl-n&tlon rttb the ghlef, of the Bureau of UecHcfne e1d Surgery contlnse the d.ereJ-orlent of e etttetlcel basls f,or etudy of the problela of hcrnosexuallty. Factos declde uou aboultl be euecert1le tp IBM cerrl reportlng, 1f pretlc,ble. (a) frat en cc@pletel, e tlal run be concluctd to detn1e
grecticabfJ.lty.
peroauent basle.
(3) Illat 1f te foregoipa tBt smile le deterrnfneil t be rractlcabre, the collectlon ard sra,llses of dats be contlued. oD e
(k) fUat tbe roy a Air lbrce be ad.lrteed 1 the Frenlses ad l.'rlt to parttclpete l orer. to asgebLe e bocly of otetlstlcal clata for nt;trre atu{y. o. I4tltb respect to attftude act lollcieo reneaeutotlve of soclety of large tovarcl hooosexualfty: ', 'i
!
_ (I) ,laltafn i-u g"reat psft tbe preeent serrrlce apnoecb to tbe rrobleo of bcqee)ilell behevlor. () Be alert to keep ebeest af ery rlde ecceptedt chrngeo fn t'be ettlude of ooclety at ldrge tovard the overnli probl_eo. (3) IIre serslce should not moye aead of cfvlJ-1a Eoclety nor ettenpt to get substantlBl-y dlfferent etnd.,rds ln ettltude toHrd . or ectl.one rrltb repec to hcmosexunl offendero. 2- The recoooendetlons lnragrer r above, as appric.br, 'nd,er bere becq subettlnlry lcorlnrated. in the pnopose evr dlrcoilve
69
FOR OFTICIAL USE
ORLY
-l:''
DoD LA 7.10 049739
OFFICIAL USE ONLY Bttschecl hereto es encloeure (4). It f recc@ended thet t'he cwente gf lntere8ted Burseus ancl officea be obtelDe to the en of lBBulug
enclosur
1620.1.
(tt) t'o
euperoecle
the cu'rrt dlrective,
6EC1{AV
Instructlon
NeYal Becords
3. It ls reccreniled that 1f ttre report of tble Boertl 1a approveil, cople8 thereof, wlth parttcu.L8 refere[ce to Sectlo E, be uade araflable to the Nary Dfocberge Reviev Boad arrl Board for Correctloo of for
gulclance.
TOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

70
DoD LA 7-10 049740
TOR .0FFCIAL UST
OLY
lfaroh
Ehe Bogrd havlg corcrrdeil 1ts d.euberatlone, reepectf\r{y aublte herrrlth fts oplnlona, fl,ndlnge anil recomendatlons, tura r5tu-oay or
195?.
h*'n ("*
lihber
cp&c'e H. nntrs Csptefir, l., ISN
s. E. Cnr:IEl{rE[, JR. / Cptsl, U. S. l{evy

Cbalnna
(ccRc). suLr,nrar{
Menber
RLJ$1' Aut{arl lpte, rsr
w.fu
f|-*ta)E....^-q*1rnlRl-Fr I CEARr:s CIAII
7l
FOR OFFICIAL USE .0NLY
.+
'v
DoD LA 7-10 049741
Sexual Orientation and LJ.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment
National Defense Research Institute
RAND
The research described in this repori was sponsored by the Offrce of the secretary of Defense under R-{ND's National Delense Research Institute, a
0004,
federally funded research and development centel'supported by_the offlce of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint staff, contract No. MDA903'90-C'
ISBN: 0.8330.144I-2
RAND is a nonprofit jrstiLution thal seeks to improve pubc poicy through research and anaysis. Pubfications ofl RAND do not necessariy reflect the opinions or policies of the sponsors of RND research.
RAND Copyright @ 1993
Pubished 1993 bY RANI) P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1?00 Main Street, To obtain information about RAND studies or to order documents, cal Distribution Services, (310) 393-0411, extension 6686
Sexual Orientation and LJ.S. Military Personnel Polcy: Options and Assessment
National Defense Research Institute
MR.323-OSD
Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense

-'
RAND
SEXUIJ ORIENTATION A}TD
U.S. MIIJITRY PERSONNEIJ POI'TCY:
OPTIONS A.hID SSESSMENT
National Defense Research lnetitue SEudy

Scott . Harrle study Group Dlrectors dler Regearsh |lbrarlan
SugaD
RliD
Berrard D, Rostker
,Ioyce Petersou
Cornunlcatlons Analyst
Reaercb staff
DeparEments
bY fask M!7tt.ary optnlon

sardra H. BerrY Jennifer A. Hawes-Dawson c. Neil Fulcher Lawrcncc M. Hanser
Paul- Koegel James P. Kahan
SamanEha Ravi"ch
Eoretga If!7ltatY Erik-,Jan Frinking

Jarea
Domeslc Po7Lce aad Flte
P,
Kahar
Paul Koegl
BrenE BoulEinghouse
C. Neil FuLcher Lawrence M. Ilanser Scott . llarris PauI Koegel Bernard D, Rostker John D. Winkler
Joanna Zorn HeiJbuln

James P. Kahan JaneL Lever RoberE MacCoun Peter Tiemeyer
Scoft . Harris
GaiL L.
Peter Tiemeyer
ZeLlnan
John D.- Winkler
Gail L. Zellman
HTstotY
severr Schloaaman TimorhY Haggarty Tanjam Jacobson
Publtc optnlon
PeEer Tiemeyet Sanantha Ravch
Anlt Coheslon and

Pertormance ndrew Cornell John D. Winkle-
Robert
Dfaccoun
Ancel,la Livers
Brent Boultinghouse
Sherie Mershon
fmplementaE!oD
Sexual Behavtor and HaJth-
I'egaJ Issues Peter D. ,JacobsoD Stephn A. Saltzburg
Related Iasueg
,Janet lever
fark , Schuster David E. Kanouse

Raynard KingEon Mark Litivin
Joanna Zorn Heilbrunn ' , Conrad SclunidE carl H. Buil-der
Gall IJ, ZeIIman
Fac7l,lEtes Revlew
Recrultment and Reenttn

,lchix D. Wlnkler
Researc MethodoToW
William Fedorochko, Jr. Marilyn L. Fisher John F. Peterson

Tora K. Bikson
suaan Hosek
Roger BrowD
carl H. Bulder 'James . Der,rar
Rev!evets
Richard Darilek Bryan HaIImark Deborah R. Hensler Douglas Longshore

Glenn
.
chris Bowie
GoLz
Lorraine M. McDonnell Bruce R. orvis Elizabeth S. Rol-ph

Michael- Traynor Susan F, Turner
David S. C.
SamueI BozeL.te
Chu
Task leaders are deslgnated ln bold tt4)e face
- Lf].
PREFCE
This report documents the r.",]lar of a study that was undertaken by RND's National Defense Research Institute (NDRI) aL the request of Secrelary of Defense Les Aspin- A Presidential Memorandum directed Secretary spin to submit bhe draft of an Executve order "ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orienLation in the Armed Forces" by July 15, 1993 (Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense, Ending iscrimination on the Easjs of Sexua| OrientaEion in the.Armed Forces, January 29, 1993). The SecreLary of Defense asked RAND to provide information and analysis thaL would be useful- in helping formulate the
ExecuLive order. The research documented in this report v/as completsed and provided to the Secretary of efense prior to he decisions announced by the Secretary and the President on July 1-9, 1993. This report consists of an Executive Summary and an Overview that present the study's findings, It also conbains chapters on specific subjects and shorLer appendices that expand on poinEs covered in Lhe Overview. The Overview synthesizes .the research and functions as a oroad mapd poinEing the reader toward these additional discussions. This study was conduct.ed within NDRI's Defense Manpower Research Center by a mulbdj-sciplinary team of researchers drawn from a number of research departments at RAND. NDRI is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the JoinL Staff. The views expressed in this report are those of the research team and do not neessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the sponsors
'
CONTENTS
Preface
r11
Figures
Tables
""""
xL
X].II
Execubive Surmary
Sect ion
'' xvrl
POLICY:
1..
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND U.S. MILITRY PERSONNEL OPTIONS .AND SSESSMENT--STUDY OVERVIEW
POLICY
1 1
Introduction.
...
Study APProach The "Not Germane"/Conduct-Based Pol-icy '''' U.S. MiliEary Policy on Homosexuality and Sodomy HomosexuaLity and Ehe Military, 1916 to 1940 WorLd War II z 1-94L to l-946 The Cold War Era t 1946 to L956 The Military and Homosexuality in the 1960s and 1970s The Recent Past: 1981 to 1991' ' Military Law: Homosexuality and Sodomy Review of Anal-ogous InsEiEutions and Experiences The Experience of Foreign Militaries The Experience of DomesEc Fire and PoIice Departments " ' ' ' ' The History of RaciaL lntegration in the United staLes
2
2
3 1
4
6
6 o
10 11
15
Current Anerican Attitudes Toward Homosexuals Serving Attitudes in the General PopulaEion AttiLudes in the MilitarY Issues of Concern: Violence and AIDS.
Violence HIV Transmission and TDS Understandj.ng Unit Cohesion lmplications of Lhe Research. . . A PoIicy ThaL Ends Discrimination Based on Sexual OrienEation ... Legal Issues Regarding a "NoL Gernane",/ConducL-Based
Dalir rvf uY
Mi
i LarY
)(\
23
4
))
27
28
ao
3L
"""'
.'..,,36
32
Implementabion of a Policy That Ends Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual orientation,...
"'
..
38
2.
SEXUL ORIENTATION AND SEXUL
Approach Eo the LiteraEure ".'.'' Prevalerce of Homosexualiby: General Population and the
Homosexual Behavior in he-General Homosexual Behavior Ainong Milltary
BEHAVIOR
'
4T
41
43
"""" Population ''' Personnel' " " Relatonship BetvJeen StaEus and Conduct....' """' Homosexual Behavior monq self-IdenLified Heterosexuals ,.,,.
Military
.r.."'.;"'r"'""
44 49 50 51
_VI-
56 Surnary/conc lus ion prevaLence of Proscribed Behaviors by sexual OrientaEion ' ' . ' ' ' ' 56 5'l Ora] Sex mong Heerosexuals and Homosexuals " " 60 Anal Sex Amonf Homosexuals and HeLerosexuals
VirginityandCelibacyAmongself-IdentifiedHomosexuals..-.
EA
Conclusions.'.-3.
63
ANALOGOUS EXPERTENCE OF FOREIGN MILTTARY SERVTCES
65
65 65 66
fntroduction. ' . Countries Vi-sited pproach

Focus
..-.,..'.'i."
68
q
The National Context NaEional and MiliEary Statisbics ' ' Societal AtEitudes Towards Homosexuality " Foreign Militaries and Homosexuality
Canada
69
,7L
73 74
BO
France
Germany
o? B5 90
The Netherlands
Norway
IsraeI
'
United Kingdom An International ComParison MiliEary Policy and Practice Reflect SocietaL Norms
Homosexuals
95 99
101
Problems Are Dealt With on a Case-by-Case Basis Change Has Not Been DsrupEive
Visited
4.
NALOGOUS
L06 ""' InEroduction.'. .' " .. ' 107 Instructive Is the nalogy? 108 ..""' fssues Ehe Analogry Can Illuminate ' ' " 109 Foci and Methods of the Study '" 109 Cities Vsited ' ' 110 Focus of Visits '.. '.;'..;'.: ' .r'... "" 172 Methods contexEandVariationinNon-DiscriminationPo].icies..'.114 ''" 115 The Municipal climate .'" cfimate within Police and Fire Departments . ' ' ' L16 The InLernal 119 """' Varieties of Non-Discridii'nation Policies 120 """' Conseguences of a Non-Discrimination Po1icy 72I '''" The Experiences and Responses of Homosexual-s ''' ' ' ' ' 133 The Responses and Concerns of Heterosexuals " ' tt The ImpacE of Policy Change on the Instituion ' 143 "''" The Implementation Process " " ' 144 The NaLure of the PolicY The Appropriate Emphasis in Implementing Non' ' 145 Discrimination Policies .. " I41 Role of Leadership '' The Critical ' ' ' " ' 150 Unintended Consequences of Special cl-ass Status " ' 152 Training
' ' 103 ' ' " ' ' 103 ' ' " ' 104 EXPERIENCE OF DOMEST]C POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS"'' 106
serve--But Quietly--In AlI Militaries
' ' 102
How
- vii The self-Regulating Nature of the Implementation Process ' . ' 153 Implications for Tmplementing Policies of Non-iscriminaLion - ' 154 PoTENTII INSIGHTS FRoM ANLoGoUs SITUATIONS: INTEGRTING
BLACKS INTO THE
.. 158 U.S, MILITARY .. 158 ""' Introduction." ' ' 158 Limitations of the nalogy of Women in the Military ' ' " 159 The Analogy of Racial Integrabion . ' .. ' - 761 Implementing Racial Integration in the U.S. Military'' " " " L61 The Crucial Role of Leadership. . " ' ' 162 The Importance of Civilian Leadership sErongMilitaryLeadershipinTandemwithSErongcivlian 165 ".'' LeadershiP "' t70 Forces Restraining fntegration .' Racial Integration, Unit Cohesion, and Milj.tary L1L """ Effectiveness " Unit Cohesion: Evidence from World War II and Korea ''" ' " I73 " " " 178 Racial Tnbegration and Military Effectiveness ' Racial T\rrmoil and Mil-itary Ef f ectiveness in Ehe VieE'nam ''" 1Bo Era " ALEitudes Versus Behaviors During the Process of fntegration: Maintaining Civility Without Overturning 183 Prejudice ".'" PubIic Opinion Durng the Transiion to InteqraLion: 183 From Highly Unfavorable Eo ModeraEely Unfavorable "'''''' .. ' 185 tstiLudes Versus Behaviois '''' 186 Despite Success, Problems Beneath bhe Surface "" Implications for Allowing Acknowledged Homosexuals to serve 188 """ in the MilitarY
. ::: .: .:: : :: : t .:: : Approach overall Views About. HomosexualiEy' . ' Demographic and Sociaf Differences in AttiLude " How tbitudes Vary by Religion, Polibica1 Alignment, Region
How
191 191 191
6.
RELEVANT PUBLIC OPNION lnLroduction. . .
192
1,9 4
and
195 L91 198 198
1.9 9
ttitudes Vary by Perceived Nature of Homosexual'ity ' ' ' ' AttiEudes Toward Ehe CivI RighBs of Homosexuals ' Beliefs bout Job and Housing Rights Beliefs About LegaJ- Sanctions and Legal Rights Beliefs About "Familial" Rights PubIic Attituces bout Homosexual-s Serving in the Military ' ' ' ' Attitudes of Young AduIts Regarding Homosexuafity and MilitarY Service ""' ceneral Conclusions on Public opinion ''''"' .. ' RELEVANT MILITARY OPINION .',' Tntroduction,... " Los Angeles ?jmes Survey Limitations "' " " ' Findings Moskos/MiIler Army surveys Limitations,,.,
207 20]. 204
20'l
209 209
2t0 zrL
2lI
2r4 2r5
- vlll:
Findings and Conclusions . Conclusons from BoEh Surveys." Focus Groups Conducted by RAND Method I,,lhaE the Participants Told Us ... Discussion of Homosexuals in Ehe Military Conclusions from the Focus Groups Conclusions Abou! MiliEary opinion
L
" '
'' ""' " ' '" " """'
'"' """
216 219 221 221 224
230 239 240
]SSUES OP CONCERN: EFFECT OF ALLOWING HOMOSEXULS TO SERVE IN , THE MILTTARY ON THE PREVALENCE OF HIV/IDS
v-
l-0
" 242 242 ""' ' ' 243 " 244 "'''' 248 '""" '.' 248 I^lho Is TesLed? 250 ''"" Accuracy of HfV Testing Procedures for Mititary Personnel" Iho Test HIV-Positive . . . . 253 f f Homosexuals l,ere Allorved to Serve, Would HIV fnfecEion " 254 Increase in the MilitarY? 255 "'"' EsEimabing Transmission Rates Risk FacEors for Hrv Exposure in the civj.]ian PopulaEion . . . 256 Sexua] Risk Behaviors for HIV-Exposure tunong Military ......263 personnel' ' " 268 Infection from Contact with HIv-Tnfected Blood "" z'lt Conclusions,.,.. ISSUES OF CONCERN: NTI-HoMOSEXUL VIOLENCE ' ' 272 " " 273 Overview of DaLa "' 273 DaEa Sources and Limitations ..-. sunrnary of Literaure on the Incidence of Ant-Homosexual 214 violence """' ' " " " 2'75 Anti-Homosexual Violence in Ehe Mititary " ' 276 Underreporting of Violence Personal and Environmental Correlales of Anti*Homosexual277 """' violence The Perpetrators of Anti-Homosexua] Vj-olence ' ' ' 2'78 The Consequences of nbi-Homosexual Violence for bhe .. 278 Victims Anti-Homosexual- VioLence and the Formulation of Policy " 2'79 Regarding HomosexuaLs j-n the Military nti-Homosexual Violence and the Implementation of a Policy " 280 Regarding Homosexuals in the MiJ.iLary A Cl-ear Message ot: Zero Toleranc from the Leadership " ' ' ' ' 280 Tracking the Incidence of Anti-Homosexual Violence ' " z9t Ensuring AdequaLe Treatmen and Disposition of Victims of nti-Homosexual Viol-ence "' 28I ....282 Conclusions..... WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT UNIT COHESION AND MTLITARY PERFORMNCE. . ' ' ' 283 283 """ overview ' " " 284 Assumptions and Focus of Lhe Chapter ,'" 284 The Literature Review '.'. Key Issues in the Review ' " " 286
The Epidemiology of HIV,/IDS'-... HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Population HIV/AIDS in the Military PopulaEion The Military's HIV/AIDS Policy
-ix" " '' Unit Cohesion and Its Effects on Performance """ IJhat Is Cohesion? " l^that EffecL Does Cohesion Have on Unit Performance? '" ' Effects of Cohesion on Psychological Coping " '" Other Determj.nanEs of Military Performance " What FacLors Influence Social and Task Cohesion? " ' Propinquity and Group Membership ""' Turnover and Turbulence . """' Leadership "".' Group Size ' "'"' Success Experiences '''. '"' Shared Threat "" SimilariEy/Homogeneity ... How Would A11owj-ng cknowledged Homosexuals to serve Affect '' Cohesion and Performance? Will Many UniLs Have Acknowledged Homosexuafs as "'"" Members? How Might the Presence of cknowledged Homosexuals " Influence cohesion? "..:"..'.. WiIl Contact wiLh cknowledged Homosexuals InfLuence
tt i tudes ? witl Negative Attitudes Toward Homosexual-ity Be Expressed Behavj-oralIY? .' Will Heterosexuals Obey an Openty Homosexual- Leader? Conc1usions.. .., ' ..:'. SEXUAL ORIENTATTON AND THE MILITARY: SOME LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS
287 287 292 297
298 299 299

300 302 303 303 304 306 307 308
3L2
3]_1
322
329
11.
..".332 . 332 ""' Introduction..' " 332 The "Not Germane' OPtion .' " ' 334 The .9andard of Professionaf ConducE .':.... '"' 335 Legal Background Legal and Legislative Trends'Regarding Homosexuals .' .' " " ' 336 338 The Current Military Policy Regarding Homosexuals ' " 339 General LegaI PrinciPles 339 Deference to the MilitarY 340 Equal Protecbion and the MilitarY 343 Responding to the Prejudices of Others Current State of the Law " ' ' ' 344 Homosexuals in the Military: Legal Considerations for he '9andard of Professjonal
Implementing the Standatd of Professional Conduct
Background
Conduct
346 346
347 348
The SLandard's Specificity
Pre-Notification .:.'.' Equal Protection .'..':. Unequal EnforcemenL'...
i...'. .'.". .'.','.'
349
350 351
.: Legal Issues Regarding the Rescind Enclosure 3H of DoDD 1332.14 Without ModifYing .. the MCM "'''" Changing the MCM '' OEher Legal Issues
on-Base/Of f -Base conducL
;;i:::::
:::: : ::::::::::::::
133 354 358 363
-x-
!2.
" " ' "' "-" IMPLEXVIENTING POLICY CHANGE ]N LRGE ORGANIZATTONS.' ..''" .'"' rntroduction" ""'" Implementation Context.'. Military culture ".'..' ""' The PoIicY context Factors That constrain and support Policy ImplementaEion. . . . . . Policy Design "" BenefiEs conclusions" ' .i,...'
Implementation Process . . Local Context for Change fmplementing a Polcy to End Discrimination ' . Design a Policy that Facilitates Implementation Ensure Leadership Support at A1l Levels StrengLhen Lhe Local Context for Change conclusions, , ,
What Privacy Rights Can Heterosexuals AsserL? ccession and ReinstaLement Rights for Previously Excluded or Discharged Homosexual-s
363
364
364 366 368 368 369 369 371
372
373
375
378
3
80
380 385
JOO 101
1?
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON MTLITARY RECRUITMENT AND
Background
Research on EnlistmenE and Reenlistment. - . Research Framework Research Findings Possible Effects of Removing the Ban.. EnlisEments "" Reenlistment.s ..
Policy Implications. .
RETENTTON ., 395 " " 395 ' . 397 '. " ' 397 ..--.' 398 399 ..'." " 399 ..403 -..' 405
Appendix
.. ' ' ". 409 A. ILLUSTRTIVE STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ..... 4IL B, LIVING ND PRTVACY CONDITIONS IN THE MILITARY SERVICE ...' ' ' 4I8 C. LEGAL PROVTSIONS CONCERNING,SODOMY D, ATTTTUDES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY ND MILITARY SERVICE TN CANADA, .. " 420 THE UNITED KINGDOM, }ND THE UNITED STATES . "... ' 423 E. RELEVNT CANAD]AN REGULATIONS ' ". ' ' 436 F. RELEVANT DATA FROM SURVEYS G, LOS ANGELES TIMES POLL. . . " 457 H. 1992 SOCIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ARMY. . " " ' 463 ON SODOMY I. STTE RESTRICTIONS .."' 465 Bb1iography...
-xl-
FIGI'RES
8-1. 10-1. t0-2. 10-3. B-1, -,

B-3.
Window Period
B-4,
' " ' " 253 for HIV TesEing 305 EffectsofExternalThreatsonSociatandTaskCohesion..'' 315 Alternate Models of Cohesion in 5-Person Unit 324 Attitude-Behavior Link Is Indirect 411 Scope of On-Site Visits and Privacy '"' ' ' 4L3 DoD Minimum Standards of Acceptable Space " ' ' 4I5 Scope of ShiPboard Visits ' " ' 4:-.6 MiliEary Life CYcte Mode]
- xtLf
TBI.ES
of Open Homosexuals in Selected I7 ""' Police and Fire DeparEments"' ' 2r t.EsLimatesofHomosexualBehaviorFromU'S.Probability 4'7 """ Studj-es 67 ""' 3-1, Cateqories of People Interviewed, by Country Statistics " ' " " ' ?0 3-2, Selected Nationa] and Military " " " 72 3-3. Civilian Laws Regarding Homosexuality '"' 111 4-l^. cities visited 4-2, Selected Demographic Information bout cities visited. '. ' '. ' 111 ' ' ' ' 7]-4 4-3. Sources of Information, by City ' 4-4. Numbers and PercenLages of open Homosexuals in the Police ' ' 1-23 and Fire Departments of Six Cities 6-!. "Do you agree or disagree with Ehe followinq sLatement: ,Homosexualityisincompatiblewithmil-iLaryservice.'203 6-2, 'In order to deal with the issue of gays in the military' some people have proposed a plan calIed 'Don't Ask' Don't Tel}.' According to that plan, the military would no longer ask personnel whether or not they are homosexual' BuL if personnel reveal that they are homosexual', Lhey Is that a plan you would be discharged from the miliLary' 203 would support or oppose?" 7-I. Military ReenlisEment IntenEions witsh and without Ban on " 214 Homosexuals"'.. 7-2, Percentage Distributions for greement or Dj-sagreement withProposalThatHomosexualsBeA}].owedtoEnterand ' ' 276 Remain in the Military . '.' " Tlzpe of 7-3. proportion of I'la1e and Females Preferring Each ''" 2L9 Fellow Soldier strongly -l-4. proportion of Mal-es and Females IndicaLing They " 220 Agree or Agree wiLh Each Stabements 8-1'U.S.AlDsDiagnosesReportedDuringtheYearEndingMarch 21 1002 " 245 "' 245 B-2, HIV PosiLive Tests Among AcEive-Duty Personnel""' 8-3. Rates of HIV Positivity Among People Who Had a Prior 246 "''' NegatJ.ve Test, ArmY ' ' ' ' ' ' 249 8-4. DeparLmenE of Defense's HIV Testing Po1icy B-5. HIV-Positi-ve Rate Among Civi'lian ApplicanEs " " ' 249 1-1.
Numbers and Percentages
Y]V
8-6.
BisexualMeninLosAngeLescounty,l-989-90byTlpeof Partner and Condom Use.. 1O-1. EsEimaed Prevafence of cknowledged Homosexuals in DomesEic Paramilitary Institutions Visited by RAND 13-1. Active Force Enlisted Accessions and the Prime Recruiting
Marke
of Recen Sx Partners, Homsexual/BisexuaI Men and General Population, Los Angeles CounEy' 1989-90 the B-1. Mean Frequencies of Vaginal fntercourse funong HeEerosexuals and of Anal Intercourse Amongr Homosexual and
Number
257
26r
310 402
1.3-2'EstimatedReen}istmentsbyReenlistmentlntentions D-1, Canadian, U.S', and BriEish Support of Gay Rights in the EarIY 1980's D-2, ofn your opinion, should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children or not? D-3. Canada: 'Do you think homosexuals should or shouLd not be employed n the followi'ng occupations" '" U.S.:"DoyouthinkhomosexualsshouldorshouLdnoLbe o hred for each of Ehe following occupations ' ' ' ' D-4. "Do you think that .'. should be allowed Eo serve in the Canadian mititary or not?/ F_1,. Description of uhe various surveys cited in This study...... F- 2. "What about sexual reLations beEween Lwo adults of the sarne sex--do you Lhink it is always wrong' almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at a]1? F-3',Doyoupersonallythinkthathomosexualrelationships between consenting adul-ts is morally wrong' or is not a ".'' moral issue?" F-4."Doyoufeetthathomosexualityshouldbeconsideredan acceptable alternative lifestyle or no!?" F-5, "What about sexual relaEions between two adults of the same sex--do you Lhink it is always wrong' almost always wrong/ wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at al? F-6. 'Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alEernaLive lifestyle or not?" F-7.',Wouldyousayyouagreea]-ot|agreealittle,disagreea IitEle,ordisagreealot'..Icouldbefriendswithagay
pexson
404
42r 42r
422
435
438
438 438
439 440
44L
F-8.
F-9,
'Do you think being homosexual is something people choose to be, or do you bhink it is something they cannot
change? "
441 442
"In general, do You Lhink homosexuals should or should not have equal rights n .Lerms of j.ob opportunities?"
-vIt-
F-10, 'Do you thnk homosexuals should or should not be hired '''"' for each of the following occupations?" "' you permit or not permit your child to go PlaY at F-11, "Would the home of a friend who Lives with a homosexua ParenE?" .., F-t2, "Some time ago, the citizens of Miami voted to repeal a county ordinance that banned discrj'mi'nation in employment and housing based on a person's sexual preferences' The is ordinance essential'ly meanL that-someone whojob homosexual or living could not be kept froml holdns. a.particular type of housing simply because he or she is in any homosexual. Which of these sLatements best describes how you feel abouE the law and discriminatj-on against homosexuals?" ,. '
F- 13
442 442
443
F-14,
F-15, F-16. F-17.
but we can'b always choose he "InIe can choose our friends, Here s a list of some close)-y with. people we work different LYPes of people. For each one, would you tell me whether You would strongly object Lo working around them, or Prefer not to work around them, or wouldn'L mind working around Ehem? " between "Do you think marriages beLween homosexual men or homosexual women should be recognized as legal by Lhe law?", "Do you think that homosexual coupes should be legaIlY permitEed Eo adoPt chi Ldren? "
"I^lhat about a '...
443
444
444
""444 CanthisbeafamilY?"'you feel thaL family leave laws should or should not 'Do also apply Lo homosexual people who need to care for a 445 seriouslY i11 cornPanon?" . F-18, 'fn general, do you think that sEaEes should have the in r j-ght to prohibit, particular 'sexual practices conducted 445 private beLween consenting , " a" "' F-1 9 "Do you think homosexual relaCions between consenting
adults shouLd or should no! be l-egal?" - "
'
445
F-20.,,DoyouthinkbhatLhelawswhichprotectLhecivj.lright's of racal- or religious minorities should be used to proLect the ri-ghts of homosexuals?"
I.-2I
" ''"
446
"Should a federal law be passed proEecting homosexuaLs 446 from discrimina!ion?" F-22. "Do you think homosexuaLs should or should noL be able to ' ' ' 446 serve in Ehe armed forces?" to serve in F- 23. ,,Do you favor or oppose permitting homosexuals
-
F-24
''446 lhemilitary?"-people who join the mlitary should be asked "Do you think 447 if they are homosexual, or noL?"
-xvt-
F-25,
"Do you approve or disapprove of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces of
447 the Unit.ed SLates? F-26. "Do you approve or disapprove of ending Lhe ban on " " ' 441 homosexuals from serving in the military?" F-27, "Whi.ch is closer Eo your position on alfowng gays and ' " ' 448 lesbians in the militarY?"
F-28. "ff the United States returned to a military draft. it would not be necessary to draft everyone of military age' That is, certain types of people could be exempEed, even though they here otherwise gualified for service ' Shoufd homosexuals be exempted?" "If a military draft were to become necessary, should young women be required to participate as well as young men, or not?". P-29. uFor each that I mention, please tell me if you agfree or "" disagree.,.." the F-30. Proportion who "agree a IoL" or "agree a l-ittl-e'to statement "I could be friends with a gay person" by various characteristics. """ F-31. Characteristcs of those stating that they "definitely . will" or "probably wiII" serve in the armed forces contrasted with Ehose stating that they "probably won't" or "definitely won't'.', """ """' I-1, Current SaLus of Sodomy Restrictions, by SEate
448 448
449
450 464
- xv1]-
EXECUTIVE
ST'MMARY
OVERVIEltI
29, 1993, Presdent Clinton signed a Memorandum prior to JuIy 15' directing the Secretary of Defense to "submit 1993, a draft of an ExecuLive order endingr discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in deEermining who may serve in the Armed Forces"' The Presidential Memorandum also directed thaL any ecommendaEion by the secretary shouLd be one that could be "carried out in a manner that is practical and reafisLic, and consistenE with the high standards of combat effectveness and unit cohesion our rmed Forces must maintain'"1 onApriJ-l,lgg3,thesecretaryofDefenseaskedRNDtoprovide information and analysis that would be useful in helping formulate bhe reguired drafL Execubive order, Thj.s Executve summary briefly describes the approach and major conclusions of the study. IE then summarizes the najor findings that supporL that concl-uson'
On January
pproach
n inLerdisciplnary team of researchers from RAND's National Defense Research InstiLute considered a wide range of topics potentially relevant to the issue of acknowledged homosexuals serving in the staff members visited seven foreign counLries and the police military, and fire departments in six merican cities, seeking insj-ghts and
lessons from analogous experiences of other organizations and The team considered Ehe historical record, focusing on institutions, Lhe integration of blacks and on the development of the current policy It reviewed that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military. public opinion, including bhe views of current active-duty military personneJ., and the scientific Literature on group cohesion, sexuality' and relaEecl hea]Eh issues. It examined a number of legal and enforcement issues, as weII as the literature Lhat deals with
lMemorandum for the Secretary of Defense, Ending DiscriminaLion on the Basis of Sexual orientation n the rmed Forces, January 29, t993'
- xv].fl implementing change in large organizations. The results of the team's research are deEailed in the subsequent chapters of Lhis report.
The Pollcy optslon
In light of this research, Lhe team examined a range of potenLial policy options. Most of the options were judged Eo be either inconsisLent with Lhe President's directive, internally contradictory, or boLh. onfy one policy option was found to be consistent with the findings of this research, with the criteria of the Presidential nemorandum, and Lo be logically and internally consistent. That policy would consider sexual orienLation, by iEself, as not germane to The policy would establish determining who may serve in the *J.tit.ty, clear sbandards of conduct for all military personnel, o be equally and stricEly enforced, in order to maintain the military discipline necessary for effective operations. The option requires no major changes in other miliEary personnel policies and no change in current law. The "not germane,' option could be implemenLed without any changes to the administraLj-ve guidefines for prosecutions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). However, several considerations lead to Lhe conclusion that Lhe policy would be more legaI}y defensible and less cosEly and cumbersome to implement if the guidelines were revised to exclude private sexual behavior between consenting adults.
REVIEW OF ANT,OGOUS INSTIfiXPIONS .AND EXPERIENCES
To understand the possible effect of changing policy to permit homosexuals to serve and Lo examine how other institutions have impJ.emenLed similar changes, members o,f the research team visited a
of foreign miliEarie and domestic police and fire departments' None of these organizations is. an exacE model for the u.s. military, of course. but the comparisons can be insEructive in assessing proposed changes in u.s. milibary personnel poticy. Besides these analogous instibu|ions, analogous situations such as Lhe experience of raciaL integration of the American rnilitary rvere also studied for potentially insLructive insights.
number
- xlx
Th ExperieDce of Foreign Milltariee Researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel' the Nebherlands, Norway, and the united, Kingdom, wth the exception of Ehe United Kingdom, aIl of these countries permit known homosexuafs Eo serve in some capacity in their rmed Forces. several broad themes emerged
from these visits, with potential implications for the siEuation facing the United States:
In countries Ehat aLlow homosexuals to serve, the number of openly homosexual service members is small- and is believed to represent only a minorlty of homosexuals acEually serving' service members who acknowledged their homosexualiEy were appropriately circumspect in their behavior while n military sibuations; Ehey did not call attention to themsefves in ways thac could make their service less pleasant or impede their
careers. Few problems caused by Ehe presence of homosexua] service members were reported. Problems that did arise were generally resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis ' If a problem developed to Lhe poj.nt Eha,a unit mighb become dysfunctional, action was Laken to remove the individual (homosexual or
heterosexual) from the unit'

Tbe EJperience of DomesEic Fire and Police Departments unlike the foreign mi.litaries, domestic police and fire departments function in the meri-can culLural and societal conLext' Police and fire
departments share a number of characteristics with the U'S. military thaE make Lhem the cLosest domestic analog. They are hierarchically organized, with a weIl-defined chan of command. Members work together as teams. A substantial proportion of job time is spent training for An inherent feature of shorE, intense periods of hazardous activity. the job is putting one's life at risk, They are markedly different, however, in thaL only the military deploys its members on ships, or
routinely engages in field exercises of exEended length'
-xxvisits to police and fire departmenLs in six cities (chicago, HousEon. Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, and Seattl"e) resuLted n several keY findings: . police and fire department policies prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, only a very small number of homosexuals acknowledge thei-r orientation' particularly where the environment is perceived as hostile to
Even where
homosexuals
.
. .
Homosexuals who
join police and fire deparLments evidently join for the same reasons that heEerosexuals do' Acknowledged homosexuals are sensibive Eo the overall norms and customs of their orgfanizaions. They tend not to behave in ways that shock or offend, and they subscribe to the organization,svaluesonworkingproblemsoutinformallyand within the ranks. Anti-homosexual senLiment does not disappear' However'
heEerosexualsgenerallybehavetowardhomosexua].smore moderately lhan.would have been predicted based on their sLated
. .
atLibudes boward homosexuals ' IDS is a serious concern of heterosexuals and not one Lhat is guicklY alleviaLed bY education' policies of non-discriminat.ion against homosexuals in these departments have had no discerniIe effect on the ability of their departments Lo recruit or'retain personnel' Implementation is most successful where the message is unambiguous, consstn!Iy deJ.ivered, and uniformly enforced' Leadership is critical in this regard' Training efforts that provide leaders with the information and ski1ls needed to implement policy were essentia], Sensitiviy training for rank and fil-e, however, tended to breed additional Training Lhat emphasized resentmenc and to be ineffective. expected behavior, not aEtitudes, was judged most effectve.
;-xxlThe Hlstory of Rcial rntegrauion in the unfted stats Mi1lary The hstorical experience of including blacks in the military can also provide some insighEs concerning the miliLary's ability, as an insLitution, to adapt to change. These are the key insights:
Starting as early as the final years of 'lorld War II and especially during the Korean War, integrated Army units were able to funcbion effectively in aIt sorEs of situaEions even in the most demanding battlefield situations, and even if Lhe indlviduals involved had noE experienced prior social
inbegrab ion
.
It is possib).e to change how troops behave toward previously excluded (and despised) minority groups. even if under3-ying altitudes toward those minori,ty groups change very .ittLeLeadershp matters for implementation--civilian and military leadership must be prepared to work together over a lengthy period to ensure effective implementation of controversial poticies. In some cases, civilian oversight of implementation may be necessary.
PUBIJfC ND DIITITRY OPfNION
any option for ending the restricLion on homosexual service fare depends critically on its acceptance by the public and by the will A review of various surveys people serving n the U,S. military. public opinion is divided over this issue. unLil indicatses that u.s. recently, roughly hal-f of the population bel-ieved that homosexuals should not be alloted to serve. Hohever, a very recent poll indicates that the percentage who believe they should noL be all-owed Lo serve under any conditions has dropped Lo 21, percent. Tt is worth noting this is far bel-ow the percentage (61- percqnt) who were against racial integration of the services at.Ehe.Lime o President Truman's order to clesegregate the miJ.itary Military opinion is overwhelmingly against allowing homosexuals Eo serve. In surveys and RAND-conducted focus groups, a minority of service members expressed indiff,grence to or approval of the policy
How
- xx]']. change, and women were less opposed than men. A few people in Lhe focus groups believed that the military would be able to cope wiEh the change, just as it coped with racial integration. However, most service members of all ranks expressed opposition and concerns abouL the effects it woul.d have on privacy, morale, and unit cohesion and about the probability of anti-homosexual violence and the increase of AIDS in the
miliEary. To the exene EhaL changes in policy resufted in chanqes in the number of acknowledged homosexuals in the military, the rate of antihomosexual violence might change, since acknowledged homosexuals are more readily identified Eargets for such violence, The experience of foreign militaries and police and fire departments suggesLs that if leaders make it quite clear that violence will not be Eolerated and stern action will be taken, violence can be kept to a minimum. s for concerns about AIDS, DoD's testing program for Human fmmunodeficiency Virus (HIV) almost entirely prevent.s the entry of HIVinfected individuals into the military- Therefore, the only way a change in policy permibting homosexuals to serve could significantly affect HIV infection raes in the military is by increasing the number of service members who are nfecLed while serving. If there \/ere an increase, it wouLd have Iittle effecL on military effectiveness. All miliLary personnel whose health is seriously affected by HIV are discharged. Further. al1 service personnel must be tested before deployment and those who test positive cannot be deployed, Given the accuracy of HIV testing, very few HIV-infected personnel would ever deploy or serve i.n combaE, the military blood supply would remain safe, and there woul,d be virtually no danger from contact with blood on the battlefield.
UNDERSTNDII{G UNTT COHESION
Concern about the effecL that an acknowledged homosexual would have on "comba! eftecti.veness and unit cohesion" has dominated the debate'
It also provides the basc raEionale for the current policy
LhaE
xxl"
1r -
,,Homosexuality is incompaLible.with miliLary service"'2 Most mili'tary leaders who have spoken publicly on bhe issue in recent months argue that introduction of a known homosexual into a unit' no matter how dj.screet his or her behavor might be, would seriously undermine the cohesiveness of that unit. UnfortunaLely, the subject has noL been
sLudiedspecifica}ly,andnoconbrolledexperimentsorotherresearch bear directlY on this issue. Thereisa}argebodyofpotent'iallyrelatedempiricalresearchin the fields of industrial organization, social psychology, sports psychology, and group behavior, a significant amounL of which was obher potenbially refevant material can be sponsored by the military. found in Ehe eEhnographic and biographical miliEary J.iterature. The principal conclusion from an extensive review of this literaEure is a order to comonsense observaEion: ft is not necessary Eo like people in work with them, so long as members share a commj-tment Co Ehe group's objecEives' The Iiterature also indicates the following: of a unit cannot accept the presence of an acknowledged homosexual, Lhe result wiIl probably involve some degree of osEracism of Ehe homosexual, rather than a complete breakdown of the unit. I whether this occurs will depend partly on the conduct, competence, and loyalLy of the homosexual indj-vidual in cuestion' Some heterosexuals mighE refuse to cooperate with known homosexuals. However, many'.facLors will help to promote cohesion and performance even in the face of hostility toward homosexuals. First, research suggests thaL leaders play an important role in promoting and maintainng uniL cohesion' Second, military roles, reguLations, and norms a]1 enhance the likelihood thab heterosexuals wilL work cooperativeLy with homosexuals. Third, exLernal threaEs enhance cohesion' provided that the group members are mutually Ehreatened and rf
some members
2DepartmenL of Defense Directive 1332'14 SeparaEions, Enclosure 3H
En 7
i s ted Admini s traE
ive
- xxrv there is the possibility eliminate the danger' that cooperative group action
can
isruptive behavior or behavior thaL polarizes a unit or renders it dysfuncLional, whatever Ehe cause of the behavior' can undermine military effectiveness and should not be toleraed' Although some disruptions might result from having acknowledged homosexuals serving in the military, the lj.terature on qqhesion does not provde a basis for predicting the magnitude of Ehe increase, senior miLitary leaders have sLated that, in their professional judgment, the effects would be substantial. The experience of analogous organizations such as foreign miliearies and domesbic police and fire deparEments suggests that any increase is likely Eo be guite small. Because the magnitude of the problems cannoc be pred.cted, mifitary leaders must have tools available to help them manaqe potential disrupLions and to implement the policy
change successfullY
'
PoIJICY OPTION FoR ENINe DISCRIMINTION Based upon the research su$narized above, a number of ways bo respond to the President's dj-receive were idenEified. A policy that focuses on conduct and considers sexuaJ. orientaEion, by itself. AS not germane in determining who may serve was judged to meet the President's criteria and to Ice most consistent with the research findings' Such a policy emphasizes actual conducE, rlot ehavior presumed because of sexual orienEation, and holds alI s.eryce members to the same standard of professional conduct. It requires Eolerance and resLraint to foster the good of the group, buE mplies no endorsemenb of a "homosexual
1ifestyIe. " n i.I1usErative Standard of ProfessionaJ. Conduct was designed as part of Lhe research project, with Lhe overarching objective of maintaining the order and discipline essential for an operationally effecLive military organzation. similar sLandards have been used effecLively i-n other organizations and foreign militaries and are analogous to the ,,good order and discipline" and "conducE unbecoming"
-XXV-
provisions in military law that have been used effectj.veLy by the u.s. mititary for years, Four features of this standard are central:
A requirement Lhae aI1 members of the miliLary servj-ces conduct themselves in ways Lhat enhance good order and discipline' such conduct includes showing respec and toLerance for othes. while heterosexuals would be asked to toLerate the presence of known homosexuals, al1 personnel, including acknowledged homosexual.s, must understand Ehat the military environmenL is no place to advertise one's sexual orientation' A clear statement that inappropriate personal conduct coul-d destroy order and discipline, and thaE individuals are expected to demonstrat.e the common sense and good judgment not to engge
in such conducE A lisL of categories.of inappropriate conduct, incJ-uding personal harassment (physical or verbal conduct toward others, based on race, gender, sexual orientation' or physical features), abuse of authority, displays of affection, and explicit discussions of sexual practices, experienee, or desires, Application of these sLandards by leaders at every 1evel of the chain of command, in a way that ensures that unit performance is maintained.
leaders wiEh the necessary frame of reference for judging individual behaviors, just as i.L provides individuals with clear guidelines, under this standard, behaviors Lhat commanders judged inimical to effecLive funcLioning of t.he unit (i.e., that undermine task cohesion) would not be tolerated. The "not germane"/conducL-based policy does not require extensive revisions to existing military rules and regulations or to personnel policy, If sexual orientation.isrregarded as not germane in determining who may serve in the military, it is egually not germane to decisions on assignment, pay, military specialty, or benefits' On issues such as reCognizinq homosexual marriages or conferring benefits on homosexual
The conduct-based standard provides military
- xxvi partners, there is no reason for the Department of Defense to change current policy or to become t.he,'l-ead' federal- agency in these areas. Concerns about privacy are often cited by Chose who oppose A survey of mil-iLary permitting homosexuals o serve in the military. faciliEies shows thaE in many ner.rer miliEary facilities there is greater privacy in showers and toilet areas today than was colnmon t.wenty years ago. However, members of the military often find themselves in siLuations where very litt1e personal privacy is avaiable. such as aboard ships or on feld maneuvers. In situations where physical privacy is impossible, sEandards of conduct to fosLer personal privacy have already been developed: Individuals act in ways that do noE intrude upon and are not offensive to others ' For Lhis reason, a sErong emphasis on professional conducL conducive to good order and discpline is the key t.o dealing with prl-vacy issues as vrel' Freedom from personal harassment and uniform standards of conducL are the best guarantees of PrivacY. If sexual orientaLion is regarded as not germane in determinj-ng who may serve. enclosure 3H of the DoD regulations concerning administrative separaEions (DoD DirecEive 1332,1-4) should be rescinded. The most problematic regulatory and legal scenaro woul-d be to end discriminaton wj.thout revising portions of the Manual of CourEs Martial (MCM) relating o Article 125 (Sodomy) of the Uniform,Code of Military Justice (UCM,I).3 to heterosexuals and They have historically been applied differentially homosexuas. ReEainingr t.hem after rescinding Enclosure 3H would weaken Lhe "orientation-neutraI" principle of the "not germane" policy' A pracLca1 approach to dealing with this issue woufd be to revise the MCM to prosecute onty non-consenting sexual behavior or sexual acts
3From the perspectiwe of a homosexual member of the armed services, t.he policy choice would have both positive and negative consequences. A positive outcome would be Lhe ability to serve openLy in the military. But a negatve consequence could be that f 1332.14 is repealed without changing ArticJ.e 125, the only way for Lhe nilitary to discharge a homosexual would be through an rticLe 125 prosecution. Under curren! poJ.i-cy many homosexuals are given administrative discharges and are not usually prosecuted under Article 125' By not removing or modifyng Arc1e L25, homosexua]s woufd be aL greaber risk of an rticle 125 prosecuLion.
wiLh a minor,4 No changes would be necessary in the sodomy article of the ucMJ itself, because LhaL code does noL specify bhe sexual acEs that The definition of the.offense is in the MCM, an are illegal. adminisEraLive document'
IMPIJEMENTTION ISSUES
The manner in which policy change is j-mplemented could have a decisive impacb on wheLher these problems aIe managed with minimal disrupEions or undermine the efforL to change. Based on Lhe research conducted in Lhis study, key elements of an implementaLion strategy can
be idenLified:
'
The messaqe of policy change rnust be clear and must be onsistently communicated from the top' Given the fact that senior leaders of the miliLary are on record opposing any
change, it wilL be necessary, if a change in policy is selected, thab Lhese and other leaders signal their accepLance of the change and their commitment to its successful implementation. It must be clear to the Eroops that behavioral dissent from the policy wil,l not be permibEed' The option selected should be implemented immediaLely. Any sense of experimentaLion or uncertainty invites Lhose opposed to change to conLinue to resist and co seek to "prve" that Ehe
will not work. Emphasis should be placed on behavior and conduct, not on teaching tolerance or sensiEivi-ty. For those who believe thaL homosexuality is primarily a moral issue, efforts to teach tolerance would breed additional resentmenb. Attltudes may change over Eime, but behavior must be consistent with the new policy from the f irsL 'daY. Leadership must send messages of reassurance to the force. The military is currenLl-y undergoing a variety of other stressful experiences, e.g., declining budgebs and the drawdown in the force. In such an atmosphere, it is important to signal that
change
4ppendix C contains an example of such a revision'
- xxv]-lt
in policy rwi1l not have markedly disruptive effects and Lhat it is not int.ended as a chaLlenge to t.raditional mi}itaryvalues.Thisclimateofpsychologcalsafetys conducive to acceptance of the change ' Leaders at a1 levels should be empowered to implement the policy, and some special training or assistance for leaders may be a useful device for ensuring that Ehe change is undersbood and occurs raPidlY ' A monitoring process shoufd be esEablished to identify any problems early in the implementation process and address Ehem the
changfe i,mmediatelY
-
The option assessed here, a conducL-based set of standards applied Under the premise that sexual orientation, as such. is "not germane" to military service, appears to meeE the President's criteria and to be consistenL with empirical research and historicaf experience. By following this implementation straEegy,,. the Department of Defense should
be able to increase the probability thaE a policy tha! ends discriminabion based on sexual orentation can be implemented in a practical and reaListic manner and that the order, discipline, and individual behavior necessary to maintain cohesion and performance are more likelY to be Preserved.
:
-1-
1.
sExuoRIENTTxoNANDU's.}IIIJITRYPERSoNNEI,PoIICY:
POLTCY OPTIONS ND SSESSMENT
SrUDY OVERVIEW
IMT'RODUCTION
onJanuaryZg,tgg3,PresidentClintonsignedaMemorandum prior to July 15' drecting the Secretary of Defense Lo "submit 1g93, a draft of an Executive order ending discriminaLion on the basis of sexual orientation in deLermining who may serve in che Armed Forces ' " The presidentj,aL Memorandum also directed Lhat the recommendation by the secrearybeonethatcouldbe,.carredoutinamannerthatis practical and realistic, and consistent wiEh the high standards of combat effecLiveness and unit cohesion our Armed Forces must maintain'"1 Tn issuing his directve, the PresidenE was acting on a campaign pledge to end the prohbiion on homosexuals servng in the united states j's Changing policy to permit homosexuals to serve military. controversial, and the change is opposed by many in the public and in congress. The chairman of the Joint chiefs of staff and other senior military leaders have indicated that they believe permittinq known homosexuals to serve in the military would undermine unit cohesion and
performance.
A series of congressional- hearings, held durng the spring of L993, revealed a broad rangte of opinion on the subject' Many senior military officials, such as reLj.red rmy General Norman Schwarzkop, stated that hey believed current policy banning. homosexuals shouLd remain unchanged, other current nd'former members of the military supported permitting homosexuals to serve. iExp.rt wi.bnesses and social scientists
voiced divided opinions on the issue ' Theabsenceofapoliticalconsensus,nCongressorinthecountry as a whole, combinecl vith divided expert opinion and conflicting views among military personnel, makes the search for an acceptable solution The secrecary of Defense subsequently asked RAND bo provide difficult. for Lhe Secretary of Defense, Ending Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual orienLaLion in he Armed Forces, January 29, 1993'
lMemorandum
-2information and analYsis that would b useful in helping formulaLe the required draft Executive Order. pproach . National Defense Research InStiEute initiated this effort on Apri11,].gg3.AninterdisciplinaryEeamofresearchersconsidereda wide range of Eopics potentially relevant to the issue of acknowledged homosexuals serving in the mititary... sEaff members visited military organizations in seven foreign counbries and police and fire departments
Sudy RND,s
insixAmericancities,seekinginsgh!sandlessonsfromanalogous The team experj.ences of other organizations and instiLutions' integration of considered the historical record, focusing on the African-Americansandonthedeve].opmentofthecurrentpolicyEhaE prohibitshomosexualsfromservinginthemilitary.Itreviewedpublic opiniondataandthedataconcerningtheviewsofcurrentactj-ve-duty group military personnel, It also reviewed the scientific IiteraEure on cohesion,sexuality,andrelatedhqa}thissues.Itexamj.nedanumberof legalandenforcementissues,aswellastheliLeraturethatdealswith implementing change in large organizations' This chapter brings ogether the results of the Eeam's research' whch is reported more fully in subsequent chapters of the report '
Tb,rNot GeEaDe,,/Coduc-Baeed Policy Intighofthisresearch,theteamexaminedarangeofpotenEi-al. policyoptons.MosEoftheoptionswerejudgedtobeinconsistentwith the president,s memorandum, i.nternally contradictory, or both' Only
one
polj-cyoptionwasfoundtobeconsistentwiththefindingsofEhj.s researchandthecriteriaofthePresidentialmemorandum,andtobe logicallyandnEernal}yconsisLenc.Thatpolicywouldconsidersexual orenEation,byiLself,asnotgermanetodetermini-ngwhomayservein The policy would establish clear sLandards of conducL for trhe military. all miIary personne}, Eo be equally and strictly enforced, in order to maintain the miliLary disciplj-ne necessary for effecive operations' The opEion reguires no majgr chanqlP in other military personnel policies and no change in current 13w' The "not germane" opLion could
-3j
be implemented wiLhout any changes to bhe adminj-sLralive guideLines for prosecutions under the uniform code of Military Justice (ucM.l). However, several Consderations lead to the conclusion that the policy would be more legally clefensible and less costly and cumbersome to implemenL if Lhe guidelines were revised bo exclude private sexuaf behavior bet.ween consenLi-ng adults. This po1cy opEion is described in gfreater deLail later in Lhis overview' Introducing a change of this type in the militaiy r"quires careful attenLion o implementation issues. The prevailing attitudes of both the leadership and many military personnel are hostile to any change. Based on the historical experiences of adapt.ation to change in the military and the research Iiterature on change in large organizations, several key elements of an implementation strabegy are identified and
di"scussed.
ThisoverviewsynthesizestheresultsofLheRNDresearchand functions as a ,.road map" to Ehe chapters and appendxes that foLlow' It begins wibh a review of the hist.ory of u.s. military policy toward homosexuals and of the applicable provisions in DoD regulations and miltary law Ehat have resEricted homosexuafs from serving. U.S.
MIIJITRY POIJICY ON HoMOSEXUIJITY ND SoDOlfY
si-nce world war I, homosexuals have been restricted from serving in lhe rmed Forces of Ehe united sEates through either personnel regulations or the application of the sodomy provisions of miliEary ]aw'
defined as ana] or oral- sex between men or between a man and a woman, AL the end of hlorld'war II,,the legal definition was changed to incfude sexual relations bet\^/een women as well'
sodomy was
HomoBexualty and the Millary, 1916 to 1940
EarlyaLtemptstoregulaEehomosexua}behaviorsvJithinthe Armed Forces were sporadic and inchoale, The Articles of Vlar of 1916 went into effecE on l- March 191-?. As the first compleLe revision of mi I i Eary 1aw in over 100 years, this new codification was the first legaJ' document to address the incidence of sodomy within the miltary populalion. The first mention of sodomy in military law was in Art ic 1e
-4g3, which prohibted assault with the intent to comrniE sodomy.2 In their 1920 revision, the Articfes of l,Jar included sodomy as a separate offense.3 This sEatute did not change until L951' BetweenthetwoWor].dWars,themilitaryattemptedLoscreenand exclude homosexuals from service by uLilizing contemporary biological theories abouE the causes and manifestations of homosexuality' In L92I' for example, the Army's "stigmata of'degeneration" included men who and an appeared overly feminine, with sloping shoulders' broad hips' absence of secondary sex characteristics, including facial and body hair. Iso among Lhe exclusion critera was Ehe degenerative relations characEerst j-c of ,,sexual psychopaEhy,,, which included sexual
between men.4
Duringtheinterwarperiodthemi]ibarydischargedhomosexuals administraively more frequently than they formally court-martialed them, despie the officaI stance thaL sodomists had to be courLmartialed under the Articles of war. rndividuafs suspected of homosexualacLswerereleasedundera,sectionVlll"dischargefor while in theory these could be honorable discharges, in unsuitability. casesofpsychopalhicbehavior,lhedischargel'asnormal1yless-thanhonorabe, or "blue'"
World war II:
1941 to
1-946
InanaLtemptE'orationalizepolicyconcerninghomosexualsinEhe
months preceding merica's entry lnto i^lorld War If' Lhe Army Judge
dvocaEeGeneraltriedtoassesshowexistingpolicywasbeingapplied inthefie].d'Intheabsenceofaggravatingfactors,theArmyremoved
M"nua1s for court-Martj-aL, Ig]-7, defined sodomy as anal . 'zThe penetration of a man or woman by a man; both parties involved were of the Lqually guilty of the offense. rn bhese regulations, peneEration mouth did not constiEute sodomy, In lhe reguLations that accompanied the revision of the Articles of war j-n 1920, however, The ManuaLs for courLs-MarEialredefinedsodomyasanalororalcopulationbeLweenmen or between a mn and a woman (Jeffrey S' Davis, "Military Poticy Toward Homosexuals: Scientific, Historicali and Legal Perspectives." MiJiEary Law Review !3L, 1991, P. ?3) ': 3lbi. and ManuaI for Corts-MartiaI, United SLates, 1921, para'
443
.
4ArmY
Regulation 40-105 ' l92l'
-5proceedings' courfmost sodomists from service through adminisLrative martialwasindicated,however,inLhosecaseswhereforcewasemployed, parLner was incapable of when minors were involved, or when the sexual condition' onsenb due Eo inLoxication or oEher impairing During \4or1d War II, a lively debaLe took place among military authoritiesconcerningthepol-iciesandpracticesregulaLinghomosexuaf activiEyandtheexclusionofhomosexualsintheArmedForces.Within the Army alone, for example, there were LwenCy-four separate revisions ofregulabionsconcerninghomose-xualitybetweenlg4landlg45,compared withelevenrevisionsbeforethewarandseventeenbetweentheendof thewarandlhepassageoftheUniformCodeofMitJ.taryJusticein1950. variance in This debate had severa] causes' First' there was widespread Second, military the treatmenL of individual cases within the military. Ehe authorities seemed increasingly wilJ.ing to consult with and accept with regard to recommendations of medical and psychiatric personnel homosexuals.TheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation'sMiliLary Mobilizat,ionCommitteehelpeddevelopbheproceduresthatwouldeused toevaluatethemorethanlBmillionmenwhowouldbeexaminedfor war' induction during the course of the war. By the beginning of Lhe rmyandNavyDepartments,alongwithselectiveService,haddeEermined thatoverthomosexualbehaviorcouldbeusedtodenyentlyinEoEhe i militarY's DuringWor}dl,larII,thei:rew,pacticeofseparatinghomosexuals fromservicethroughtheuseoftheadminist,raLivedischargewas end of continued and articulated as parL of Army regulations. By the thewar,mi}itarypolicyconcernnghomosexualityhadundergoneseveral had i.mportant changes' First and most imporEant' Ehe "homosexual" concern' although rep]aced Lhe "sodomist" as Lhe focal poinL of lega1 lhecriminalaspectsofsame-sexbehaviorshadbeenneithereliminaLed nor elucidated in any clear manner. People who engaged in same-sex behaviors could be separated from th service Lhrough their resignation
'
orbyadminisLrativedischarge.EvenifnosexualacEivityhad occurred, a growing bocly of policy supported the view that a

51an Brub, Coming ouE under
women
homosexual
in
l,orLd War Tvto, New Yorkl
Fjre: The HistorY of GaY Men and ilhe Free Press, 1990, PP' 10-18'
6persons were to personality could readily be identified' and that such from the be barred from military service at induction or separated service uPon discoverY'
The Colil War Era: 1946 to 1956 policies Immediately after Ehe war. in 1946' the Army liberalj'zed of their toward homosexual personnel by increasing the likelihood shifLed soon receiving an honorable di'scharge (AR 615-360) ' Attitudes
of Defense issued was deleEed.6 on october 11, 1-949' the Departsment homosexual behavior: memorandum Ehat unified military policy toward
Homosexual
afterward,however,and,inlg43'theprovisionforhonorabledischarge
personnel, irrespecLive of sex' should nob be permitted to serve in any branch of- the Armed Services in any the capacity, and prompt sepracion of known homosexuals from
Armed Forces be made mandatorY
'
1-0450
federal from federal jobs. By some esEimabes' dismissals from the number of discharges In Lhe military' employment increased tenfold' about the same as it had been during l^lorld for homosexuality remainecl WarII--roughly2000peryear_-butfromLhemuchsmallerposL-warforce was of 1.4 million' The raLe of discharge in the military' therefore'
of Executive Order The Eisenhower AdminisLration' with the signing in lg53, codified "sexual perversion" as grounds for dismissal
alsoapproximateJ-yLentimesgreaLerlhanithadbeenduringLhewar'i
The Millt'ary arrd Homoeexualfty in the 1960g and 1970e within the miliLary, the seParation of homosexuals proceeded
unchallengedthroughouLthelatelg50sandearlylg6Os'DoDpolicywas ,T,ir"." men and women v,,ith good service records, however. were Lo be -separatedfromtheservicewith.agenepal,ratherthanadishonorable, discharge Tunfortunately, there are no, consistently reliabl-e sLatistics of separationsforhomosexualbehavioracrossthedifferentbranchesofthe Armedservices,norarethereanyinternalJ.yconsiseentstatisticsfor While many any one service over Lhe entire posLwar Lime period' logical assumpton that most separations for moral analysts make the chargeswereindeedforhomosexualbehavior,unfortunately,medical' legal,andadministraEivesEabisticswithinthearmedforceswerenoL tabulated carefuly enough to be cerLain'
-1revised in 1959, with Lhe issuance of the first version of oD Directive VII'I of t332.L4 on the subjecL of Aclministsrative Discharges' Section thatdirectiveindicatedthaEamongtheeasonsfordischargefor homosexual acts and "unfiEness" was "sexual perversion,' including the sodomy, This remained Ehe poiicy of the Department throughout 1960s,(WhenDirective!332'l-4wasrevisedin1975'thelanguagel'\tas slightlyalteredtodescribe,,homosexualactsorotheraberrantsexual military tendencies., as Ehe grounds for determining unsuitability for service--section G.3 ) ' Thel-965DoDdirect'iverevisedLheregulationssurroundingthe separation of homosexual personnel' Members facing a less-Ehancases honorable discharge were allowed the chance to present their before adminstraive clischarge boards and to be represenLed by counsel' ByliberalizingEherightsofservj-cemembers,Ehelg65separation direcEivesmarkedaturningpointnLhe}egalhist'oryofhomosexualsn the services, Before Ehe 1965 directive, most service members accused ofhomosexualitycooperatedwithoutprotesEinordertoproLectoLhers or to avoj.d more severe punishmenL'8 fnconsistency in the standards' in the documentaElon required, and in.administraEive procedures, however' led Lo a review cluring chercarter Administration of the policy and procedures for discharge'9 TheresultsofLhereviewwerereflectedintheneweditionofDolJ Directive L332.L4, ssuecl on January 16' 1981' fn a memorandum Defense accompanying the new directive, outgoing Deputy Secretary of ,,contains no change in policy,,, Graham claytor, noting that his revision the explained that Ehe enclosure on homosexuality (a new Enclosure 8 Eo The 1976 version of DirecLive 1332'14) had been completely revised'
8co1in J. williams and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexua-ls jn he York: Harper l,IiTitary: A StudY of Less Than Honorable Dischargre, Neware outlined on 1971, P' 102. The procedures of interrogation and Row, pp. 100-114. gThe directive vras issued in response to numerous court challenges, cir. such as Matfovich v. Secretary of the Air Force, 591 F'2d 852, D.c. were discharged while others 1'9?8, questioning why some open homosexuals i'n were reEained. The L9B1 directive removed the miliEary's discretion
decidingwheEherlorecainanopenhomosexual,makingsuchdischarge
mandaLorY.
-8on an purpose of t.he new encl'osure was to make it clear thab' based has attempted to engage investigative finding thaL a Person "engaged in' in, or has solicited another to engage in a homosexual act"'discharge
was mandaEorY. that The revised enclosure in 19BL a1so for the first time stated provided the service" and "HomosexualitY is incomPaEible wich military of homosexuals : following exPlanation for the exclusion The presence of such neinbers Ihomosexuals] adversely affects
theabi]-ityofEhearmedforcestomaintaindj.scipline,good order, and morafe; to foster mutual trust and confidence among rank servicemembers; Eo insure the integrrity of the system of andcommand;Lofacil,itaLeassignmentandworldwidedeployment of servicemembers who frequently must lve and work under and cLose conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit of the armed forces; to maintain bhe public retain members acceptabifity of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.
TherevisionalsoaffecEedpolicyondischargesbymakingitclear In the that homosexuality alone did not reqrire a mjsconduc discharge ' could be absence of other acEions (such as violence)' the discharge craybor, under honorable condiEions, As promurgated by Deputy secretary homosexuality DoD DirecEive 1332.14 and its provisions concerning January 1993 ' remained the policy governing enListed separations unEif (Directive 1332,14 was reissued in 1982 and the enclosure regulaElng homosexuality .s now num]:ered 3H, but Ehe language remained unchanged' Idenbica]anguageinaseparatedirecEivegovernsofficerpersonnel.)
TbE Recents
Paet: 1981 to 19911 The armed services' policies concerning the exclusion and separation of homosexual personnel came under increasing lega challenges after the new DoD po-Iices went into effecc in 1981: among v' he most publicized were Secora v' Fox' Prujtt v' Cheney' Steffan Cheneyandl{abkinsv.tJnitedstatesArmy'Ineachcase'different aspects of Ehe new regulations were contested in federal court' Between 1980 and 1991, accordLng to a report compiled by the GeneralAccountlngoffice,thereweret6'9L9dischargesfor 1'7 homosexuality wit.hin the Armed Services. These discharges comprised
percent of all involunEary discharges in. the Department of Defense for his period,lO Like all involntary separations during these years, the numbers of homosexual-related discharges peaked in 1982 and decllned for the remainder of Lhe decade. On average, however, over 1,400 service personnel were separated for homosexuality per year' Mllltary Law: Homosexualy and Sodomy The sodomy provisions of Lhe uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ, Article 125) have also been used as the basis for removing homosexuals from Ehe servi.ce. some have argued Ehat a policy allowing homosexuals to serve would be inconsistent wiEh this provision of military Law,11 In fact, DoD Directive l.332,I4 and rticle 125 of the ucMJ do not use the same definition or sLandard, nor do they attempE to regulate precisely the same behaviors. Directive 1332.14 defines a homosexual as one vrho engages in or desires Eo or intends to engage in homosexua] acts. These acts, in turn, are described as "odiIy conEact, actively undertaken or passivefy permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desj'res"' A review of the research,gn.sexual behavior suggesLs that bhere are many people who calI themselves heterosexual, and who are predominantly reLerosexual in behavior, who also engage in homosexual acEs.12 Some may experiment with homosexual ehavior once or twice ' Others may occasionally act on their attractj.on to people of the same sex, even if lhey caII Ehemselves heterosexual. StiIl- others may recognize bheir atraction Eo others of the same gender, but they establish a heterosexual public persona and refrain from acE.ing on these atEractions or revealing their orientation to ochers ' Fina1ly, there are people who consider themselves to be "homosexual" or "bisexual" who, for whatever
lOunited staLes General Accounbing office, Deferse Force ManagemenE: DoD's Policy on HomosexuaTity, Go/NSIAD 92-98, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrinEing office, June 1992. These figures are
calculaLed from statistics in a supplement to the report , sEatistics ReLaled. to DoD's Policy on HomosexuaJiEy' pp' 22-30' 11In the Ben-ShaTom case Ehe court moved Loward equaEing status as a homosexual wiLh conducE proscribed under Article 125' 12For a more compfete discussion, see ChapLer 2 on sexuality, as it pertains o the DoD direct'ive. and the UCM'J'
- 10 j
reasons (e.g., health concerns, religious convictions, or simply lack of opportuniLy), refrain from homosexual activities' rticle I25 of. the uniform code of Military Justice sbaEes Lha a person engaging in "unnatural carnal copulation" \tith members of the same or opposite sex is guilcy of sodomy. The ucM.f des not define what is meant by "unnatural" carnal copulation in statutory language' This definiton is left to the explanation provided in the Manual for Courls Martiaf (MCM) , where the proscribed behavior is defined as oral or anal sex (or sex with an animal). The distinctions between the two regulatj.ons governing Lhe sexual behavior of military personnel can be surunarized as fol]ows: the DoD direcLive forbids virtually any type of homosexuaf conduct; the ucMJ forbids a narrower seE of behaviors, regardless of whether they are performed by homosexuals or
heterosexuals . under nilitary Iaw, the act itself is forbidden under allcircumstances, regardLess of the nature of the parLners to the act' consequently, heterosexual sodomy is proscribed as welI as homosexual sodomy. contemporary surveys indicaLe thaL oral sex, as defined and prohibited by the ucMJ,/McM, is widely practiced by both homosexuals and
heterosexuals,13
REVIEW OF {IJOGoVS INSTITUTIoNS 'AND EXPERIENCES
To understand Lhe possible effect of changTing policy o permit homosexuals Lo serve and to examine how other institutions have implemented similar changes members of the RAND team visited a number of foreign miliLaries and domestic police and fire departments. None of these organizations is an exacE modeL for the U,S. nilitary, of course, but the comparisons can be instructive for assessing proposed changes in U.S, military persannel policy. Besides these analogous instiLutions, analogous situaLions such as Ehe experj-ence of racial inEegration of Ehe
13For example, the 1991 National survey of Men, a nationa1y representaLive study of 3,321 males .age 20 through 39 years of age (Billy et al., 1993) reports that T5.percent have performed and 79 percent have received oral- sex. Among those currentfy married, Ehe numbers were slightly higher, similar results are reported for homosexuaf males, e.g., the Pittsburgh Men's study (silvestre et al., 1993; see bibliography for ChapEer 2) '
merican military
were also studied for potentialty
instructive
insights. the Experence of, Foreign Miltariegr4 policy toward homosexuals serving in the rnilitary varies widely among counLries. Several countries were sel-ected, representing Lhe range of polices toward homosexuals from affirmative advocacy of homosexual rights (the Ne|herlands) to a ban on service similar t the current U,S. policy (United Kngdom), fn addition, researchers visited canada, France, Germany, Israel, and Norway. In each counEry researchers interviewed key government officials and, where possible, held discussions with other experts and observers. In some instances, the findings and conclusions reporLed here (and by the Generalccounting Office in its June L993 report) appear to be at varj-ance with teseimony before tshe SenaEe Arme-d Services CommtEee and wiLh oftenrecited, conmonly held opinion about foreign practices'15 Every effort was made to elicit from the foreign governmental officials their explanation for these discrepancies. Each of Ehe militaries visited exists wthin and reflects iEs own socieEy and cul-ture, and polJ.cies vary accordingly. France' Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, and Norway have conscript forces. Norway essenLially trains recruits Eo serve as a militia that can be mobilized Norway for terriCorial defense should fulure situaLions require it' also contriuLes forces to j-nterna!j-onaI peacekeeping missions. The Netherlands is changing polcy Eo end conscription and will rely on a volunteer force in Lhe future. BoEh Norway and L.he Nebherlands follow a nondiscrimination poli.cy wi,th respec! Eo homosexuals serving. The French poticy on homosexuals is noL to have an official policy. unofficially, the issue of homosexualiEy is dealt wth in the general category of medical/psychological issues. HomosexuaJ status is not
14See
mi I
lSconcurrenL with this inQu'iry,1 thd General- Accounting Of f ice al-so sent teams Eo canada, fsrae, and Germany, their findj-ngs are reported in Ilomosexual.s jn the MiTitary: Poficies and Practices of Foteign
itaries
Chapter 3 for a more comprehgnive,treatment of foreign
CounEries, GAO/NSIAD-93-2L5, June 1993.
-L2automatically disqualifying for conscription, but in practice homosexuals are excusecl from service if they so desire. Among the career force, flagrant homosexual conduct can be the proximate but unofficial cause for separation, In general, the French approach is thaE private sexual conducL. is noL rel-evant Lo performance of miliEary duties, Israel, like these Europetan ountries, relies on conscription, although in Israel,s case the Lerm of service is longer (36 months vs. an average of 10 months in Europe) . Like Norvray, the ethic in IsraeL is that all should serve and everyone shoufd remain available for mobilization to defend the counEry, buL Israel goes beyond Ehat purely military notion to include the use of military service as an instrument of national socialization. It is an obligation and a duty to serve in the Israeli mi.itary, and Lhe eEhic is thus one of inclusion rather Lhan exclusion--the sraeli military will make every effort to permit recrui!s to serve, accepting some who mght otherwise be dlsgualified on purely miliEarY grounds. Israel has recently (June 11, 1993) reaffirmed ibs policy of nondiscrimination, removed the requirement thaE homosexuals undergo a mental examination, ancl no onger automatically prohibits them from holding top-leveJ- security clearances. Tsraeli officials drectly refuted the commonly made assertion that homosexual men are not permitLed to serve in combaL units, or are treated like women and given cl"erical jobs and all-owed to L.ive: t liome, stating Lhat al-f such decisions are made on a case-by-case bass. The recently issued standlng order makes it cfear LhaL no automati.c restrictons wiIl apply to homosexuals and that all members of the force wiJ'I e judged by the Because of Ehe ethic of inclusion in the Israeli same criteria, military and Lhe concepL of citizen-soldier that guides Israeli service, there is a well-developed system of support from counselors, psychologists, and social workers to-assist military leaders in dealing with service members' problems of adjustment to military service. Lj-ke the united states, canada and the uniE.ed Kinqdom do not rely on conscription. Canada maintains a reLatively smal- military Ehat, in addiLion to its NTo responsIilities, is oriented primarj-Iy toward the
-1-3policy was rofe of international peacekeeper' In late 1992, Canada,s changedtoe}iminatethebanonhomosexualsservinginitsmilitary, folJ.owingcourtsrulingsthatprohibiteddiscriminationonthebasisof The canadian sexuar orientatton in arr. areas of federar jurisdictionForcesthenimpJ-ementec]anewpolicythatpermittedacknowledged misconduct homosexuals to serve while prohibiEing inapproprate sexuar new policy and personaL harassment by all service members'16 This received strong endorsement and support from the leadership of the no deLrimental canadian Forces. Thus far, Ehe canadian Forces report effects resulting from the policy change' to The Unitecl Kingdom remains Ehe only counEry of those visited retain an absoluE.e ban on homosexuals serving. IL is Ehe only cOuntry visited that wI1 conduct investigations of alleged homosexualiEy and will expel known homosexuals from Ehe service' Inal}ofthecountriesvisited,sodomyhasbeendecriminalizedin thecivillaw.Themilitarylawthenfollowedsuitina].]count'ries other than Britain, where Lhe Queen's Regulations still forbid in practice is bo homosexuaf acLs' Even in Britain, however' the policy expel homosexuals under provisions of a general administrative discharge, no! Eo charge them wiLh a violation of military law' Like BrEain, Germany wIl exclude known homosexuals from service' For homosexuals already in the military, German poticy tends to be more variable. ConscripLs are Iikely to be expe'1ed if discovered to be homosexual. (Since Germany cloes not actively investigate these matters' discoverywou].dalmostalwaysbeassociatedwithanactualincidentof conduct,anadjustmentproblem,oraself-declaration')Inthe professionalforce,anindividualwhohasservedlessthanfouryears Individuals would not may be expetled, depencling on other factors' automatically be expelled if other 'factors indicated satisfactory performanceonLhejob'AfLelforyearsofservice'theindividual possible afmost certainly would not be separated, atthough it is very ,,leadership,,position. would be transferred to a job that is noL in a In Germany these decisions, which are infrequent' are made on an
16The canadian regulaElons on personal harassment, sexuaJmisconducE, and sexual harassmenL are contained in APPendix E. he
-14-
individualbasis,andtheouLcomedep'endsonavarieEyoffactors' Indeed, the best summary characterizaEion of German policy n this regard is the frequently heard explanation "iE depends'n whileitisgenerallyaccepEedthathomosexualsserveinallofthe militaries examined for Lhis study, few serve openly (and none' of course, can be open in the United Kingdorn) ' RAND researchers were frequenLly told that if a meeting on this subject had not been requesEed by the visiting Americans, there woul"d be no occasion to have a meetingr to discuss the issue. Despite Lolerance for homosexuality in the society and the decrj'minal'izaLion of homosexual acEs' in none of Ehese societies is homosexualit.y widely accepted by a majority of the populaion.1? (The trend in society at large' however' is toward the expansion of ega1 righEs of homosexuals.) In the Netherlands' easily the most tolerant and encouraging environment for homosexuals to serve' fewer than 1 percent of Lhe men in the Dutch military identified percent themselves as "predominanLly homosexual" on a questionnaire'' 3'5 of women indicated Ehat they were homosexual; and 4.8 percenL of the men stated that they had had homosexual experiences at some time in their lives
.
In four of the countries thaE 'have policies of complete nondiscrj.mination (Canada, IsraeI, Lhe Netherlands' and Norway)' no serious problems were reported concerning the presence of homosexuals in -episode of ridicule or vioLence has Lhe force. l^lhiIe an occasional occurred (reporEed mainly in Norway), these incidents have been sufficiently infreguent that no special measures were taken to prevenL fubure incidents. In canada, since the ban was LifLed in L992, no be member of the canadian Forces has declared himself or herself to or homosexual, and no incidents of viol-nce against homosexuals disrupti.on in units have been reported. In the NeEherlands, no serious problems have :een re1:orted' No effects on recruitment or retention
were identif ied in these mi'1i'Eari'es
'
with
Generally,thepatternineachoftheseorganizationsistodeal homosexual-s as individuals, treaLing any issues or difficulties

17see Appendix D
for survey resu,Its,concerning attitudes toward homosexual"itY in Canada, the United States, and the Unied Kingdom'
- 15 that arise on a case-by-case basis, The NeEherlands departs from this sEandard in providing sensiEivj-ty ralning for troops and making active efforts to ensure Lhat homosexual-s are inLegrated into the iorce' The affirmative action policies and Ehe special status thus accorded Eo homosexuals as a category distinguish policy in the Netherlands from that in the other counLries examined' None of the militaries studied for Lhis reporE leleve their effecEiveness as an organizaEion has been impaired or reduced as a result of the incfusion of homosexuals. With the exception of Lhe Netherlands, no special resources'have been expended or programs created to deaL with the presence of homosexuals. The Dutch assessmenL of their own policy has Ied to the concuson that the program of promoting open accepLance has not been as successful as they desired. while each of these militaries has a different role Eo pi-ay in its social context, Lhe key finding is that, in all cases where a decison has been made to include homosexuas in the force, the orgranization's Ieaders believe that the force,s organizational performance is unaffected by tshat
presence. Tlre Experlence of Domestfc Fire and Police Deparmentel8 UnIike the foreign militaries, domest.ic polj.ce and fire departments functon in Ehe American cul-Eural and societal conLext. Police and fire
departments share a number of characteristics wiEh the U.S. miliEary that make them the closesb domestic analog, They are hierarchically organized, with a well-defined chein -of command. Members work together as teams. A substantial propqrtion. of job time is spent Lraining for short, intense periods of hazardous acEivity. Ar inherent feaEure of the job is putting one,s life at risk. They are markedly different, however, in that only the military deploys iEs members on ships, or
routinely engages in fj-eId exercises of extended length. PoLice officers and firefighters return to their homes after periods on duty; they ofen train and work in smaller units than the military; and they
18see chapter 4 for a more comprehensive treaLment of selecled domestic police and f ire cepartmentsr.
-16interact with the community at large !o a much greater degree--indeed' as a central asPect of the iob' policies of RAND researchers visiEed six U'S' cities that have Angeles, NeW York' nondiscrimination in place: chicago, Housbon, Los (1) what were San Diego, and Seattle' They focused on two main issues: homosexuals and the behavioral responses at the ndividual level of both (2) What heterosexuals to the presence on bhe force of homosexuals? were the organJ-zational st.rategies and polices put into place to was implement the nondiscrimnation policies? Geographic distri-buLion
:
homosexual-s
sought,andcitieswithabypicalculturalclimateswithrespecLto (e.g-, San Francisco) were excluded' Cooperation from the localdepartmencswasgenerallygood,althoughinHoustonthepolice department and in Los Angeles the fire department declined Lo In addition to review of relevan parEicipate in Lhe research effort. documentsandnewspaperarticles,RANresearchersalsointerviewed high-ranking leaders, Personnel and equa opportunity officers' trainers,unitcommanders,recruiLers,andcounselors'Theyalso interviewed heterosexual rank-and-file members of Ehe force and from three homosexual members, boLh afone. and in groups ranging in size to twenty. the assessments of the experience in these six cities, it is possi-bJ-e to make some generalizaLions about the likely behaviors of r,vho join homosexual members of the force. virbually alL homosexuals police and fire clepartmenEs conform to the norms and customs of the organizaLion they are joining, These individuals do not fit stereotypes Lhat are inconsistent wiEh the organization--those who join police ,,cops, ,, not ,,homosexuaf cops.., deparLments, for example, wish to be Homosexuals (mal.e ancl female) declare their homosexual-ity gradually, and lhe numbers remain smalL (see Talle 1-1), despite the existence of
Based on
policies that codify their righL Lo serve' Manymorehomosexualswereknowntoeachotherandtotheir colleagues than were known to thej-r deparLments ' Some of these individuals were members of confidentiaf homosexual fratsernal-
Table 1-1
Nufibers and Percentages
of open Homoeexualg In Selected Police Fire DePartments Force Size 12,209

4, 100
and
ToLal
Inst.itution Police
-Citv Chi.cago
Houston
of Kno'/n Estimated Homosexuals Prevalence 0'06t 7

Number
OPen
Los Angeles
New York
28,000
1,300 1,300
?, 700
0 7
2
0 0 0 0
0.008
San Diego
seaE t
-L00 4-5
le
0.09* 0.368 0 .25* 0.i-58
Fire
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
4,700 ,900 3,200

845
9't 5
0.00t 0.00t
0.008
11,300
0.00*
San Dj-egoa
1 5
t!l.ea
aA11 openly homosexual
0.t22 0.51t
vJere women.
firefighters
in these cities
organizations. rn one department, for instance, onJ-y seven individuals were known to che deparlment, but more than forty belonged to a homosexual fraLernal organizaEion of department members. Moreover, in every city, homosexual officers knew of other homosexual members of Ehe force who had opted not to joi-n such groups, either for fear of being idenLified as homosexual or for ack of interest ' The number who publicly acknowledge their homosexualiEy and the pace at which they do it are slrongly influenced by .the perceived tolerance or hostiliEy of the organi.zationa] environment, both in terms of leadership poli.cies and attitudes na in terms of Lhe atEiudes and behaviors of fellow members of the force. AnEi-homosexual aEtitudes are widespread within these organizations, and the process of making one's sexual orientation known i-s thus self-regulating to a large extenL' Even in New York city, Where the number of homosexuals on the force is highest and where the climaLe is generaJ.Iy more Lolerant than in the other ciEies visitecl, fewer than half of the homosexuals belonging to the Gay officers Action League are known to be homosexual by their
supervisors or bY the
dePartmenE
-
- 18 of the general desire to conform Lo Ehe norms of the organization and Lo,,prove one's worth" as a member of the organization, homosexuals seldom engage in behaviors t.hat challenge those norms or that are designed to shock or ofEend fellow members of the organiza!ion' Just as the process of making one's sexual- orj-entation known is selfregul-abing most other behaviors also conform to general expectations' Not a single case of an acknowledged homosexual male sexually harassing a heLerosexua male was reported. occasional hearsay reports, usually by commanding officersr \rere offered of homosexual women harassing heterosexual women, but these, too, were recognized as being rare, far less frequent than incidents of heEerosexual men harassing women. Heterosexual members of these departments often voice sentiments hostile to homosexuals. These opinions did noE necessarify result in overtly hostile behavior. some.people reported thaL their opinion of homosexual.s shifted afEer having served with them: usualJ.y Lhe homosexual officer had been known first in the role of policeman or policewoman, and only later as homosexual. some instances of homosexual officers facing ostracism or being "framed" by feltow officers (e'9" planting false, j.ncriminating evidence) were reported. while this was noE a universal experience, iE is not unheard of and concerns the leadership of the deparhments. Acknowledged homosexual members of Ehe departments felt that Lhey had generally been able to manage the hosEiliLy, eslecialLy f the decision to be open about their sexual orientaLion was their own. Those who had been exposed as homosexuals by others ofben experienced more difficulty. HeLerosexuaLs often Voice a fear of AIDS, and Lhe fear is often based on viet^rs tshat would not be supporEed by sci,enEific data on the nature of Lhe disease and the mechanisms for ts transmission' Such aLtibudes have not been eliminated despite educatj-onal efforts regarding the disease, NoEwlthst-anding the presence of concerns or fears over AIDS, no acEual ncidents where offiers refused to work with or come to the aid of a homosexual cofleague were reported to the research Leam' mong heLerosexuals bhere' is widespread fear thaE homosexuals will be given special treacment or Lhat efforus w11 be made to "educate" heterosexuals and change their attiEudes toward homosexuals,
Because
-l_9Sensitivity braning, speciaJ- programs for homosexuals' or elements of affirmaEive action aimed at homosexuals foster deep resentments among the heterosexual members of these departrnents. Leaders emphasized the importance of controlling }:ehaviors, not attiLudes. It s possl-b1e for heEerosexuals to work with a homosexual, but to ask Ehem to alter fundamenEal moral or religious. :eliefs about homosexuality is to ask Loo
much.
The departments visited report t,haE, overalI, the effectlveness of the organization has not been diminished by the presence of homosexuals on the force. Morale and disciplj-ne have been maintained, and recruiEment and retention rates appear to Ie unaffected by the presence
ofknownhomosexua]-sinthedepartment.Veryfewforma].complaintsof harassment are lodged, due in part to Ehe relative rarity of such events buL due also to Lhe strong norms in these organizabions to work ouL problems at the unit Level--good cops do not "rat" on their felLows, and good units do noL expose their problenrs to outsiders' In order for a nondiscrimination policy to be implemenLed effectiveJ.y, Ieaders in these departments suggested that the message that a new policy was in place needed to be clear and simple, and it needed to be communicated and enforced consisbently. since antihomosexual aEtitudes are present among the rank and file and since sensitivity Eraining and similar proErams usually provoke resentment raEher than tolerance, Lhe emphasis on training is more successfully focused on leaders, sLrict standards of professional conduct and behavior are important. Likewise, it was felt that education on the issues relaLed to AIDS coufcl be effective in helpj"ng to overcome some of the fears expressed by heterosexuals ' finalobservationonimplementaEionthaLappliedtoall departments sLudied is LhaL the process of implementation unfolds gradualty. Homosexual-s reveal Eheir sexual orienEation over time, in a process calibrated in part to the peirceived readiness of the organizaLion Lo tolerate opetr acknowledgment' The organizational tolerance, in turn, evolves over bme partially in response to Ehe behavior of the members. Because the number of open homosexuals remains small, boEh as a percetage of the total force and as a percentage of
-20the tobal number of homosexuals on the force, there is litEIe need for policies ,,regu1aEing" Lhe behavior of acknowledged homosexuals on the force--the behaviors are self-regulating. The self-regulating and evolut.ionary nature of the process provides tme for organizations to adapt to members as well as for members Eo expand' in a gradual fashion' the oundaries of the organization's lolerance'
The Hfstsory of Racial f,nEegratlon ln t'he uDited stsates M11itary19 Our review of the military's experience wiLh integrating blacks and r/omen shows Lha racial integration is the more applicable analogy: largely excluded from combat and, therefore, n a very women are still fundamental vJay, are treaEed as a special class. The process of racial
inEegration,lreguninthelaEe]-g40s,..requiredmanyyearsofeffortin order to achieve the relaLively successfully ntegraLed fighLing force oftsoday.whileadecisiontopelmitshomosexualstsoserveisnot directly comparable to this historical- example, racial integraLion can serve as a source of potential insights into how Lhe mi.Iitary as an organization has adapted Eo changing policies on a controversial social issue. The lessons of this experience may prove vaLuable in devising a pracEical and realisLic i-mplementation plan for changes in the future' The main theme of those opposed to racial integration in the postwar period cenEered on the fact lhaElwhites were hosLile Eoward serving with blacks. This argumen[ was often accompanied by rhetoric similar Lo that surrounding the issue of homosexuals serving Loday' IntegraEion was said to be inconsistent with prevailing societal norms and l-ike1y to create tensions and disrupEions in military units and to impair combat effectiveness. The effect on combat efectiveness was put to an early tesL during Lhe Korean war. spurred in part by critical manpower needs and in part by a concern b.hat the alL-black units were not as combatcapabJ-e as required in the theater, the rArmy fielded integrated unibs for bhe fighting, The actual experience of these units indicated thaE the integrated units performed t a standard equal to the all-white units (and much beEter than Lhe all-black uniEs) '
19See
Chapter 5 for a rrore detailed discussion'
-2LThe initial positive experiences in the warLime environment of Korea were followed by fureher rapid and complete integraLion of the Armed Forces by the mic]-1950s. Unti.I the early 1960s, Ehe military seemed Eo be moving ahead of civil-ian society in progress toward integraEion, Black reenlistment rates were high, and many blacks perceived Ehe miliEary as providing opportunities in some ways more aEEractive than those provided by cJ'vilian society' This veneer of racial harmony was shatbered in the 1ae l-960s' The civil rights movement and the rise in racial tensions hroughout the
For example, country during the 1960s were reflected in the military. off-base housing in experenced by black troops in finding difficulties certain areas of Ehe country created a si.gnificant challenge for the DepartmenE of Defense. The vieEnam war added an additional layer of racial Lension. IniLially, blacks volunteered in disproportionately high rates for combaE duty in vietnam and performed erectively' But as many civil rights leaders :egan to be voca in their opposiLion to Lhe war, many also began to question ithether the drafL calls and the casualty rates were falling dlsproporEionateLy on black Americans from the inner cities. Racial- t.ensions and, ultimatel-y, race rj-oLs broke out in aLl four servces. The military was.forced Eo recognize Ehat much sti1l remained to be clone to achieve inEegration, and that Lhe levef of racial tensions threatened to interfere with mission accomplishment' By the end of the vieLnam war a vigorous effort to improve the racial situaLion in the military had been launched- Aggressive support for equal opportunity'accompanid che posE-Vietnam drawdown and the development of Lhe aIl-volunteer force (AVF) ' Renewed attenton from senior leaders and vigorous efforts to enforce policies forbidding discrimination resulted in the inEegrated, a1I-voLunLeer force of Loday. white these historical exampes can be instructive, they are not directly comparable Eo Ehe issue of known homosexuals serving in Ehe For example, in contrasE to bhe ssue of sexual orientation, military. there were compelling operaEional reasons favoring integration of blacks During world war II, many miJ-itary leaders had begun into tshe military. to recognize that operational effecEiveness was impaired by continued
segregaLioninbheforce.Thus,elementsofthemilitaryitselfbegan In contrasf' examining ways Eo utilize black troops more effecLively' based on ending the argument for permitting homosexuals to serve is discrimination, not on compelling operaLional advantages' Althoughamajorityofmericansdidnotfavorracialintegration ofthemilitaryinthelatelg40s,publicopinionchangedovertimeThe wartimeexperenceandLhegrowingcivilrightsmovementincreasedthe and pressure on the military to change' This pressure was a constant publi-c growing factor for change throltghout the 1950s ancl 1960s' Today' opinion is more favorabfe to allowi4g homosexuals to serve than was publicopinionfavorabletoracialinEegrationofEhemilitaryinLhe lat,e 1940s.20 lessons These disEincEions must be kept. in mind in evaluating the suggestedbytheexperienceofraciafintegrationofthemiltary,but severalpointsarenonethelessperbinenE:TheexperienceofinbegraEing the races in the military suggests Lhat civilian and military leadership caneffectivelyovercomeEheinitialresistancetochangeandcan on unit minimize the worst fears of opponents about the damaging effects performance'Despitethepresenceof'racialtensions'fiqhting performancedic]noLsuffer.TheexperiencealsosuggesEsLhatmilitary and that consEant adaptaLion t.o socj.aL change does not occur overnight' moniEoringandaclearcomnitmenEfromLopleadershipoverasubstsantial period of time rvill be required. The experience of racial integration also il-Lustrates the length of lime often required to put a change in policyintoactualpractice'Further,theinteqrationoftheworkplace and the ability to accomplish the mission aE hand does not automaticalLy !ranslaLentosocialntegraEion.off-baseandoff-duty,blacksand race' whies customarily associate with menibers of bheir ovJn
SERVING CUF.RENT iERICN TTITUDES TOWRD HOIOSEXUIJS
lesson of ra-cial integraton cl-earIy shows the of service importance of both general public opinion and the attitudes The historical
2osee
chapters 5 and
for more discussion of these public-opinion
issues.
-23,-
personneltowardhomosexuality,ancltowardhomosexualsservingTinthe mi 1 itary . ttludee ln the General Populaton21 Currently, the merican publJ'c is divided on the question of whether homosexualiEy is acceptable as a "IifestyIe, " with a majoriLy believing Lhat. it is not acceptab),e. Roughly 40 percent of Americans are willing to consider hOmosexualiLy as either noE a moral issue or as an acceptable alternative lifesLyle, a percentaqe that has remained
re}ativelyunchangedoverthepastdecade.IfaslighElydifferent question is askecl, such as rvhether homosexua}ity is ,,wrong,,, nearly There is no three-quarters of the American public answer affirmatively. trend toward greater acceptance of homosexualiEy discernible in these opinion data, eiLher. For the past two decades, '70-15 percenE of the public has responded that homosexuality is wrong' whileamajorityofthepubliccannoLbesaidtoapproveof homosexualty or a homosexual "1j-festYl-e.," opnion toward the civil rights of homosexuals is more favorable. Roughly 80 percenL believe that homosexuas shouLd not be discriminated against in the workplace (despite a personal preference of hal-f the population noL to have to work !ih a homosexual). On other issues of homosexual rights, such as homosexual marriage or child rearing rights, only abouE one-thlrd of Ehe Anerican public supports exeending such rights to homosexuaL couples. on the question of service in the military, bhe merican public is again divided. In a variety of polls, the percenEage that favors lifting the ban on service varies from slightly more than 40 percent to stightly more than 50 percent. In bhe most recent poll, Lhe lr'a]l street ..7ournaJ.,/NBC News po1I, published June 11, 1993, onl-y 21 percent of registered voters opposecl allowing homosexuals to serve under any circumstances. ThirEy-eight percent favored service as long as sexuaf orienEatj.on was kept private, and 40 percent were in favor of homosexuafs serving openly (but following the same rules of conducL as al-1 mil-tary personnel rvhile on base), while the opinions on removing
21see
opinion.
chapter 6 for a more detailed treatment of American pub-ic SurveY resufLs are presentecl 1n APPenclix F,
-24'
lherestricLiononhomosexua}sinLhemilicarymorecloselyresemble opinons toward workplace and employnent issues chan opinions on ,,lifesEyle,,andmorality,nostrongconsensusemergesfromthedatain favor of permiLting homosexuals Eo serve' The American public remains divided on this issue.
tEitudes ln te MilitarY22 ThepopularpressandrecentCongressionalhearingshaveprovided a window inEo the milj.tary perspecLive,on ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in .Lhe miJ"iLary. Whether in opinion surveys or in group discussions Lhe military members who have chosen Lo speak out on this subject have been overwhelmingly opposed to removing Lhe resLriction. However, this opposition has not been universal' Some
rnilitarymembershaveadvocatec]allowinghomosexualstoserveandSome have expressed willingness to go along with whatever is decided' while have some are strongly opposed fo maklng any changes at a]I ' Some predicLed the demise of the miliLary if the kan j-s lifbed and others haveexpressedtheirbeliefthaLthemilicarywouldadjusttothis change, as it has adjusted Eo changes in the past' Two sources of information on miliary opinion were consulted by t.he study Leam: surveys and focus group interviews' While neither sourceprovidesastaEisticallyrepresenLativeview'togeLher'they provide a reasonably comprehensive picture of contemporary military opinion, surveyB.TheEwosurveysofmi]itaryopiniononLhistopicareby the I,os AngeTes Tmes, a Survey of'2,:.346 enlisted men and women (E-1 throughE_9)duringFebruary:Il'-L6,.lgg3,andbyChartesMoskosand LauraMi].ler,sociologistsromNorthwesternUniversity'Whilethese surveysarelimiLedinscopeanc]useconveniencesamplingmethodsrather bhan probabiJ.ity sampling to select respondents' Lhey provide a source of information about a cliverse Sampling of military mem:ers' ThesurveyresulLsinc]icatethatthree-fourthsofmalesandabout of females in the military are opposed to permitcing homosexuals t-o half serve. A substantial minoriLy of respondents in Ehe Los Angefes Times
22see Chapter
7 for a more detai.led dscussion'
_25_
pofl,abouE16percenLofmalesand35percenLoffemaes'approvedof removing the )an; and 1? percent of mal-es and 44 percent of femafes participatinginEheMoskosandMi]]ersurveyapprovedofremovingthe
ban.
Thoseopposinghomosexua].sintheLosAngeTes?jmespol}indicated they feared sharing quarEers with homosexuals, that Ehey viewed that homosexuality as immoral and contrary to their reliqious beliefs, and that bhey were concerned thaL homosexual-s contribute to Ehe spread of AfDS.23 An overwhelming majority expressed the opinion thaE homosexuals woul-d be subject to violence if restricEions on them were removed' ThoseArmypersonnelrespondingtotheMoskosandMillersurvey indcated EhaE, while homosexuals were not generally consdered to be desirable unit members an overwhel-ming majority of respondents (72 percent of males and 8? percenL of females) felt that private sexualbehavior was none of Ehej.r business. Fewer, about 38 percent of males and 29 percent of females, fel thaL heterosexuals would be subject to sexual advances by homosexuals. The ban on homosexuals is not, however, theonlyimportantconcernofmi]-itarypersonnel.TheLosAngeTesTimes survey found thaL while 48 percenL rated removing the ban as the most importanE problem facing the miJ,itary, 52 percent picked downsizing of the force; 66 percent fel-t that altenti-on to removing the ban was "draining attention from other more importanL issues "' FocuaGroupg'RANDresearchersalsoconductedlSfocusgroup discussions as part of Ehis study. These focus groups provided a rich source of informaton on the dversity of military opinion and on how military members think abouL the issues and explain their views. Focus groups were concluctecl with Army, Air Force, and Marine participanbs at lhree California ir:sallations and wth Army and Air Force parbicipants from several installations near Frankfurt, Germany. The interview protocol used was designed to ead gradually into the topic of homosexuals in Ehe military, in order to understand that issue in the To larger coneexL of opinon on other aspects of military life' .in the military's working understand how confLict s managed
23For a discussion of AIDS in t,he miliEary see chapter
8
-26environment, quesLions were asked about how differences in race and gender might cause problems and how Lhese problems were resolved' vlhile there was diversity in opinions, some colnlnon elements emerged. FirsL, military members felt that they had dealt successfully They wih racial integration in Lhe militaly and were proud of it. seemed to feel that racial integraEion had strengLhened Ehe military's ability to perform iEs mission. They aLso seemed to deal well with the l_ow-Ievel- interpersonal conflict Ehat happens in the barracks and on Ehe job. soldiers viewed i.L phiJ-osophicalLy as the price for diversity, which they seemed Lo value. Officers viewed dealing with t as part of the job they were t.rained to do and an area thaE provided considerable
challenge. Most acknowJ-edged that the -ntegrat.ion of women into the military was sti11 causing probfems, J-n parL because it was incomplete' sti11' mosL group parLicpants vierved women as Ehere Eo sbay and were confidenE that problems would evenLually be worked ou to a tolerable degree. when lhe issue turned to homosexuaLs in the military, focus group parEicipants, level of confidence in lheir ability to cope dropped sharply. while some could view the change wiEh equanimity, rnany had difficulty imagining the consequences and viewed the problem n stark terms. concerns cenLered around fears of special treaLment of homosexuals, fears that homosexuals wif,1 band toqether and discriminate against heterosexuals, fears 9f being subjected to uhwelcome sexual advances/ and fears about Eheir families and Lhemselves being confronted by evidence of a lifestyle they regard as immoral. These concerns were particularfy strong against a backdrop of downsizing and cutbacks in
military benefits. Many perceived their own opportunities to be shrinking and resentecl what they see as extending rghLs and benefiLs to an unworLhy group Lhat is using the mil-itary for politj-cal and sociaL advantage. Many predicted violence against homosexuals would resulE; his was expressecl both in Ehe surveys and in the focus groups ' They were unable to see how bhe confLict management skills they had learned in response Eo other problems coul-d apply tso this new sieuation. alLhough this rvas in direct opposition to the "can do" attitude they had articulatecl earlier in the group sessions. In
-21 addition, while they hacl (for the mosL part) incorporated the presence of minorities and lromen into their mage of the military, they had much seeing how homosexuals coul-d fit into thaE picLure more difficulty wibhoubchangingiEbeyondrecognibion,compromisingthemilitary,s abiliLy to carry out an effecEive naLonal defense'
ISSUES OF CONCERN: VIOITENCE -lilD IDs
Focus groups wiLh acEive-duty personnel, surveys of military personnel, tesLimony at Congressional hearings' and media reports have raised concerns about anti--homosexual violence and the possibility that AIDS would increase among miliEary personnel if acknowledged homosexuaLs
are al-lowed to serve

Violence24
Theevidenceonanti-homosexua}violenceiSalmostexclusively restricced to its occurrence in the civj'Iian population and is of limited quaIiLy, However, there is sufficient evidence Lo conclude L occurs with some regulariEy in the civil-ian community. Ib also
Ehat
occursinthemiJ.iEaryundercurlencpolicy,althoughtherearenodata on Ehe relative frequency of thaL occurrence' Experience in the civilian sector shows that there is a high rate of failure to report anti-homosexual violence. The ban on allowing homosexuals to serve' wiEh the sgnificant penalties for d-scovery, provides a further dj.sincentive for victims to report anti-homosexuaL violence or thleacs of viofence. To the extent. thaL changes in poJ.icy resulted in changes in the number of acknowl-edged homosexuals in the milibary, the rate of anLihomosexuaf vi.olence miqrht change, since acknowledged homosexual's are rnore readily identifiec targets for such violence. The experience of racial integration in Lhe u.s. military, foreign mil-itaries, and domestic police and fire cepartments suggesLs that if leaders make iL quj-Le clear tha violence vrilI noE be tolerated and stern action will taken, violence can be kepL to a minimum'
24See Chapter
be
9 for a fu1]er discussion of anti-homosexual
viofence.
-24-
HI
ransmieslon and AIDS25 Do,s test.ing pxogram for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) aLmost entirely prevents the entry of HIV-infecEed indj.viduals inLo the Therefore, Ehe only way a change in policy permitting military, homosexuals to serve coufd signifiCantly affect HIV infec[ion rates in lhe miliEary is by increasng the number of service members who are infected while serving. It is not possible Lo predict whether there would be an increase, nuch ]ess to estimate its magnitude' However, if there were an increase, it would have Iittle effect on military effectiveness. A1l miLitary personnel whose health is seriously affected by HIV are discharged. Further, all servj-ce personnel must be ested before deploymenL and those who test posilive cannot be deployed' Given the accuracy of HIV tesLing, very few HIV-infected personnel would ever deploy or serve in comba[, the military bJ-ood supply would remain safe, and there would be virtually no danger from conLact with bl-ood on
the batElef ield.

Regardless of whether homosexuals are permtted to serve, the military could experience higher HIV infecLion rates in the fuLure. Available evidence on sexual risk behavior and rates of sexually lransmitted diseases among a1l service personnel suggests the potential for increased HIV Eransmission uncler condiEions thaL place personnel in greaLer contact with infected :Poputrations.
I,INDERSTANDING
I'NIT COHESTON26 Concern about the effect that an acknowledged homosexual vrould have ,,combaL effecEiveness and unit cohesion" has domnated tshe debate. on It also provices the basic rationale for the currenE pol-icy that ,,Homosexuality is incompatible wi-th military servce,"21 Most military Leaders who have spoken publicly on the issue in recent months argue thab inEroducEion of a known homosexual into a unit, no matter how discreet his or her behavior might be, wouJ-d seriously undermine bhe
2Schapter I contains a more comprehensive discussion of heaILh j-ssues, risk behavior, and the miliEary blood supply. 26see Chapter 10 for a more comprehensive treatment' 2TDepartment of Defense DirecEive L332,14, Enl-isEed AdminisErative Separations, Enclosure 3H.
-29cohesiveness of that uniL. unforlunate)-y, opinion on this ssue is inbuitive or based on aneccloEe' Ther,e has been no systematic study of this subjecE, and no conLrolled experl-menEs or oEher research bear direcElY on bhis issue.
Thereisal-argebodyofpotenLiallyrelatedempiricalresearchin the fields of industrial organization, social psychology' sports psychoJ.ogy, ancl group behavior. a significant amount of which was sponsored by the miJ.iLary. other potentially relevant maLerial can be The found in the ethnographic and biographical miliEary literature' review of this literature j's the principa)- conclusion from an exLensive to work commonsense observaLion that it is not, necessary Eo like someone to che group,s with hirn or her, so Tong as lem.bers share a commiEment objecEives, This conclusion was also borne out in the review of racj"alintegration in the military, as discussed above' ,,cohesion,, is a concept wiEh many definitions and sources' whiLe rnilitary researchers sometimes refer tso "horizontal" cohesion, meaning the bonding of members of a group, and ,,verEical', cohesion, referring to the bonds between leader ancl members, these concepbs are not widely used in the research lit.erature. Leadership is recognized as an importan aspect of miliEary performance (ancl can have an effect on cohesion), but ,,cohesion" is generally used to refer to the forces that bond individuals together as a group. This notion of cohesion. in turn, can be generally dividecl inLo Lwo important types: social cohesion (intragroup attraction) ancl task cohesion (commitmenE to shared goals and objectives) , cohesion can Lhus also I:e distinguished from other concepts such as morale, a collcepE more meaningfully applied Lo individual attitucles toward a larggr group Research has shown Ehat many facLors can produce soci-aI and task cohesion. smpJ-y being assignd to the same unit predisposes Lhe giroup members to at leasE a moderaEe leve] of cohesion. Lengbh of time together, a hstory of success experiences, and a sense of shared fate or nLerdependence all enhance a unit's cohesion. sharing simil-ar traibs or val-ues enhances social cohesion, but ib is not necessary for task cohesion, so long as the individuals share a commitment to the group's mission
.
- 30 In general, research has identifed a posiEive, though not strong' associaLion between cohesion andlperformance. However, the relationshp bebween cohesion and performance is.not a sraightforward one. First, the effect of successful performance on cohesion apPears to be stronger than the effect of cohesion on successful performance. second, iE appears that lhe positive association of performance and cohesion is almosL enLirely clue to the influence of task cohesion, not social cohesion. Indeed, excessive socj.al cohesion somecimes interferes with the successful compleEion of Lhe group's assigned mission.2s The lack of direct evidence makes it difficult. to predict confidently the effecL of the presence of a known homosexual on the performance of Lhe group, sexual orienEaLion is one dimension on which group members would be dissimIar, and this could reduce social cohesion. Members would share other traits, however, and the precise effect of the presence of a known homosexual on social cohesion is uncertain.2g while t.he effecL on social cohesion may be negative, the presence of a known homosexual is unlikely Lo undermine task cohesion, provided bhat the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit.s mission. Task coheslon, not, social cohesion, appears to be what drives successful performance. Given the high leveIs of hostility tovrard homosexuals present in the military ranks today, a range of responses is possible to the introducEi.on of a known homosexual into the group, including ostracism' heterosexuals mi.ght be relucLant to cooperate or At Least initially, work wiEh homosexual,s. However, the reduction in social cohesion wouLd not necessarty lead to the breakdorr' of the unit. In circumstances where disrupive behavior occurs or where st.andard J.eadership techniques are insufficienL for preventi.ng clysfrrncEion in the unit, it may be necessary to provide acldiLional resources to the uniE leader, such as ,tE""-pfes where excessive social- cohesion could undermine group performance include socializing among Lhe workforce, "rate busting," groupthink, and mut.inies ' 2gAcceptance of known homosexuals in police deparEments appears to be much greater, for exampJ-e, if the individual is recognized as a "good op," raEher than a "gay cop." see Lhe dscussion in chapter 4 on this topic.
- 31 counseling support or expert assisEance' It may also be necessary to remove individuals (heterosexual or homosexual) from units if their behavior continues to disrupt the unit '
IMPIJICTIONS OF rHE RESERCH
the
Homosexuals serve in all of the foreign militaries and in each of domestic polce ancl fire departmenEs visited by RND researchers'
They serve w-th varying degrees of openness, however, and in most of these organizations the num]er of homosexuals known to the organizations was estimated to be a small fraction of the LotaL number of homosexual
members. A variety of factors explain this, incfuding the generally hosLile at!budes of many heterosexuals toward homosexuafs. rn Lhese circumstances, homosexuals tend noc bo advertise their sexual orientation but raLher conform to the mores and norms of Ehe organization in which they serve, These organizations found thaE incorporating homosexuals into the force created relatively few problems, They experienced virEually no loss or organizational
effecLiveness or impairment in performance. Few disruptive incidents or examples of ouLright hosEility were reported' The inherenb gradualism of the process or integraLion accounts in part for the absence of negative effect-, as do some of the straEegies adopted by Ehe organizations for assuring successful implementation' Among Lhe straLegies for achj.eving successful implemenLation of a nondiscrminaLion policy, Ehose that signaled clear leadership support and insistence on maintaj.nng high standards of professionaL behavior resulted in relatively few problems. In the opinion of most officj'als interviewed, the resisEance of heLerosxuals to the 'process was dealt wj-th more effectively Lhrough .Ieadershp training (Ehroughout all Ievels of Ehe chain of commancl) than Lhrough affirmaLive action or sensitivity Dealing with potential cases of training for the rank ancl file. incompatibility or dsruptive J:ehavior--as they arose--vas generally
preferred over special class protecEions for homosexuals ' It is dj-fficult to predict how including known homosexuals in the milibary would affecL uniE cohesion, but some resisEance can be expecLed from heterosexuals, given the current state of opinion amonqf service
-32personnel. Research suggests thaL, at least in the short term' Ehe possible negaLive effecEs on social cohesion would not necessarify have a negative effect on task perforrance or on unit effectiveness' FurEher,Lheresearchindicatesthattherewouldbesufficienttimefor military leadership to use the tools availabLe Lo enforce discipline and foster task cohesion: As discussed above, the process of integrabing The experience acknowledged homosexuars is gradual and self-regulatinqr. of foreign militaries and clomestic fire and police departments suggests that few homosexuals woufcl acknov;J'edge their orientation and that they would do so only when bhey feJ't Ehe group context was tolerant' The research conductec by RND provides evidence that homosexuals can be successfully integratecl inLo military and public security organizations.IEalsorevealed,however'thathostileopinionLoward effort to homosexuals is prevalenE in the American military and thaL any j.ntroduce a change in currenL policy musE Confront Ehe challenges posed by Ehis unique environmenb' In developing a policy option consistent with the presidenL,s criteria (ending discrimination in a way that can i.ssues of implementation be implementecl practically ancl realistically), must, Lherefore, ce examinecl carefully' An option consistent with the findings of Ehe research and sat,isfying Lhose criteria is identified and assessed in the folowing section. A discussion of implementation issues follows the clescription of the opLion'
POIJICY T}IAT ENDS DISCRIMINTION BASED ON SEXI]L ORIENTTION In light of this research, the team examined a range of potent'iaI policies to end policy options . In the past and in foreign miliLaries' discriminat ion have general-Iy taken one of two forms:
1.
Treab homosexuals as a protected class, with the specal treaLment or affirmative acLion such status implies' aEtempting to change majoriLy attiLudes Lo become more tolerant of the
discriminaLed class consider homosexuals on an .rn-dividual, casq-by-case basis, using existing, universa.lly applicable rules and regulaEions in making Personnel decisions'
- 33 -
The firsE policy of breaLing homosexuals as a proLecLed class characberizes the experience of integrating blacks in the merican m!Iitary and policies toward homosexuals followed by Lhe NeLherlands ' variety of factors suggest, however, that the second approach is likeIy to be more successfu for the Amerian military in Lhis case. First, there is no legal requirement tq provide proEected cl-ass status to homosexuals aE Lhe presenE time. fn fact, most courts. at boEh Lhe state and federal l-eveI, have refused to recognize such status' Legislative change is not likely in the near L,erm, and, in recent stafe and local electlons, voters have either turned down or preempted such
status. second, the research reporEed here consisten!]y suggests Ehat such status, and the special treatment. it mpties, would cl'ear1y fosLer resentmenE ancl arouse hostility toward homosexuals in the very organizaLlons thaL would be implementing a nondiscrimination policy' By drawng special attention to Lhe issue of sexual orientation, such a policy would in effect place more emphasis on sexuaL orientaEion than the current exclusionary policy does, policy that does noL creaEe special cfass stalus for homosexuals is like1y Eo be received wilh less hostility and, therefore, Eo be easier to implement. ultimately, however, a decision not to granL protecLed class status Lo homosexuals must rest on Lhe abiliLy of other, less drastic policies to end discrimination, bhe staLed ,-goal o'f . the changfe in pol-icy ' A policy based on the principle Lhat sexual orientation is noE germane to miliLary service Ehus emergd as the mosE promising option for achieving the President's objectives' This opEion ends discriminaLion on the basis of sexual orientaEion whife assuring the requirement that military order and discpIine be maintained' It implies no endorsemenE of a ,'gay lifestryJ-e, " nor does it reguire any speca1 accommodations Lo homosexuals, who would be considered as individuals, not as a special class of people. This polj-cy incorporates srict sLandards of personal conduct!, applicable to all members of the fOrce and designed bo remove maLters of sexualorientation from the professional- environment .
-34-
Apolicybasedonthesepremj-sescouldbebuiltaroundthe
folJ.owing basic elemenLs
:
A single, gencler- and orientation-neutral standard of professional conduct SLricE rules governing personal and sexual harassment' designed Eo remove such acuj.ons from Ehe professional environment ' Emination of prohibitions in DoD directives on private, consensual sexual behavior among adults, and adjustment of invest,lgative and enforcement practices accordingly' No changes in other military rules and regulations'
An illustrati.ve standard of ProfessionaT conduct vras designed as parL of Lhe research project, with he overarching objective of maintaining the order and disciplne essential for an operationally effective military organizaion,30 Similar standards have been used effecively in other organizaLions and foreign militaies31 and are analogous to the ,,gooc orcer and discipline" and "conduct unbecoming" provisions in military law tha! have been used effectively by the u.s'
miJ.itaryforyears.FourfeaEuresofthisstandardarecentral:
A requiremenL that al membrs of the military services conduct hemselves in rvays thaE enhance good order and discipline. such conducL includes showing respect and tolerance for others ' while heLerosexuafs are asked to Eolerate Ehe presence of known homosexuals, a1l personne, includ.ng acknowledged homosexuals, must understanc that the military environment is no place Eo
advertise one's sexual identity or orientation' clear statement Ehat inappropriate personal conduct couLd destroy orcler and cli.scipline, and that individuats are expected to demonstrate Lhe common sense and good judgment not to engage in such conduct.
:
3oppendix A contains such a Standard of Professional

31See Appendix
Conduct,
E far the Canadian regulations.
- 3b j-ncluding sexual A list of categories of inappropriate conduct, harassmen, fraLernization, personal harassment (physical or verbaf conduct. toward otliers, beised on race, gender, sexual orientation or physic1 featurs) ' abuse of authority' displays of affecLion, and explicit discussions of sexua] Practices, exPerience, or desires' ,ApplicationofLhesestandardsbyleadersaLeverylevelofthe chainofcommand,inawayLhatensuresthateffectiveunit Performance is maintained'
Strictstanc]ardsofprofessionalconductandanenvironmentfreeof personal harassmenL are criticaL to the successful implemenbation of this nondiscriminaEion option. The conduct-based standard provides military leaders wiLh the necessaly frame of reference for judg-ng individual behaviors, jusL as it provides individuals with clear guidelines, uncler this sbandard, behaviors thaL impeded the effective functioning of the uniL (1.e., that undermine task cohesion) wouLd nob
be toferated. The ,,noE germane"/conduct-based policy does not require extensive revisions to exisEing miliEary r.uJ-e',s and' regulaEions or Eo personnel policy. On issues such as recognizing homosexuaL marriages or
conferringbenefitsonhomosexualpartners,thereisnoreasonforthe DepartmenE of Defense to change current policy or to become the,,].ead,' federal agency in Lhese areas. Concerns abollt privacy are often cited by those who oppose A survey of military permitLing homosexuals to serve in the military. facilties there is greater facilities shows thaE in many newer military privacyinshowersandtoiletareastodayEhanwasco]nmontwentyyears ago,32 However, members of the militilry often fincl themsefves in situaLions where very I5-ttJ"e personal privacy iS aVailable, such as aboardshj-psoronfie]-dmaneuvers'InsiEuaEions\,herephysical privacy is impossible, standarcls of conduct to foster personal privacy have afready been developed: Individuals act in ways that do not :zpprrai* B cliscusses Ehe RAND survey of military faciliEies'
- 36 intrude upon and are noE offensive to others. For Lhj-s reason, a strong emphasis on professj.onal- conducE conducive to good order and discipline isLhekeytodealingwj.Ehprivacyissuesaswel]-'Freedomfrom personal harassment ancl uniform sEandards of conduct are the guaranLies of Privacy.
besE
IJegal Isauee Regarding a ,,Not Grmane,,/conduct-Based Polfcy33 The J.egal implications of aclopting and implementing the "not germane,,/conduct-based policy were also examined. This policy could be adopLed and implementecl by the Presj.clent under his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and woud probably be upheld by the courts as an exercise of exeuLive authority. This policy, including implemenCing the Standard of Professional Conduct and revising the ManuaI for Courts MarEial- to exclude private, consensual sex between
adulLs, is entirely legaJ-Iy defensible' Implementing Ehe il-Iustrative standard of Professiona-l conduct raises several poEenEiaI issues from a 1ega1 perspective, however. First, is the standarcl iLseIf sufficiently specific to wiLhstand a voidfor-vagueness challenge? Second, how specific musL a Standard of ProfessionaJ, conduct l:e to provide adeguaEe noLice Lhat cerEain behavior viol-aLes good order anci cisci-pline? Third, would the code's lack of specific examples make it susceptibte to challenges based on unequal enforcement in sj-milar siEuaLions? And fourth, if specific examples were Lo be included, Would the sLandard be susceptible Lo an equal protecEion challenge? For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the .Standard of Professional Conduct would likely be upheld against Lhese potenEia challenges. That is, the .standard of ProfessionaT Conduct as draft,ed woulcl provide suffic'ienL specificiby Lo satisfy prenoEice requirements, b'-lt rnore specific provis'ions could also Je
susbained The Supreme CourL has consistentfy upheld Articles 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentJ-eman) and 134 of the UCMJ (the General ., all disorders and neglects t.o the ArLj.c1e, makes punishable ,,.
for a more comprehensive discussion of the legal concerning such a sLandarcl' issues
33see ChapEer 11
-37 .nl prejudice of good orcler and discipline !n the Armed Forces against challenges that they were "void ,for vagueness" and hence provided no noLice of what rvould I:e punishable conducE. Although the courE ruled thaL mil-icary 1aw neecl noL be as precise as civifian criminaL statutes, in most insLances, adeguate not.ice has been provided by military custom, ru.les, and regulations' under the ,9anda rd of Professional. conduct it is ineviEable that the same behavior n different circumstances would be LreaLed Commanders would likeIy respond differentl-y Lo certain differently. behavior and might view he conseguences to morale and discipline of a particul-ar acL dirferenEly. commanders would ikely vary in how Lhey would weigh the Eime, place, circumsbances, and purpose of an action relative to iLs conseqllences. Thus, some degree of differentiaf enforcement. of the Standard of ProtessionaL Conduct should be expected, but this alone woulcl noL rencler the sEandard unenforceable. The result of providing maximum discreEion t.o commanders, which already exists under rticle 134, is Lhat not alI commanders treaL Lhe same situaLions alike, a result also fikely under Lhe Standard of Professionaf ConducE. As noted above. the trme, place;. circumstances,r and consequences of the conduct determine if an act woulcl b punishable as dj-srupcive conduct. The same standarcls would apply wheLher the conduct Lakes place on or off base, Thus, the stadard of ProfessionaJ- Conduct would be appl-icabfe o behavior that is disruptive to moraLe or unit cohesion regardless of where the behavior takes place ' rf sexual orientation is reqarded as noE germane in determining who may serve, Enclosure 3H of the DoD regulaLions concerning administrative separations (DoD Directj-ve 1332.I4) should be rescinded. The most probl-ematic regulatory ancl legal scenario woud be to end discrimination without revisinq por!ions of Lhe ManuaL of Courts Martia] (MCM) relating to Article L25 (Sodomy) of the uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ).34 Those porLions of the MCM have historically been applied
l4From the perspect.ive of a homosexual member of the armed services, the policy choice rvouJcl have both positive and negative consequences. A posiLive outcome would be Lhe ability to serve openly But a negat.ive conseguence couLd be that if 1332'14 is in the military, repealed wiEhouE changing Articl-e 125, the only way for the mj-litary to
38 -
to heterosexual-s and homosexuals' Retaining them after differentiaLly principle rescindinq Enclosure 3H woulcl weaken the "orienEatin-neutral" of the "noL germane" Policy. practica approach to dealing with this issue would be to revise the MCM !o prosecute only non-consensual- sexual behavior or sexua acts with a minor,35 No changes would be necessary in the sodomy arLicle of tshe UCMJ iEself. because Lhat code does not specify the sexual acLs that of Lhe offense is in Lhe MCM' an The definition are illegaladminisLrative document In sum, an opEion EhaE regards sexual Oriencation as not qermane to service, accompaniecl by the Stadard of Professional Conduct military 125, is leqally enforcemenL of rticle and revisions to administrative supportable.
TMPI,ET4ENTTION OF
POIJICY TH.,T ENDS DTSCRIMINTION ON THE BASIS OF
SEXUAL ORIENTTIoN36
A poJ.icy for ending discrimi-naEion on the basis of sexuaL orientaEion will presenL implementation problems that go beyond those created by more usual sErucEural or rganizational changes' Like the
racial integration. admitting acknowledged homosexuals represents a sociaf change Lhat touches noL only on deeply hefd social attitudes. buE on moral beliefs as well. For many, 1t makes no difference j-f they come into contact with a serving homosexual; just changing the policy alters their perception of their organizaLion in very fundamenLal ways. For lhese people, the primary issue is noE unit cohesion, but morality. Some may leave the organizaEion. For Ehose'Iho sEay, the challenge will be to implemenL the change in ways Lhat preserve essential task cohesion
and organizational effecEivens'
l
discharge a homosexual would be through an Article 125 prosecution. under current policy many homosexua.l-s are given administraLive discharges ancl are not usually prosecuted under rticle 125. By noL removing or modifying rEicle 125, homosexuals woufd be at greater risk of an Article 125 Prosecution' 35Appenclix C contains an example of such a revision' 36see Chapter 12 fc.:r a more detailed discussion- The research team also examined Lhe potenEia effects of a change in policy on recruiEment and retention, These finclinss are discussed j-n Chapter 13'
- 39 -
Themannerinwhichpolicychangeisimplementedcouldhavea decisive impact on whether these problems are managed with minimal disruptions or undermine the effort to change' Based on Ehe research can conducted in this stucly, key elements of an implementation strategy be identfied:
The message of policy change must be clear and must be consistently communicatecl fron Ehe top' Given Lhe fact that senior leaders of the mititary are on record as opposing any change, ic will be necessary, if polcy is changed' for these and other leaclers Eo signal their acceptance of the change and It musL be their commitment to iLs successful implementat'on' clear t.o the troops that ]ehavioral dissent from the policy witl not be PermiEted. TheoptionseJectedshouldbe.implementedj-mmediately'Any invltes Lhose opposed sense of experimentaLion or ullcertainty tso change to conEinue Eo resist- i! and Lo seek Eo "prove" lhat the change wiLl noE work' Emphasis shoulcl be placed on behavior and conducL' not on For Lhose who believe that teaching t.olernce or sensitivity' homosexuality j.s primarily a moral- issue. such efforEs would breecl adcliEional resentment.. Attit.udes may change over Lime' but behavior must be consistent with the new policy from the firsE
day.
The Leadership musE send messages of reassurance to bhe force' is currentl'y unclergoing a variety of other stressful military experlences, e.g., declining budgets and the drawdown n the In such an atmosphere, iL is imporEanL to sj'gnal Ehat force.
EhechangeinpolicyvJilfnothavemarkedlydisruptiveeffects and thatr it i.s noL j-ntenclecl as a chal lenge to tradit ional miIiLaryVcllues.ThisclimaeofpsychologicalsafeLyis conducive to acceptance of Che ihange' Leaders at alI Levels 'shou.fcl .be empowered to impJ-ement the policy,andsomespeci'altrainingorassistanceforleadersmay
40 ;
be a useful clevice for ensuring that the change is undersEood and occurs raPidIY.
'AmonitoringprocessshouldbeesEabfishedtsoidentifyany problems early in the irnplemenLation process and to address

them j.mmediateIY.
Theoptionassessedhere.aconduct-basedsetofstandardsapplied ,,not fermane', to under the premise that sexual orientation, as such, is military service, appears Lo meeL the President's criteria and to be consistentwtthempiricalresearchandhisLoricalexperience.By foll-owing Ehis impJ.ementation strategy, the Department of Defense should be abLe to increase the probabiliLy that a policy that ends discrimination ]rased on sexual orientation can be implemented in a practicalandrea]-isticmannerandthaLtheorder,dj.scipline,and individuat behavior necessary to mairitain cohesion and performance are more IikelY to ire Preservec
-4L-
2.
SEXUAIJ ORIENTTION .AND SEXUIJ BEHVIOR]
ln discussions of a poLicy change allowing homosexuals to serve, j-t wouLd not some of the strongest expressed concerns have been that only increase the number of homosexuals in the military, but implicitly condone sexua1 behavj.ors now proscribed under DoD Directive 1332.14 and Articl-e t25 of he uniform code of Military Juseice. The purpose of Lhis chapter is Eo look at what we knoh/ about the prevalence of homosexualiLy and the proscribed behaviors. Specifically, we review the besb availabfe clata Lo answer these questions: " .
what is Ehe prevalence of homosexual behavior in the general U.S. population and in the military? Are homosexual status (i.e., self-identrfied sexual orienLaton) and homosexual conducL (i.e., sexualbehavior)
synonymous
?
What is the preval,ence of the, roscr,ibed sexuaL behaviors male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals?
among
This chapter begins by d.scussing our approach to Ehe relevant literature and then addresses these questions in burn.
PPRO,CH TO THE I,ITERTURE
Before we sEart this review, the reader should be aware thaE literature on sexual- attitudes, knowledge, and behavior is riddled wj"th serious problems, most of them unlikIy to be resolved in the near fuLure, if ever. virEually all avaIable data from the time of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's pioneering work (Kinsey et a1., 7948, 1953) until the past few years are derived from nonprobabiliLy "convenience" samples Ehat are noL generalizable to the U,S. population as a rvhole.2 In the
lThis chapter was prepared by Janet Lever and David E. Kanouse, who wish Lo acknorvledge the consj-derable assj.stance of Robert MacCoun and
Peer 'Iiemeyer.
2convenience samples characterize most studies in both the sex research and epidemiology J.terures, 'TlpicalLy, samples are drawn
-42past few years, researchers have attmpec to apply random probability sampling techniques Lo get more represent,ative respondents. but these studies, too, have serious limitations.3 To date bhere is no completely accurate sludy of the prevalence and incidence of privaEe sexual behaviors. Nevertheless, the data Ehat have been collected do provide some useful informaEion regarding the three questions posed above. ForEunately, for most of the issues we examine, the available infornation is adequate for a "ballpark" esLimate, Lo establish a lor,Ier bound fof,,Lhe.prevaLende of particular behavj'orsr or to esEimabe the reTative prevalence j,n different populaEions, In Iight of the variable qualiEy of Ehe research' we concentrace on the best sEudies--Ehose Ehat provide Ehe most objective empirical. evidence available on ssues relevan! to this debabe. These studies have been chosen using the following criteria: .
sarnpling meEhods--probability sampling meEhods that wiIl support generalizations to a populaLion of interest are preferred to convenience samples ' specific, weIJ.-defined, objective measures of behavior--the interpreEabiliEy of self-reports of sexual behavior requires that the questions be clear and well-defined so that respondents know what is being asked and researchers know what
Lhe response means
'
Quality of survey execution--use of appropriate procedures safeguard privacy and to achieve adequate response rates '
Lo
from patients of STD (sexualIy transmitted dj-sease) clinics, members of accessible organizaEions, Persons who'freguent public places for sexual contact, and volunteer respondents to magazine and other pubJ-icly announced surveys (T\.rrner, Mi11er, and Moses, 1989) ' conEemporary researchers a! che Kinsey Institute describe some of the other methodological shortcomings of sex research: smafl sample size, recruitment in one or just a few locales, and an overrepresenLation of young, white, urban middLe-class respondenbs (Reinisch et a1.,1988). 3limL-tions are a result of sampling error, non-response bias, and various sources of measurement error, includng the respondent's skipping embarrassing quesEions. distortion of answers to fit a "socially desirable" image or to deny incriminaEing behavior, or simpfe failure of memory to provide the accrrate response.
-43-
.QualityofdcumentationofresulLs--keyvariabfesreportedfor subgroupsaswellasoveral]-samp}e.univariateormultivarate relationshipsreported,evidenceprovidedontheJ.ikelyeffects of nonresPonse. Sample size--Iarger is better' ' 'Recency--althougholdersEudiesmaybeasmeritorious scientifica}Iyasrecencones,recent'studiesaremorereadily general i.zable to today's pol..icy context, all- else being
equaL.
lnlherever the available Literature j.ncludes studies that vary on these dimensions, we based our concfusions on the sEudies judged best by on some issues, however, we have used sEudies and noLed these criteria. heir limitaCions and made caveats. We have omiLted some pertinenL
studies when others betEer met our quality criteria'

PREVI,ENCE OF HOI'OSEXUIJITY: GENERI' POPUI'TION ND THE MII'ITARY
In some imporcanL respects, Ehe prevalence of homosexuaf behavior inthegeneralpopulationhasnoc]irecLbearingonpolicyregarding military service l:y homosexuals. If homosexuaJ-iLy is incompaEible wiEh miliEary service, then iL is incompatille regardless of how many people are excluded from serving by the resLricbion. once consideraLion is given Eo ending the restriction, however, the prevalence of homosexual behavior gains relevance from a practical point of view: How many potential military perscnneL are we discussing? Furthermore, Lhe prevalence of homosexuaf behavior in..both Lhe general population and the military will be important for assessing whether a policy change wilI cause an increase in sexual behaviors associated with healLh ri-sks. Accordinqly, we review whaE s currenEly known about this question' 11 of the studies of the prevalence of homosexuatity are affected to some degree by problems of underreporting. Homosexual behavior, especially in males, is highly stigmatized, and even the most credibfe assurance of anonymity may not persuade survey respondents to acknowledge behavior thaL Ehey are' acc's,tomed to keeping secret. Consequently, stigmatized.sexu} behavior is probab}y more often underreporEed lhan overreporEed, and Ehe magnitude of the underreporEing
-44is unknown.4 Ithough much has been learned about survey research methods for obtaining useful data about sexua] behavior, there are sLill many unanswered quesEions about the effectiveness of different approaches (Caeania et af., 1990; Mi11er, T\:rner, and Moses' l-990' ' ChapEer 6).
;
Homosexual Behavior
n the General Populaion Given these constraints, there is no definitive study establishing the exact proportion of men or women in Ehe general population who have same-gender sex. InsEead, the proportion of men and women willing to acknowledge homosexual activity varies from survey to survey, no doubt reflecting the highly sensitive nature of questions on this topic and probably according o Lhe methods used to assure confj-dentiality and elicit candid responses, Taken as a whoLe, survey dala indicaEe lhat roughly 2 Lo 8 percent of adu]t American males acknowledge having engaged in sexual acts with another man during adulthood. The exLent to which the actual percentage may be higher, because of underreporting, is not known' For many men' long periods of time may elapse between such experiences. conseguenLly, the percentage of men who report such acts during specified periods (e.g.,duringthelasLyear)islypicallysma}lerthanthepercentage who report any such contact as adulE.s. A majority of the men who report homosexual contacts have also.,had sex with women (Rogers and Turner, 1991). Thus, the percenLage of..mbn who are excfusiveTy homosexual in ,O". the few studies bearng on this was conduct.ed by Clark and "f Tifft (1966), who used a polygraph to moLivate respondents (45 college males) to correct misreports Lhey may have made in a previously completed quesEionnaire. They founc that, afbhough 22,5 percen! of these men ult.imately reportecl some male-male sexual contact when confronted with a lie cletector, only ?.5 percent of Ehese had done so in completed questionnaire. In addition to the 1"5 percent the initially who changed their answers from denial to acknowledgement, 5 percent changed their ansl^/ers from acknowledgement to denial- when confronted with the 1ie deLecEor. Thus, Lhe net change in the reported prevalence of male-male contact vJas an increase of 10 percellt (from 12'5 percent to 22.5 percent), a substanLially higher prevalence than would be estimated from the initial guestionnaj-re aLone. AlLhough it would be inappropriate to generalize from this small sample of college males to a broader population, Lhe results illustrate Lhat considerable underreporting of same-gender conLacL may occur in surveys '
-45their adult sexual behavior (those most Likely Eo consider Ehemselves to be homosexuaf) is much smaller Lhan the percentage who ever have sex with other men. we discuss this issue further under "Relationship
Between St.atus and Conduct ' "
Data on the prevalence of female homosexuality are even more sparse Lhan data for males, and where data have been col-]ecLed, they are ofEen Unreported,5 However, what data there are Suggest a prevalence lower than for males: The estimates range from 1 to 6 percent, vTith variabions among age groups and for mariLal staLus ' For many years, virtually the only data came from Kinsey et al-'
(1948,p.651),whoweretheSourceforawide}ycitedfigureofl0 percenE. In facE, this figure referred to the esLimated proporbion of the 5,300 men inLerviewed who vrere exclusively or predominanEly homosexual --for at Least three years between the ages of 76 and 55 ' They esEimated the proporLion who were exclusively homosexual throughout their lives Eo )re much }ower--4 percent'6 Kinsey et aI. (1953) are often ciLed to the effect that bhe prevalence is lower among females than among males. such a conclusion requires comparable clata for boLh genders, and, unforEunately, Kinsey did not reporE on female homosexual behavlor using the same yardstick as was used for maLes. For females, Kinsey (1953, pp. 473-474) reported that between l- and 6 percenb of unmarried and prevj-ously married females, but less than 1 percent of married femal'es/ \'ere exclusively or predominanLly homosexual-- in each of the years between 20 and 35 years of age, They did noL repor! an aggregale percentage for femaLes regardless of marital status. But even if they had done so, Ehe result.ing percenEage would not be comparable to the 10 percenL for males because of differences in the age ranges and number of years required Lo qualify under the Lwo definiEions.
i
tDat" female-female ""*t-i contact rvere coflecEed in some of the "n surveys reviewed j,n Table 2-1, but reports on those surveys may include only the male-mal-e data because of the importance of this behavior in understanding and forecasting the future spread of HIV infection. 6The nature of Kinsey,s sample may have affected the resu.IEs: Some of the male subjecls were prisoners, and there is reason to bel-ieve that the ncidence of homosexual behavior is higher in prisons, as discussed
below.
_46_
More recent clata from probability samples suggest thaE Kinsey's 10 percent figure for males is too high. But recent studiesr sulnmarized in Table 2-1, sLill do noL converge on a single "correct" figure below that number. The prevalence estimaLes shown in Table 2-1 are not directly comparable to Kinsey's 10 percenE figure. Rather, the statistics refer o all those who report any same-gender sexual contacE either in adulbhood or during a specified time period--a number Iikely to be consderably higher than the percentage who report being exclusiveLy or predominanEly homosexual. The NaLiona] Survey of Men is the only study based on a probabiliLy sample Lhat publishes a figure even roughly comparable to Kinsey's estimate thaL 4 percent. of men are exclusively of the 3,32L men aged 20 to 39 homosexual throughout their lifetime.
surveyed, only 1 perenE reported being excLusively homosexual in
behavior in the prior ten years (Bi1ly et al., 1993).? In their reanalysis of five proLrability studies (al1 presented in Table 2-1). Rogers ancl Turner (1991) report only 0.7 percent with exclusively malewhere esEimaLes of female mal-e sexual conbacts during acluIE ]ife, do not differ markedJ-y from Ehose homosexual contact are avaiJ-able, they found for males in one survey, and in the other, they are similar over the long time period, but consderably Lower for Lhe past year' Table 2-l- clearly indicates the epj-sodic or experimenLal nature of homosexuaL experiences for'some peopIe.8. The shorter the time period investigaLed, the smaller the percentage of men and women who reporE same-gender sexual behavior. Besides tj.me frame, differences in samples and data collecton t-echnigues in al1 liketihood aso contribute Eo the variation in prevalence estimates. Estimates of homosexual activity are highest in the Research Trj-angle InstiluLe study, whj-ch was conducted as a pilot test for a national seroprevalence sEudy (Rogers and Turner, 1"991), Its unusually h.gh response rate (88 percent) may be a resulL of Ehe cash incentve offered; in addition, iL is possible that a higher
TThe National Survey of Men received a lot of attention in the popular press where iL was more corrunonly referred to both as the BaLteIIe study and the Guttmacher sLudy. Eprevalence is also related to lhe time period investigaLed for
heLerosexuaf behavior.
-47 rable 2-1

Estimatee of Homoeexual Behavior From u.s. Probabitity studie8
Prevalence of
Sample
S
SalneFema e 20
Methods of
DaEa
Gender SexuaI ConEacE
Eudy
characcerisLics
and older
1450 men aged 21
NaE
ional-
Opinion
rch Counc1,
Resea
UAl"e Since age 6.72 1.6-2.OZ

LasL year
collecEon
SAQ f ol- lo\,/ing
Response Ra ce N/A
N/ N/
face- to- face
inEerview
(NORC) 1970
(Fay eE al.
1989)
! I seq men anci General. Social Survey 196i womer aged (css)a 18 and older
i
Sjnce age 18
5.0t
l5L ysdl
3.5t
SAQ f ol l.owing
'7
4Z-'7
)
8e"
1989-91
iace-to-face i nt ervi ew
(19881991
f Sf men ard
I i Louis Harris r & AssociaEes, r 1988 |

('r'ay l or 1993 )
,
l
2163 women aged
18 and older
739
men
2.22
3.5t
o.7z
S.AQ
409 women aged
Last 5 ycars 3.6? 4.4*

Lasr. yeer 2.92
2.LZ 1.8 Last 10 years
following
Eo- face ew;
i6 tc
50
iacei
nc
612
ervi
LasE monLil
nr
rviewer
SQ
Research
660 n,ale
Triangfe InsciEute
(Rogers
&
resrdenLs of
Dal
8.1?
,
N/A
las Ccrnty
88t
N,/A
Tx, aqed 21-54

4.
LasE year
Turner,1991
Nat i ona I
6t %
3321 men aged

Men
LasE l-0 years

2 .3
Face- to- face

inE
Survey of
(NSM-t)
1993
2A- 39
l.J/
ervi
ew;
1Q*
female
i nt erviewers
(Billy et al
)
Note; N/ = noL availabLe
prevalence of male and femal.e homosevuality calculaEed Surveys (Davl-s and Smich, 199i)
'
5q = sel-f admin:scered quesgionr.aire
at
RAND
from Ceneral Social
proportion of homosexual men agreed. to artj.cipaLe because of the AIDS focus, In any case, its sampJ-e is composed of DaIIas counEy, Texas, residents only, There is no reason to believe that Lhe true prevalance for Dallas County mirrors that of the nation as a whole. Results from the National survey of Men (NsM-1) indicate thaE male-ma1e sexual activiLy is reportecl more frequently in urban than nonurban areas (Koray
-48Tanfer, personal communication, June 3, 1993). n analysis of the other probability surveys listecl in Table 2-L also shows higher raLes in cities (Rogers and Turner, 1991,) ' EstimaEes of homosexual act.ivity are lowesE in the NSM-1, but data coflecton proceeded dj-fferently from al1 olher surveys presented in Table 2-1. While the other surveys used a self-administered questionnaire for sensitive quesLions that was completed then delivered in a sealed envelope to the interviewer afEer a face-to-face interview, the NSM-1 was conducted only with face-to-face interviews ' Further, in contrast to the use of inEerviewers of both genders, or ones matched by gender to the respondent, Lhe NSM-L used all female interviewers for all male respondenLs, These methodological variations may account for the
low rate of reporLed homosexual behavior. Finally, differences in preval,ence estimates may be due to sampling and/or measurement error. FirsL, no sample perfec!1y represent.s bhe populaEion from which it is drawn, so statstics are often reported using confidence inbervals thaL estimaEe ehe like1y range of variabion due to sampling error. Where confidence inbervals are offered, there is much more overi.ap between study.esLimaLes.9 Second, estimates may be affecEed by low response raLes! Rates for the surveys shown in Table 2-1_ ranged from 67 percent Lo. B8 percent; while these are considered acceptable raEes for in-person household surveys, bhey sEill imply that beEween one and three of every ten pelsons refused to parEicipate' There is no evidence to show whher persons with homosexual experience differ in Lheir willingness to cooperate with survey researchers from lhose withouE homosexual experience. However. as we discussed earLier. it is likely Lhat many of those with homosexuaL experience who do participaLe in the survey dc not acknowledge thaL experience; this underreporting is one component of "measurement error." According to the president of Louis Harris and Associates, measurement error is a far
gFor example, Research Triangle Insitute analysts esCimaee that there is a 95 percent probabrliLy that the "true" prevalence of Dall.as men who engaged in homosexual conduct in the previous 12 months is beLween 1_.4 percent ancl 7.8 percent. This range is broad enough to include point estimaEes in two of the three years for which GSS data have been reported.
-49bigger problem than sampling error when there is a "socialIy desirable" answer j-n boLh surveys of behavior ard attitudes (Taylor, 1993).10 The extent of measuremenE. error is unknown. Researchers from NORC who reanalyzed Ehe 1970 data in light of the 1-988 Gss survey appropriately suggest Ehat heir estimates e viewed as "Iov'/er bounds on he prevalence of same-gender sex among men" (Fay et aI', 1989, p.243) .ll OLher scientisLs concur that. estimat.es are l-ower-bounds of actual prevalence (Rogers and Turner, 1991). Nevertheless, the new probabilily studies indicate thaL the prevaLence of predominantly and exclusively homosexual behavior in men Loday s Lower t.han Kinsey's wideJ-y cited esEimate of ten percenL.
Homoeexual Behavior mong
Milltary Pereonnel Few studies have asked miJ-itary personnel about Eheir sexual acivities, and none have published data on Ehe incidence of homosexual acts among Ehose currently serving in the Armed Porces. The only availabl-e study from vhich an inference can be made, drawing on Ehree national probability. samples that included data on previous milj-tary status. suggests thaE the prevalence. of same-gender sexual behavior by men who have served is aL the high end of the range for the genera]. population (Rogers and Turner, 1991). This behavior may or may not have occurred during thej,r rnilitary service.12 Rogers and Turner report an analysis combining daca from three probability samples of the U.S. population (combined n = 2,449 respondenLs) tha! examines Lhe proportion of men aged 2l- and older who reported adult same-gender sexuaL experience by various social and demographic characLeristics, including military service. Among men with
l0Humphrey Taylor was inerviewed by lhe New York Times (Barringer, 1993) and asked to explain the difference between Harris and BSM-1's estj.mates for Ehe prevalence of homosexual behavors. In describing inaccurate measurement problems, he points out that church-going and t.ooth-brushing are as IikeJ.y to be overreported as homosexual- and drugusing behaviors are underreportd' llPresented in the first two rows of our Table 2-1 ' 1ZDaEa from probability surveys are availabl"e for men only; however, Lhe same generalization can be made for women based on Lheir higher separation rate for reasons of homosexuafiEy in the U.S. military (cAo, 1992, p. 20).
- 50 military service, ?.6 percenL reporbed same-gender sexual contact, compared with 5.1 percent of other meri. Military service was one of only four adult .staLus variables that showed a reliable staListical relationship vJith reporfs of same-gfender sex across the three surveys'13
REI.ATIONSHIP BETWEEN STTUS AND
CONDUCT
under current rniJ.itary policy, Lhere is a "rebuLtable presumpLion" ttrat homosexual status equals conduct: A soldier can be discharged ither for being homosexual or for engaging in a homosexual ac ' 14 DoD Directive 1332,14 sLates that homosexuality is incompaLiable with miliEary service. A homosexual is defined as "a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, clesires to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts." As used in this section, a homosexual act "means bodily conLacL, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires"' Simply put, DoD Directve 1332'14 prohibits any sexual contacL between same-gencler parcners; it is the partner, not the act, that is proscribed, However, in applying DoD Directive 1332.14, the miliLary recognizes the distinction between a homosexual- orientaEion EhaL is persistent and a single incident of homosexual conducL that is atypical of the person,s usual conduc!. For example, if during an investigation iL is determined Lhat homosexuaL act was elLher a one-time ,,experimenb,, or the result of intoxication, adverse action need not be taken, AIso, while the DoD clefinition includes those who desire and/or intend to engage in homosexual acts, i-n practce, homosexual feelings are unobservable and exceedingly difficult to recognize in the absence of behavior and/or acknowedgment.
13The others were marital status (unmarried men were more likeIy to (Lhose wiLh reporL same-gender contact); current reLigious affiliation none were more likey Co reporL same-gender contact); and size of cj.ty or Lown of currenL residence (those in places of > 25,000 were more likeIy to report same-gencer contact). The only social background variable assocj.ated with reports of same-gender contacL was fatsher's educa!ion: Respondents with college-educated fathers were more likeIy to report same-gender conLact. 14see the cliscussion in the chapter on 1egal consideraLions.
- 51 -
In this secLion, we review studies of sexual behavior and/or identity to explore whether homosexual status and conduct are synonymous. ff Ehe Ewo are not the same, then a policy of excluding solely on the basis of status woul-d excl,ude some who do not engage in sexual acts with same-gender partners whj-l-e alJ-owing others who do to serve, In this chapeer, we do not address the policy problems that this might pose, buE merely the question of. how many people might fiE the broad DoD definition of homosexuals. FurLher, Ehis secLion has bearing on heaLLh-reLaLed concerns because it .is conduct rather than status Lhat poses potential health risks' A review of available studies leacls us to conclude that, whj-l-e Lhere is a slrong correlation between status and conducL, they are not
synonymous:
'
A person who does not identify himseLf or herself as a engage in acts with someone of "Lhe same homosexualmay still sex for purposes of saLisfying sexuaJ- desires" (in the language
of the directive) .
A person who does idenlify himself or herseff as a homosexual may refrain from engaging in homosexuaf acts.
Eomoeexual Behavior mong self
-IdenElfied Hetseroaexuals
Kinsey ancl associates .(1948) dicl not use "homosexual" or "heterosexual" as nouns characterizln.g people, but rather as adjecives characterizing acts. In their Iandmark study, they creaLed a sevenpoint scale--v,hich cane Lo be known as Ehe "Kinsey scale"--to place individuals along a continuum ranging from exclusively heterosexual (0) to excLusively homosexual (6), according to his or her current or cumulative lj.fetme sexual- experiences and sexual feeJ.ings' All intermediate poinLs indicated personal histories with a mixture of homosexual and heterosexual acts and/or feelings' Kinsey et al. (1948, p.650) found Lhat mosL of those who ever engaged in homosexual acts had engaged in a greater proportion of heterosexual- acts ' In contemporary socieLy, it appears thaL bisexualj.Ey is stiLl more prevalent than exclusive homosexuaLiry; the probabJ.lity sLudies presenEed in the
-52previous sect.ion support the generalization that a majorj-ty of men who report male-male sexual conLacts in aduLEhood also report female sexual partners in adulthood (Rogers and Turner, 199L, pp.505,509) ' After analyzing the sex histories of 150 interview subjects who had both heterosexual and homosexual exprience in adulthood, Blumstein and coherent Schwartz (19'l6a:342 ]-97 6b) concluded there may be "little and 'mix' of homosexual and heterosexual relationship kretween t.he amount behavior in a person's biography and thaL person's choice to I'abe1 himself or herseLf as bj.sexual-. homosexual, or heterosexual'" The relationship i:eEveen idenLiEy and behavior has not been wel-1 studied, because the available datasets have generally included measures of only behavior or identj.ty, or have been based on very small and nonrepresentatlve samples. One dataset that contained independent measures of behavior and identity on a large national sample of 56,600 men supports the conclusj-on that conduct and status are not synonymous (Lever et al., T992). RAND researchers reanalyzed a 1982 readers' survey LhaL appeared in PJayboy. obviously, readers of PJayboy are not representative of all U.S. men,' like other popular magazine surveys--and /convenience,, (.e. nonprobability) samples more generally--this survey cannot be used Lo estimate prevalence of sexual behaviors in the genera population. However, a farge and dj-verse dataset containing detail,ed questions on sexualiby does provide some information on the relaLionship betvleen various aspects of sexuality. Accordingly, researchers examined t.he 6,982 (or 12.5 percenE) of men who reported adult sexuaL experiences with both men and women. Of these, 69 percent described themselves as "heterosexuaf, " 29 percent as "bisexual, " and 2 percent as "homosexual."15 Even afEer aJ.Iowing for tikely overrepresentation of men aL the heterosexual end of the Kinsey continuum, Lhe resulL
15Popu1ar magazine respondents,,do noL even neces,sarily represent the maqazine's own readership. IE is assumed that those rvho answer such surveys are those mosL intresLed.iin, and perhaps most comfortabJ.e wiLh, the subject of sexuality. FurLhermore, drawn from Playboy readers, this sampLe is like1y to overrepresent the bisexual men who are on the heterosexual side of Ehe Kinsey scale, in contrast to earlier empirical studies of bisexual men who, having been recruited from Ehe homosexual onmunity, are ]ikely !o overrepresenL the homosexual side'
-53demonsLrates EhaE many men \tho have engaged in homosexuaL conduct do not consider themsel-ves homosexual-. An epimediology study and a criminology study further illustrabe the point that homosexuaL behavior does not occur only among people wiLh homosexual idenEificat.ion.r Epidemiolog.ists (o1l' et a]., 1992) from Lhe
cenLers for Disease conEIo sEudied 209 HIV-seroposiiive mafe bood donors who reported having hadr sex with both men and women since 1978' Because men who have had sex with men are asked to refrain from donating blood, one mighE expect this sampling method Eo overrepresent men who do O these, 45 percent selfnob have a homosexuaL self-idenLificatj.on. percent as bisexual-, and 25 percent as idenLified as homosexual, 30
heterosexual
.
studies in criminology have found examples in prj-son of what social scientisLs term "situatlonal homosexual'ity, " i.e., self-dentified heterosexuals engagng in homosexual behavior only in situations that prelude sex wj,th women. wooden and Parker (1982) is considered the most thorough treatmenb of the phenomenon of male-mafe sexual activity in a prison context. Through in-depLh interviews, the researchers learned that the sexual aggressors consider themselves "heterosexual"; their targets are men they assume to be homosexuaf or younger heterosexual men who are noL able to Protect themselves. Most of the sexual aggressors claim no, homosexual experience prior to prison, and those released claim to resume a .Life of exclusively heterosexual relations. Of the 200 men in V{ooclen and Parker's study who returned a quesEionnaire, 10 percenL identified themseLves as homosexual, 10 percent as bisexual, and the remaining B0 percent as heterosexual; over half (55 percenE) of the heterosexual group reported having engaged in homosexual activity in prison-16 Although prison cuLture and popufations have few paraIIels. these behavioral patterns offer another example of divergence between identity and behavior.
16The researchers distribuLecl questionnaires to a random sample of 600 out of 2500 male prisoners in a medium-security prison; 200 returned compleLed guestionnaires, a 33-percent response rate. Because of the low response rae, we clo not offer findings as estimates of prevalence; however, they are insfrucEive about the rel-ationship between sLatus and conduct ,
54
Vfrglntty and Celibacy Anong self-fdntified Homoeexuals current miliLary policy considers thaE a statement of homosexual orjentation presumes homosexual behavior. Therefore, vJe examined various studies of whether peopJ.e may have a sexual self-identification that incorporates attraction to oLhers of lhe same Sex withouE having acted on their homosexual feelings. VJe use as examples two probability sEudies--one a natj.ona sample of male adolescents and one a single-ciLy sLudy of homosexual and bisexual men--as weIl as an epidemiology repor and a nonprobability survey of homosexual- women. In 1988, the Urban InstituLe conducted a nationally representative survey of adolescent males vrhich included a self-administered questionnaire thaE contaj-ned sensitive iEems on sexual practices. of the 1,095 males beE$/een ages 17 to 19, fi-ve percent labeled themselves "mostly heterosexual." or "IisexuaI, " and 0.6 percent seecLed "mostly homosexual" or u 1-00 percent homosexual" (B percent answered "don't know" or lef| the item blank). OnIy 23 percenf of those who acknowledged some same-sex atEraction hacl ever engaqed in sexual acts with another male-i.e., roughly three-quarters were "virgins" wj-th regard Lo homosexual
sex.
17
Very fevr studies of homosexual men are, like Lhe Urban Institute Study, based on a systematic sample screened from a random sarnple of the general population. One sEudy used a systematic sample, but not from the general population. That study was conducted by RAND j-n 1989-1990 of 300 homosexual and J:isexual men over age 18 who were concentraLed in areas of Los AngeJ-es Courrty known to have significanL numbers of homosexual men (Kanouse et aI., 1991a). The sample included men \rho acknowledged having had sex wiLh another man in Lhe last ten years ' lthough ths study overrepresents men Iiving in homosexual neighborhoods relatve to bhose'living in other areas, the sampfe is in other respects apf to be much more rePresentat.i-ve of homosexual men
lTThese tabul-ations are Laken from Lhe Nationai- Survey of Adolescent Mal-es (SonensEein et a1., 1991). The NSAM is a nationally representative survey of 15 to 19 year ofds conducted in 19BB by the Urban Institube and Sociometrics Corporation. Because the survey oversampled bLack ancl Hispanic males, all talufations have been adjusted y using appropriaEe case weights.
-55than, sayr a sample of men atEending an sTD (sexually transmitted disease) cLinic or men who belong Eo a homosexual organization' In an anonlmous telephone inEerview, homosexual and bisexual men in Lhis sLudy were asked detailed quesLions about their sexual risk behaviors' About 13 percent of respondents reported having no sexual partner in the past
L2 months.18 The population-based prevafence studies presented in TabLe 2-1 have also found evidelce that for many men, homosexual activity tends to be episodic: The propor[ion of men who report having engaged in homosexual acts during recenE time peri-ods is frequently much lower than the proportion who report having engaged in such acts during a longer time
interval (Rogers and Turner, 1991). Some of these men may be having sex with women during Lhe Eimes they are abstaining from sex w:-th men. In a sLudy of 584 homosexual and bisexual men recruibed in places in pittsburgh Iikely to overrepresent sexually active men, 7.4 percent of one group ancl 9.1 percent of anoEher had been celibate for Ehe previous six months (Val-diserri et aI., 1989). LouLan (1988) distributed s.eI guesLionnaires at workshops, lecLures, and women,s booksggres as well as through ads in women's and homosexual newspapers throughopt the U.S.; we assume that her sample overrepresents homosexual women who are "out" and part of Ehe visible homosexual communiEy. SeLf-reporEed hisEories of the 1566 homosexual women who responded showed that.78 percen! had been cefibaEe for varying periods of ime: the rnajoriLy for under one year, but 35 percent for one Lo five years, and 8 percenL for six years or more8For Lhe sake of comparison, in their counterpart sEudy of the generaf population of Los Angeles coiinty, Kanouse et a1' (199Ib) found that roughly 12 percent of the sample had been sexualJ.y inacLive for five years or more. of Ehose in the general population who had a partner n che prior five years , 24 percenL had no partner in the four weeks prior bo Ehe survey; of Ehe homosexuaJ. and bisexual men who had a parener in the past year, 22 percent had none in the past four weeks (Kanouse et aI., l-99la). Another probabilit.y study of homosexual and bisexual men clone in San Francisco shows a similary high rate of sexual inactiviby for a J-arge minority of men (35 percent) when a short time frame is usec1, in this case, the past 30 days (sEal eL al., 1992).
-56
Surrunry/ConcIua
ion
the studies cited aove focus on behavior and noE motive or atttucles, we can tentatively suggest Ehis sufimary; There are people who caLL themselves heterosexual, and who are predominantly heterosexual in behavior, who also engage in homosexual acts. some may experiment with homosexual- lehavior once or twice, OEhers may occasionally act on their attraction to people of Lhe same-sex even if Ehey call themselves heLerosexual. Still others may recognize their attraction to others of Ehe same gender, but Ehey esEabl-ish a heterosexual public persona and refrain from acing on these attractions or revealing bheir orientation to others. Final1y, there are people who consider themselves bo be 'homosexual-" or "bisexual" who, for whatever reasons (e'g', health concerns, religious convictions, or simply lack of opportuniLy), refrain from homosexual activities.
AJ-t.hough
PREVIJENCE OF PROSCRIBED BEHVIORS BY SEXUIJ ORIENTTION
The sodomy provisions of bhe uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ, Artj.cfe 125) have been used as the basis for removing homosexuals from the service. Some have argued thaE a poIcy allowing homosexuals to serve would e inconsistenL wiLh Ehis provision of military law; however, unlike DoD Directive 1332.14 which prohibits same-gender partners regardless of sex ac:, Article L25 prohibits cerEain acts, regardless of gender of partner. ArEicle 125 of Ehe UCMJ staEes that a person engaging in ,,unnauraf carnal copulabion" with members of the
or opposite sex s guiJ-ty of sodomy. That is, under miJ.iEary law sodomy s forbidden whether performed by heterosexuals or homosexuals' The Manual for CourLs MarLial (MCM) defines sodomy as oral or anal sex (or sex with an animal). In lhis section, we rev.iew what is known about these forbidden behaviors in Ehe general population. There are no published data on Ehese behaviors among miliLary personnel' A review of availabl-e studies leads us to conclude:
same
Oral sex, as clefinecl and prohibited by the UCMJ/MCM, is widely practicec by boEh male and female homosexual-s and by heterosexuaLs
.
-57 I
lthough a sizeable minorEy of hecerosexuaLs have experienced anal sex at least once, mosL of them do not repeat this sexuaf acL or e.lse practice it infrequently--Ehe majority of heEerosexuafs have nob experienced this sexual act. Although the prevalence of ana] sex has decreased since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, iE is sti1l a common sexualpractice for many homosexuaL men.
Oral Sex mong Hetrosexuals and Homoeexuals In contrasc to reports of same-sex behavj-or, reports of oralgenital sex shoulcl be l-ess clistorEed by the problem of underreporting described above, Although Lhis is a very private behavior, most For Americans evidenLly consider it a "normal" sexual variation' example, BB percent of men and 87 percent of women in a large (albeit unrepresentative) naEional sample rated oral sex as "very normaL" or "aLl right," versus "unusual" or "kinky." Even 77 percent of those who described themselves as "very religi-ous" held this view (Janus and Janus, 1993 ) . le The NaLionaL survey of Men (NSM-I. Bi11y et aI., 1993), one of the probability samples described earfier, reporLs EhaL of U.S. men between ages 20-39, ?5 percent have performed nd 79 percent have received oral sex, funong those urrenbly married, 79 percent performed and B0 percent received it. mong the lotal- sample, 32 percent of the men performed and 34 percenL receivecl oral sex within the last four weeks. None of Lhe other probabiliLy sLudies described i.n Table 2-L provides daEa on the prevafence of oial sex for a represe:tative u.s, sampLe; Lherefore, there are no comparable stat.istics collected from female respondenEs. rnasmuch as 98 percent of the NsM-1 respondents reported being excLlrsiveLy heLerosexual- in the fast ten years, we can infer that the prevafence estimates generated by Lhe male respondents
;
19The Janus Report, based on 2,765 volunteer respondenLs, is not representative of the U.S. populaEion. We do not use it to draw conclusions abouL prevalence of behaviors, but we do draw on iLs data about sexual att.itudes. Few general population surveys or epidemiological studies mesure attitudes loward parLicular sexual practices
- 58 reffecE female participation n oral sex acts, al-t.hough ths does not mean that the same percentages of women have ever experienced oral sex or would report having done so in the last four weeks. lthough there are no pubJ-ished daEa on the prevalence of oral" sex in a military population, iL seenrs reasonabl.e to assume, based on general population esLimaEes, .lhat a majority of both married and unmarried military personnel engage in oral sexual act.ivity, at least occasionally. The RAND sL.udy descried earlier is Ehe only study that we couLd find that included data on both heterosexal- and homosexual respondents from a random pro:a):ility sample (Kanouse et aL ,1991a, 199lb) . Based solely on Los Angeles CounEy residents, it is noE generalizable bo the U.S. population. RAND syscefnatically sampled both homosexuaL and bisexual men and a random sample of Ehe general aduLt mal-e and female populaEion in Los ngel"es County; guestions about AIDS-relaLed knowledge, atLitudes, beliefs, and behaviors were asked of both Ehe general population sample and the homosexual/bisexual samp.e.20 Female homosexua] respondents were not included, and we know of no probabilitybased study that reporEs on specific sexual pracLices of homosexual
women,
Among homosexual nren who had sex with another person in the past year (Kanouse et aI., 1991a), the_proportion engaging in oral sex during the four-week period, precedng,th survey was 55 percent,2l This proportion is about twice as large as the 26 percenL of heterosexual- men and women who report engaglng in this behavior during the four-week period before the survey.
2oData on some sexual practices, including both ora sex and anal sex, were derived from questions Lhat. are noL exactly comparable, FigTures for heterosexuaLs represent everyone who had been sexually acLive in the previous five years whereas Lhose for homosexual men represent aIl those sexually active within Ehe previous one year. 2lUnpublished daLa combining oral sex with and without condoms, The 55 percent represented 70 percent of all respondenLs who were sexually active in the four-week period immediaEely before the survey (about Ewo thirds of the sampLe), If the period is extended to a year, the proporton increases to ?8 percent of Lhe sample, but Lhe survey did not cofect detailed informaEion a]:out the specific behaviors of respondents unless they had l:een sexually acLive in Lhe past four weeks.
- 59 There is a seconcl study that directly compares the practice of oral sex among heterosexual men and women with that of homosexual men and women. volunteers were recruited via media appeal- in hundreds of locations across the country t.o participate in the American couples study (Blumsrein and schwartz, 1983). AlLhough the study includes a large number of responclents from every region of the nation, and from rura as wel-l- as urlan areasr iL is limited because it is noL based on a random sampfe.22 Nevertheless, it is,considered a valuabl-e source of data on sexual. l:ehavior because of Lhe number of deEailed questions
(conEained in a 38-page questionnaire) and its inclusion of homosexual as well as hetserosexual respondents. Both members of a couple had to agree to participaLe. Among the 7,823 American couples were 3,656
married coupJ-es, 653 cohabiting heterosexual couples, L'938 homosexual maJe and 1",5?6 homosexual female coup).es, Even more sensitive and detailed data on a variely of Eopics, including sexuaJ. practices, \tere collected during in-depth interviews (over two hours) from a subsample of 360 homosexuals and 340 heterosexuals. Questions al:out frequency of sexual rel-ations were asked of the toLal sample. overall, homosexual women had far Jess sex than heterosexual and male homosexual couples. HomosexuaL men and heterosexual cohabitors had virtually identcaL sexua- patterns on this item; couples Eogether Een years or Less had sex more frequently than married couples, buE married couples had the most frequent sex of all those in relationships of Ionger Lhan ten years. The ora sex question wAs asked only of the su]:sample nterviewed; we presenE these data primarily because there is virtually no other information on Lhe sex
22T]nere are other large naEional- convenience (i.e', nonrepresentaLive) samples Ehat offer details on specific sex acts. Some of the largesL, and most regional-J-y diverse, are based on questionnaires that appeared inside mass circulation magazines. one such survey is he Redbook Repolt of Female Sexuality (Tavris and Sadd, Lg17), which had over 1oo,0o0 respondents. The Redbook survey offers furEher eviclence that oral sex is a cornmon activiEy for heterosexuals in the uniEed staLes: 91 percenL had performed oral" sex (85 percen! more than once) and 93 percent had receved oral sex (87 percent more than once). GeneraIly regardecl as brased toward those most interested in sex, findings from Ehis and other magazine surveys can be regarded as overesLimates of sex acEivities.
- 60 practices of homosexual women. Ninety-si-x percent of lesbian couples engaged in oral sex, although 19 percent of them reported such acts as uTaye"; 99 percenE of male homosexual couples have oral sex, although 10 percent report it as ,,rare." funong Lhe heterosexuaf couples, over 90 percenL engage in oral sex,. albhough these pracLices,are described as ul ..re,,for almosE 20 percent of couples; In oeher words, among the couples who participatec in thj.s study, oral sex was nearly universal as a sexualpractice engaged in at leasE occasionalJ-y' Because oral sex is not among the highest-risk sex activities for HIV transmission, Lhe inciclence of this practice is unmeasured or unreporLed in most of the recenL epidemiology sEudies'23 One excepLion j-s Lhe recent report of sifvesLre and coll.eagues (1993) on the 1614 homosexual males in the PtEsburgh Men's study, a site of the MultiCenEer AIDS Cohorf Stucly, which offers data on oral sex, regardless of condom use. The senior author (in personal communication, June L, 1993) reports that virtually alt of Ehe men engaged in oraL sex with at least one partner in the previous two years. He points out their bias, namely, that their recruitment strategy was Lo seek the most sexuafl-y acLive homosexual- men. Another reporL Lhab incfudes incidence figures for this behavior regardless of condom use is Stempel and associabes' (1992) VIIlth Internaional AIDS.Conference reporL on the cohort of 462 San Francisco men sLudied since 1984. ln 1990-91, 90 percen! received and 85 percent performed oral,sex'
,Dal sex AInong Homosexuals and Heterosexuals
In contrast t.o reports of oral sex, reporLs of anal sex may share the same problem of underreport.ng descril:ed for same-gender sex. In Janus and Janus (1993), 7l percent of men and 76 percent of women rated anal sex as runusuaL" or "kinky." These attitudes are in dramatic contrast to the same Iesponclents' attitudes Eoward oral sex reported earlier, suggesting thcrL anal sex s-sEigmatized behavior that is 1ikeIy to be underreported.
23vhere oral sex is included, it is typically reported as "unprotected" oral insertive or receptive, i.e., ncidence of the acbivity done wthout the protection of a condom, thereby leading to underreporcing incdence of oral sex, regardless of condom use.
_ 61
The National survey of Men (NSM-I) is bhe only probability study described in Table 2-1 Chat incl-udes questions about the prevalence and
incidence of anal sex (Billy et a1,, 1993).24 Reporting on U.S' men 20 to 39 years of age, 20 percenE have ever engaged in anaL intercourse. Almost all of the men surveyed were heterosexual. However, the percentage who have clone so recently is much smaller; 90 percent of those who had ever had anal sex had nob engaged in Ehis sex practice in the four weeks prior to Ehe inLerview. Younger men were less ]kely to have ever engaged in this sex practice: only 13 percent of those aged 20-24 compared Lo 27 percent of those aged 35-39 who did so. Almost half of the small group of men who ever had anal sex had only one partner, while one out of five had four or more partners' The RND stucy (Kanouse et al. , 1991a;1991b) provides the onJ.y comparative data on prevalence of anal sex among heterosexuals and homosexual men. In neighborhoocls of Los Angeles Cunty with large homosexual populaLions, a major epicenter of Lhe AIDS epidemic, 34 percenE of all homosexuaL,/bisexual respondents who were sexually active in the year before the survey reported having engaged in anal sex with or wilhout concloms during the four-week period immedj.ately before the survey, This is more than six times the proportion (5 percent) of heterosexual men and women throughor-rL Ls Angeles county r,vho reporLed engaging in this behavior during a comparable period.25 Homosexual respondents who clescribed themselves as married Lo another mafe or in a monogamous pri-mary reIaLonship with another male were much more likely to report engagingf in anal sex (58 percent versus 27 percenL of all oLher sexually actj-ve homosexual respondenLs)
'
2aThe Reclbook Survey, as discussed in footnoEe 22, presents an overestimaLe of prevalence of sexuaL acLivities because of its sampfe bias. Neverbheess, it is j.nstruct.ve thaE when Lhe queston is asked of women, the same patEern appears, of the 43 percent of women who said they had ever engagecl in anaf sex, half of them Lried i only once. OnIy 2 percen! of Lhe eneire sample described the frequency of anaL sex as "often, " while anoLher 19 percenE described Lhe frequency as "occasionally" (Tavris and Sadd, L911). 25 The data presented here for homosexuaf/bisexual men differ from lhose presenEecl in Kanouse et af. (1991a), in that Ehey combine anal sex with and without a condom, which were considered separately in the published analyses.
-62oLher reporLs over the past decade of the prevalence of anal intercourse among male homosexuals vary. For example, in the Pittsburgh Men's Study described above (s'ilvestre et aL', 1993 ) , 65 percent of homosexual- men older Lhan 22 r-epoted anal receptive sex in the J.ast two years, as did 81- percent of the men 22 years or 1ess, Anal insertive sex is reported by 78.5 percent of the older and 90 percenf of the younger men in the 1992 study (personal communication, A. J' silvesre, June 16, 1,gg3),26 In the American couples study (Blumstein and schwarEz, L9B3), 30 percent of the male homosexual couples rarely or never engaged in anal sex, whereas 70 percent did so regularly. No comparalrle figures are Offered for heterosexuals. Tese data are tor couples only and do not reflect changes in behavior LhaL have occurred as a resulL of the IDS
epidemic. There is some evidence that the prevalence of anal inLercourse is affecEed by perceivec rj-sk of IDS. Becker and Joseph (1988) and Stall et aI. (1988) have revj-ewed publishecl reports of behavioral changes jn response to the increasing threaL of AIDS, including data from san Francisco, Chicago, New York city, and other large u,s. cicies. In the
pittsburgh sLudy cited above, bhe proporEion who engaged in anaf sex with at leasL half bheir partners declined from 45 percenL in 1984 Lo 29 percenE in 19BB-1992. There is also some evidence suggesting Ehat the incidence of this behavior, known as a hlgh-risk sexua activity for homosexua men, may be greater where there 1s 1ow AIDS incidence (T\rrner et a1., 1989). Great caution is r:eedecl in interpreting such disparate prevalence findings and aEtempting to draw concLusrons about average prevalence among all homosexual men. Data on homosexual men and women are necessari-1y basec on samples of peopl-e who are wi1J-ng to identi.fy
26This age difference in prevalence of anal sex is noted again in a report (stall et al., !992) on 401 randomy selecLed homosexual men who were interviewecl by teLephone in San Francisco in 1989: of the toLal sample, 23 percent had hac unprotected anal- sex in the pasL. year. ForLyfour percenL of Ehose agec 1g Eo 29 reported having had unproLected anal intercourse in the past year, compared with 18 percenL of those age 30 we cliscuss the health impLications of this study years and older. furLher in the chapter on health issues.
-63themselves as homosexual in orientation and/or bhavior. Results from such samples cannoE be taken as representative of the arger populabon thaL includes those unwil-ling to identify Chemselves. Moreover, as noted below, paLterns of behavior--particularly engaging in anal sex-have undergone marked change in response to the AIDS epidemic. This means that prevalence clata gathered a few years ago wouJ.d not represent current behavior patterns. However, change has no| been uniform across geographic areas, so LhaE the amount of change observed in one place cannot be incautiousLy applied Eo estimate change eJsewhere'
CONCI,USIONS
of the data described at Ehe outset of this chapler, we cannoE offer precise answers to the questions framed in Fortunately, precision is noE needed to draw out the the introduction. summarj-ze our findings: implications of the data presentecl. We briefly
Because of the limitaLions
Wha
is the prevalence of
homosexua-Z
behavior in the U'S'
popvTat ion?
The prevalence of predominantly or exclusivel-y homosexual behavior in Ehe U.S. population is undoubtedly higher than Lhe l- percent esLimate from the recenL National Survey of Men and probably much lower than Kinsey's r'ridely cited estimate of ten
percenL. ProbabiliLy survey daLa indicate that roughly 2 to 8 percent of adul-t American maLes acknowledge having had sex with anoLher man cluring adulthood. Researchers cautiously reporE esEimates as probalcJ-e "Iower-bounds" of Lrue prevaLence inasmuch as sLigmatized behaviors are underreported. The percentage of men who are excfusively homosexual in their adult sexual behavior (tleose most ]ike1y to consider themselves homosexual) is much smalLer Ehan Ehe percentage who have ever had sex with other men. Less is known about the prevalence of femae homosexuafj-ty, but where data have been colLected, esLj.mates range from 1 to 6 percent who acknowledge havi-ng had sex with anolher woman during adulEhood.
-64-
Are homosexual staus (i.e., seJf-identified sexuaJ orientaEion) and homosexual conducE (i,e', sexual. behaviors) synonymous? , While there is a sLrong. correlation between status and conduct,
Ehey
are noL
synonymous.
'
A person who does not identify himself or herself as a homosexuaL may stitl engage in acts with someone of "bhe same sex for purposes of saEisfying sexual desires" (in the language of DoD Directive 1332.14). A person who does identify himself or herself as a homosexualmay refrain from engaging in homosexuaf acts. ExcLuson from military service based on staLus alone would exclude some who do not engage in sexual acts wiEh same-gender partners while allowing others who do to serve.
l'lhat is the prevalence of sexuai behaviors prosctibed by the ma-le and femaJe heterosexuafs? UCMJ/MCM (oraL and anal- sex) .alnanq . Oral sex as clefined andi prohibited by the UCM.I/MCM, is widely practiced by boLh male and female homosexuals and by heterosexuals,' . Although a sizeable minority of heterosexuals have experienced anal sex at least once, mosL of them do not repeaL this sexual act or e.se practice it infrequently--the majority of heterosexuals have not experienced this sexual act; . l_though the prevafence of anal sex has decreased since the beginning pf the AIDS epidemic, it is still- a common sex practice for manY homosexual men.
-65OF FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICES1
3.
ANIJOGOUS EXPER]ENCE
INTRODUCTION
To anticipaLe the consequences of various policy options regarding the service of homosexuafs in the U.S, miItary, we examined tshe experience of seven countries that have modern miliEary forces' The
u.s. military is--by virtue of iLs.size. missions, force sLructure, and world-wide deployment--different'from the militaries of a1l other na!ions; indeed, each nation,s milj-tary is uniquely its own. Moreover, each country,s socia] milieu is unique, so thaE the conEext of its miJ.itary and atL.itudes towards homosexuality will differ from thaE of the united states. However, this uniqueness does noL automatically j.nvalidate the potentj-aI uses of a cross-national comparison: Each country shares a concern for military effectiveness, the well-being of iEs service members, and minimizing stressors wiLhj.n the ranks, in other countries Consequently, poJ-icy and implement.ation difficulties f the united staEes attemPEed similar can serve as warning flags strategies, and successes in other countries may provide guidelines for U,S. policy formulations.
Countriee vlslted The countries we visited were:
. ' . ' . . '
Canada
France
Germany
Israel
The Netherlands
Nori{ay
United Kingdom
lThis chapLer rnras prepared by James P. Kahan, C. Neil Fu1cher, D. Rostker, and John D. Lawrence M. Hanser, Scott A. Harris,'Bernard The authors wish to acknowedge fhe considerable assistance of Winkler. Chris Bowie, Erik Frinking, Glenn GoLz, Susan Hosek, and Paul Koegel.
- 66 These counbries represen! the range of policy towards homosexuals, from affirmative advocacy of gay rights (Lhe Netherlands) Eo a ban on
service similar L.o current u.s, policy (united Kingdom), In each country, Ehere was a particular aspect of it.s miliLary and policy towards homosexuals thae meriEed examination. As the nearest neighbor and the country in many ways most ]ike the united states, canada would, under any circumstances, be worth invest.igating; its salience was particularly heightened l:ecause it changed iEs policy from one of a ban to no resbrictions in october 1992, France was chosen because it officially has no policy, but we found that Ehe military unofficially restricts the role thaL homosexuals may play in the Armed Forces ' Germany is an ally with whom the united stLes conducts extensive combined exercises, and it has a policy thab will admiL homosexuals, under some circumstances, but restricts them. Israel was chosen because of its exbensive recent warfighting experience and an opinion expressed by some in the U.S. milEary thaL the Israeli Defense Porce is the force mosL comparable to our own. In addition, during the period of the study team's visit, Israel was preparing a change of policy' Within NATO, the Netherlands and Norway presented as unresLrictive a poticy as can be found among European nations. The united Kingdom shares many cultural and military characleristics with t.he United SLates and, as mentioned above, does not permit open homosexuals bo serve' A1hough other countries might also have been worth scrutiny (e,9., Austsralia, some Latin American allies), time restri-ctions dictated a sEringenL l j.mit to travel '
pproach
our research approach rvas severely constrained by the pressures of time; visits rrere contemplated, planned, and accomplished all in a span of four weeks. In each country, we attempted to contact high level deparLment/minisLry of defense representaLives in charge of personnel issues, miliLary medical authoritie=, got"t.t*entaI officials (including members of parliament), represntatives of homosexual grouPs, social scientists who had adcl-essed Ehe issue. and oLher knovrJ.edgeabJ.e people' The success of these aLtempLs varied widely depending or the country.
-67,Table 3-1 shows the types of peopJ.e intervieved in each counEry.2 Because some of the inLervievs were granted on the basis of These confidentiality, we do not lisL specific names or job titles. Lhe basis of the findings below, and j.t should intervj-ews form much of be assumed. unless otherwise stated, that assertions in the text are based on statements by at }east two soures ' Table 3-1 Categoriee of People fntervlvted' bY country
CAN PR
rsR
X
UK X
Uniformed militarya
Ministry of Defensea Civilian experEsb Members of Parliament

Homosexuals
aHigh-IeveI people concerned with general policy, personneL' conscript.ion, and medical servj.ces, I bpolitical scientists, sociologists, Iarvyers, military journalisEs familiar with societal attitudes and mititary policies regardng homosexuals, among others.
To augment the information obtained from interviews, wherever possible, we obtained documenLaLion of officiaJ. policy and regrulations reqarding homosexuals serving in the military, as well as similar maerial gn related matCers (such as women or minority service). In some insEances, interviewees had prepared sunmary vritten materials for us. IJe also obtained newspaper stories and articLes from professional
2In canada, cermany, and Israel, interviews were argely wiLh the people seen by the GO Eeam (Uni.ted States Genera] Accounting Office, 1993). In the United Kingdom, interviews were largely with Lhe same people seen by Senator Warner' French government officials informed us that they did not wish to provide information on this topic (see aLso UniLed SEaLes Genera] Accounting Offj-ce, 1993); we noneLheless were able to inLerview severaf authorities and obtain some documents. While authorities in the Netherlands were willinq to meeL wj-th us, mutually convenient dates proved impossible Eo find; hence our interviews were noL formaJ.J.y arranged. VisiLs wiEh Ehe Norwegian military and ministry of defense \tere arranged through the U'S. Embassy in Oslo,' oEher interviews were arranged by us ' AII interviews excepL those with French interviewees were in EngIish.
same
68
journals.3 The richest clocumentation was obtained in canada and the Netherlands, where there is an official policy of nondiscrimina!ion on the basis of sexual- orientauion and detailed guidance for implementing that policy.a we also obtained data from the NeEherlands on how well hat implementaEion is proceeding'5 foreign countries t.o sLudy the RAND has not been alone in visiting others' reporEs have been Ehe military. issue of homosexual"s in published in the form of a GAO report to SenaLor Warner (United States General ccounting office, 1993), tesbimony before congress (Moskos. 1993; Schwartzkopf, L993; Sega1,1993; Stiehm, 1993; Warner,1993), newspaper and television stories (e'g,, Army ?jmes ReporLers, L993; CBs News, L993). and academic articles (e'g., Harris, L99I; Waaldijk, L992). our approach differed from some of bhe others in concenErating on policymakers and people responsib-e for implementing policy. atLempting to understand the probfem from that (Eop-down) perspective. others spoke with ordinary soJ.diers and citizens. atEempting tso understand the These two approaches are (bottom-up) realites of everyday life. complemenLary: The J:ottom-up view provides insight into the depLh of experience of people affected by policy while the top-down view presents the broader perspective across Che entire organization. When the two views are consistent, as j-s largely Lhe case here, the reader can fee] confident that Ehe observations are representative' When the observations reporled here are inconsistent with those of others, we note that inconsistency and attempt, when possibJ.e, Lo resolve ib.
SgcuE
For each of the counLries visited, bhe primary focus was on the formal and informal policy regarding homosexuals serving in Lhe ---rwtit*n materials harling io ao with mrltary personnel- are afmost exclusively intended for inEefhaliconsumption and hence are written in the language of the country and not translated into Englj-sh. fn this chapter, translations of foreign text are our own unless otherwise indicated. 4Dutch researchers at RAND/s European-merican cenEer for PoIicy AnaJ.ysis, located in DeIft, obtained extensive written materiafs on the DuEch policy and experience. They also provided criciques of our findings and assisted in translations. SNo other counEry visited had an implemenEaLion plan as such.
-69military, .rl--ror bhose countries where homosexuals were known to serve-,what issues and problems ,arose and how they were resolved' In order to understand polcyi j.ss,ues, and problems, we also atLempted to understand Ehe more general atEitude of each naEion t,owards its military, overaLl national tolerance Eowards minority groups and people with atypical behavior, and, particularly, pubLic attitudes towards homoseXuals. In counEries wlrere policy regarding romosexual servj'ce in the military had changed, we were interested in the general social environment regarding the change, Ehe social dynamics leading to the change, and how the change was implemenced'
THE NTIONIJ CON{IEXT
begin wiLh summary informaEion comparing the United States with the countries studied, in terms of general demographics, miliEary force, and various socal attiEudes'
We
National and Milltary stsaElstlcs Table 3-2 presents some comparative statistics for the seven nations visied and the Unied StaEes. These statistics provide an idea of relative magnitudes, The table cleariy shows the great difference beLween the United staLes and"he'other countries, n Eerms of size, population, and gross naEonal product. In terms of the percentage of gross nationaf producL for the rnilitary, the united states is noL atypical. rn keeping with its large population and economy and iEs status as a superpower, the military forces of the uniLed states are a magniLude arger than those of any other counLries examined' The United states, fsrael, and canada are markedly higher j-n the percentage of Ehe rmed Force who are female. For Ehe issue of homosexual service, a poLentially important. characteristic is the extenL bo which mj-liEary forces are Iikely to be deployed in warfighting or for extended peri.ods away from home in isolated circumstances, In the pas! twenty years, four of the countries have seen milj-tary action: the Unibed Sbates (Grenada, Panama, Persian culf), Tsrael (Middle East), the united Kingdom (Falkland Islands, persian GuLf), and France (chad). As major povrers, the united sLates, United Kngdom, ancl Pr"rnce have fores stacioned around the worl'd'
- 70 J-though Canada and
the Nelherlands have small- forces in Germany as part of NATO, Ehe circumsbances are such thaL many of the stresses of deployment are not present, All of Lhe countries except Germany and fsrael contribute ground forces to United Nations or other coalitional
peacekeeping deployments abroad' Table 3-2 Selected National and Mllitary CAN FRA
statistics NET NOR UK

USA
GER ISR
Population (millions ) (bitlions of us$) t of GNP on miliEarY ctive military

GNp
(
size
(1000 km2)
gs7
6 27 5 2\
54'7 351 21 5 5'r : 81 814 ].64 46 2\ 108 4+
42 15 222 4Z
324 4 74 58 33 2* 70ts t2 no
no
244 58 858 5?
9159
256 5618
5*
t women conscripLs monrhs conscriplionc WarfighLing in past 20 yrs. Force projection

depfoyment Peacekeeping
thousands
87 453 4'76 141 101 4+ fewa ???b 2Z lL* zero 50t 432 ?BB 458 12 l0 12 36d N/ no no yes no yes
no yes no no no
300 2030 6* 1-2 zero zero N/A N/ yes yes

yes
yes
years.
no yes yes yes yes no depl-oyment yes yes (1991); Europa (L992) i ForsvarsSources: Department of Defence departemenLeL (1993); Ministre de 1 Dfense (1992); World Almanac (1,992) ; personaf communicabions. Women do not serve in Germany except i-n medica or musical jobs. blsraeli auEhoribies \,oulcl not release this informa!on. However. fsrael has universal- conscription to acLive duty and women must serve two cThis is the mi.nimum tour of duty. ConscripEs volunLeering for special services (e.g., for some countries Lhe navy or for others deployment abroad) may have longer terms of service, Israel- and Norway have reserve service obligatj-ons beyond the period of acEive duty. dTh" c.bl"d figure is for males. Israel also drafbs femafes, who serve for 24 monLhs.
Going beyond the daLa presenLed in Table 3-2, Lhere are dfferences in the place of the military in the Lives of Lhe various countries' citizens. InEerviewees in Israel and Norway emphasized the image of Lhe citizen-soldier, trained during the period of active duLy for home
defense and serving for an extended time in a natiolal reserve able to mobilize quickly in Eimes of need. France, Germany, and the NeEherlands
- 7L combine a cadre of professional- soldiers with a conscript force that has a bref perj.od of service. However, Ehe Netherlands plans to move to an alI-volunteer force withn lhe nexL fi.ve years. The Unted States. Unibed Kingdom, and Canada have aI]-vo.Lunteer forces and regard military
servce as a protession Seen in his contexL, the U.S. Armed Forces appear differenL in magnitude but not in nature from those of the oLher countries we examined, Most of Ehe countries we examined have had recent warfighEing experience to some degree; although the United States has been involved in more actions Ehan Ehe other countries, lhe proportion of the force that parEicipabed in these actions is smal1. WhiIe the United States has large numbers of servj.ce members deployed at sea or 1n foreign Iands, mosl countries deploy some forces away from home and so musL confront issues thaL arise from such postings.
Societsal ttiudes fo\Yarde Homosexuallty6 one indication of a society's attiEudes towards homosexual-ity is it.s faws regarding homosexual,status and behavior' Table 3-3 presents four kinds of laws, moving from most to leas accepting of homosexuaf orientation. First is the recoqfnj.tion of a homosexual marriage. Second is the recogn!tion of non-IegitimaLed relationships, including both homosexual- and heterosexual couples. Third is the presence of
anEi-discriminaLion laws Ehat specifically mention sexual orientation. Fourth is wheLher or noL the counLry has sodomy statutes prohibiting homosexual behavior, Norway is the only counLry examined that, in effecL, recognizes homosexual marriage, and thaE recognition dates only from 1-6 April 1993 ' The Norwegian law, which foll-ows simiLar Danish Iegislation, permiEs civil regisLration of homosexual- parLnerships and is identical 1ega1}y to marriage, except that the registration cannot be performed in a church and the couple cannot adopL children '
Chapter 5.
6u.s. public att itudes toward homosexuality are discussed in Chapter 6 describes attit,udes in the U,S. miIiLary.
Table 3-3
Civllian Laws
Legal status for partnerships benefits for non-married couples NondiscriminaEion in
Economic
employment homosexual
no
RgardJ-ng Homoeexuallty
ISR
NOR
FRA
no
no
no
no yes yes
yes yes yes
no
no no
some
some no no
no no
variesb variesc
o.""
yes yes yes yes yes 27 states yes DecriminaLization of homosexua] behavior Sources: Clapham & Weiler (1992); Harris (1991); Likosky (1992); van der Veen & Dercksen 3992); Waaldijk (1992); personal communicaLions' awhile some ciLies "recognize" partnerships, legal status must be conferred by State or Federal law. bso*e cities provide economic benefits; no States do' csome ciries and some sLates have nondiscrimination faws. provide sorne economc and inheritance benefits for partners who are not married to each other. These benefiLs are well shorE of those available to legally married couples. except in the Netherlands, where these benefits are intended to provide informal, recognition of homosexual partnerships. The Norwegian domestic benefits are not addressed specifically towards homosexual couples, but rather to any peopl-e sharing a household (e.g., Parents and adult children, siblings, or even unrelated persons) ' whIe Frnce, the Netherfands, and Norway have explicitly written laws prohibiLing discrimination, in employment on the basis of sexuaf orientation, most European countries follow Ehe general nondiscrimination cLauses of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Polj-ticaI RighEs. These clauses are considered to impliciE.Iy j.nclude sexual orienLation, and case law if not statute, in Germany and the United Kingdom, has been moving Eowards nondiscrimination. AII foreign countries examined and the majority of States (which include over 80 percent of the population of Ehe country) no longer criminalize homosexual reLations. However, using only the legal status of homosexuals to characterize a national attitude would be a mistake' Amercan society differs from
Many counEries
_ .t3
many
others in three aspecEs hat are relevant to the issue at hand. First., interviewees in al-1 the countries noted that most people consider homosexuality t.o be aberranL Jrehavior. Hol.^rever, except in canada, the uK, and the united sEates, acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is not framed in terms of morality. This means Lhat the pubJ.ic framing of the issue is differenE in Ehe united states than in the European countries visited. Second, American cuftural norms and attj-tudes tend to evolve largely independent of other naEions'. waaldiik and clapham (1992) note that as the European democracies slowly move t.owards greatser and greater interdependence, a cuLturaL norm of Eoleration of differences appears to be emerging, The path towards bhis norn is, to be sure, not straight, The norm is reflected in as recent events n Germany illustrate. European Community egislatlon and court decisions, which are typically a sEep ahead of Ehe member nations. Third. the interviewees noted .that Lhe ssue of open sexual orientation ("coming out") is dj-fferent ln the United SLates Lhan n oher counLries. mericans are more public with matters other nationals consider privaEe, (one interviewee commenced that, 'Thirty mi'nutes after you meeL an merican, you know more about his private l-ife than you ever wanEed Lo know.") For many Europeans, the interviewees emphasized. the discomfort with a person being openly homosexual is less the homosexualiLy than the openness--in their view, a person's sexual life should not be part of his or her public persona. For example, in France, there is far less stigma altached to a public official's being homosexual or adulterous than there is in the UniLed States. Newspaper reporbers there (jusL as hungry for news as here) will not seek ouL If evidence of sexuaL misconduct, because the behavior is private' But if a person somehow the fact emerges, people Lend Lo shrug it off' or adutery, then makes the public aware of his or her homosexuality there is disapproval--not of the behavior, buL of making it public.
Porelgn Mllitsariee and Homosexuallty We present here a sunmary of the experiences of Ehe foreign countries we examined. AfLer a brief feneral description of the conEext
74
of the miliLary and homosexuality within each country, we wiIl discuss their official policies, actual- practices, and experiences'
Canada
conexE. The Canadian Force (cF) is an all-volunteer professional miliary, which until recently held that homosexuality was incompaEible with miliary service. In.ocbober 1992, however, the CF changed its policy to permit individuals to serve in Ehe miliLary without respect to sexual orientation. consequently, the cF deveJ"oped approaches for implemenEing Ehis change in policy. Because of the great degree of simitaritsy between canada and the united states, che recent canadian experience is parEicutarly inleresting, and may provide insighEs for how the U.S. Armed Forces could respond to a directive Lo end the resLriction on homosexual service. Publtc tstsfudes. AILhough some consider Canada a Iiberal society,T for the past nine years it has been governed by a conservative party. Further, canada,s predominant cuLture reflects Tory attit,udes thaE emphasize social conformity and deference to government and religious authority (Lj-pset, 1990). canadian beliefs and attitudes towards homosexualiLy fiE into a common paLtern Lhat distinguishes between tolerabl-e expressions of private and public behavior' On one hand, Canada decriminalized sodomy between consenting adults in 1969' and Canadians express support fo extending equal-iby righEs Lo homosexuals (Rayside & Bowler;,1988,). By a wide marginr Canadians support permitEng homosexuals'Eo serve in Ehe CF.8 On the oher hand, pubfic opinion polls show strong moral condemnation of homosexualiby and disapproval of public displays of affection between homosexuals and contacts between homosexuals and children (Bozinoff & Maclntosh, ]-99t Rayside & Bowler, 1988). (Appendix D presents a brief comparative
TCanadian political ineerviewed noted Lhat public scientists show Canadi.ans to be 5 to I percentage poinbs to opinion polls typically ( the left of Americans. eln a canaoran Gallup Pol)- taken at the end of 1992, 66 percent of Canadians agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in Ehe military, while 25 percenr disagreed (Bozinoff & Turcotte, L992) . This was up from 60 percent. in a 1988 Gal}ulr Poll.
-15discussion of public opinion on .relevant issues for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States') Legal Developmente. with Ehe notable exception of the issue of homosexuals in the military. canadian and u.s. aEtibudes towards homosexuaLs dffer more in degree than in kind.9 However, Canada differs considerably from the United St.ates n the constitutionaf and legal protecLions accorded to homosexuals. In 1982, Canada changed iLs Constitrution to incorporate a due-process bill of rights, Lhe Canadian Charter of Righls and Freedoms. SecLion 15 of the Charter, effective as of 1985, provided for individual righEs and protection against discriminaLion based on characLeristics of "race, nationaf or ethnic origin, col-our, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability"' sexual orientation was not explicitly included. subsequent courL rulings, however, held for a broad and inclusive inEerpretation of Section 15, defining sexual orienlation to e a prohj-bited basis for discrimination unless such could le "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (Robertson, 1993). other parliamentary and legal decisions addressing Canada's Human Rlghts ct resolved further that sexual orj-entation could not be grounds for dj.scrminabion in any area of federal- jurisdiction (Boyer, 1985; Government of Canada, 1986; Robertson, 1993), Since a court ruling on August 6, L992, the federal government has determined Eo explicitly recogrnize sexuaL orienLation as a prohj-bited basis for discrimination throughouE Canada. Tbe chanqe in Military Polfcy. These consEj-tutional and legal developments, accompanied by a signifcant courL challenge to existing mi-litary policy (described belor^) , eventually reversed the CF's prohibition against homosexuals. Historically, Lhe CF had found "people who commi! sexually abnormal or homosexual actss" Eo be disruptive, and therefore excluded homosexuals from enrollment, and dismissed serving homosexuals upon discovery. 1o
gFor example, in various public opinion pols taken ln the earJ-y 1980s, ?O percent of Canadians, compared to 65 percent of Jnericans, express support for homosexual equality rights. t Lhe same time, 69 percent of Canadians and 76 percent of Americans disapprove of sexual relations between same-sex individuals (Rayside and BowLer, 1988, p'
651)
.
_ 16
This policy was reexamined as SecLion 15 of lhe Charter Eook effect. In March 1986. the Chief of the Defence staff (cDs) of the cF formed a charter Task Force to determine how to accomnodate the provisions of Section 15, covering issues with respec to employment of women, sexual orientaEion, mandatory retiremenL ages, physical and medical employment standards, nd recogniEion of common-Iaw relationships (Canadian Forces, 1986). The Charter Task Force issued iLs Fnal Report in Septernber, 1986. with respecE Lo sexual orintation. the charEer Task Force Report reconended that the exclusionary poIcy be mainEained for homosexuals. It concluded EhaE given the unique purpose and characteristics of Armed Forces, and negative attitudes and aversion toward homosexuals in Canadian socieE.y and the nrilitary. "the presence of homosexuals in Lhe CF would be detrimental to cohesion and moral-e, discipline, leadership, recruiLing, medical fitness, and the rights to privacy of other members.,, Moreover, ,,Ehe efrect of the presence of homosexuals would be a serj-ous decrease in operaLional effecLiveness" (Canadian Forces, 1986, Part 4, p. 21). The Final Report of the Charter Task Force was submited to and accepEed by the Minister of Defence. subseguenbly, a new Minister of Defence announced an intenbion Lo maintain Ehe basic policy but make modest modifications, The most significant of these was Lhe adoption of an inEerim policy in .Tanuary 1988 which permibted homosexuals to be retained in the service subject to career restrj-ctions, The policy prescribed that persons found to be homosexual were 'frozen" with respect to transfers and promotons but noE required (though encouraged) Eo leave Ehe service. Horrever, pressures againsL rhe CF's policy on homosexuals continued to mount- As Iegal rulings extended homosexuals' rights under the Charter and the Huma- Righls AcE, litigation was mounEed Ehat direcLly cha).lenged the mil-itary's policy and practices toward homosexuaLs. The most notable of these cases was that of Michelle Douglas, an Air Command
loThis policy is descriled in regulation CFAO 19-20, entitled "HomosexuaJ. ity- -sexual Abnormal iEy Invest igat ion, Medical- Examination and Disposal. "
lieutenant with an exemplary service record who had been charged wibh l-esbianism, investigated, and had her security clearance revoked (with additional career restricEj.ons). Douglas filed suit in 1989 asking for damages under the charter of Rights and Freedoms, Newspaper accounts report that Douglas' case occasioned wide publicity and public sympaLhy {Los AngeTes Times, L992 Arny Times, 1993) ' prepared to defend its policy using the charter The cF initially Task Force Final Report. It planned to argue Lhat its resLrictions on rniliary service by homosexuals were a preasonable limitation" under section L of the charter. In supporL of this, Lhey prepared to offer evidence that the majo:-iCy of service members vrere opposed Eo serving wih homosexuals, and that the presence of homosexuals would be damaging !o cohesj.on and morale and infringe on the privacy of heterosexual-s. In preparing its defense for the Douglas case. the cF determined thaL they couLd not meet Ehe standard of proof for a Section 1 argument' Under previously established case law, it would be the mj.).itary's burden Lo shovr substantial pressing inLerest to discrj-minate on the basis of sexual orienEation, proportionaliLy becween infringement and rights affecLed, and minimum mpairmenL of righ!s. The CF determined that the available evidence could not be developed into arguments that would meeE these ega1 standards. Moreover, the CF leadership came to the concLusion that much of the ewidence Ehey were prepared to offer had 1it1e substantive merit as wefI. As On October 2?, 1992, the CF agreed to settle Douglas' lawsuit' Court of Canada declared CF par! of bhe terms of settlement, Ehe Federal policies restrcting the Service of homosexuals to be contrary Lo the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response, Lhe CF announced j.t.s new poLicy governing homosxuals. In a news release of October 27, 1_992, the CDF, General- John de chastelain, sEated, "The canadian Forces will comply futly wibh the Federal court's decision. Canadians, regardless of their sexual orienEaLion, will now be able to serve their counLry j.n the canadi-an Forces wlthout restricEion" (NationaI Defence
HeadquarLers, L992a). The cDF Eook addiLional steps Lo announce, define, and implemenL
bheir
new
policy, including the follbwing:
'lI -
In a message entiLled "hornosexual conduct" dlsseminated throughout the canadian Forces, General de chastelain revoked cFo L9-20 ancl alI interim policies under Ehat order, expressed his "fuJ.I support" of bhe Federal court of canada decision, stated the unacceptabiliEy of "nappropriate sexual conducE by members of the forces, whether heLerosexual or homosexual." as codified in a forthcoming order, and stated his expectation of support within Lhe chain of command (NationaI Defence
Headquarters, 1992b) . National Defense HeadquarEers issued A "QUesEions and Answers" sheeE for immediate inLernal use by the CF, providing explanations for Ehe change in policy (Nationa1 Defence
HeadquarEers, 1992a)
. 11
::
"Post-announcement action" issued by the Assistant Deputy Minister (Personnel) provided guidance to Leaders to help "communicate Ehe rationale for Lhe change, encourage ibs acceptance, and respond to the personal concerns of cF members"
(National Defence HeadquarEers, 1992c) . Thi"s announcement contained advice Lo leaders and additj-onal "questions and answers" with respect Eo the poJ.icy. A Canadian Forces Personnel Newsletter was prepared and disseminated clescribing the CF's policy change regarding homosexuality (NaLional Defence Headquarters, 1992d) . A new regulation (CFAO 19-36') entitled "sexual Misconduct" rvas issued in December L992. The regulation was intended to be used with an amended version of che regulation governing personal harassment (CFAO 19-39) to describe policies and procedures governing inappropr-ate sexual conduc! ' (Regulations CFAO 19-36 and CFO 19-39 are reproduced in
Appendix E- )
1lFor example, Q31: "Wil such act-ivties as dancing, hand holding, embracing between same/sex members be accepted al mess social functions?, 431: ,'sLandards of conclucL for homosexual members will be bhe same as those for heterosexual members. cornrnon sense and good judgmenL will be applied and required of al1 members."
- 79 -
Effects of thg Policy change. Because the canadian change in policy is fairly recent. some have argued that the effects are hard Eo judge (Army Times, 1_993). However, other accounts reveaL no major problems resultingr from the policy change. According to these accounls' no discipl-nary problems have occurred, no resigna!ions explicitly over the change in polcy have resulted, and nobody is "sEandinq up and declaring their sexual preference" (Los Angeles ?jmes, 1993) ' These observations are butLressed by evdence collected in our visiLs Lo canada. According to cF officials, they have noticed no changes in behavior among Eheir troops. They say they know Lo dace of no instances of people acknowledging or talking about- bheir homosexual, relationships, no fights or violent incdents, no resignations (despite previous threats to guit), no problems with recruiEment, and no diminution of cohesion, moral.e, or organizational effectiveness. cF officals suggest several reasons for the seemingLy smooth inEegration of homosexuals into the Armed Forces' FirsE, the leadership recognized Ehe ineviEable need to change the policy, given Canadian legislation and national- abtitudes toward homosexualiEy. The process was ,,evo1utionary, " ancl Lhey had time Lo acculturate under their inberim policy. A second reason concerns the "conscious strategy" to treat the policy change as a leaclership issue in its j-mplemenEation stage. The main priority was to ensure compliance with the order' The next order of priority was to gain acceptance of the policy change so thaE no friction would occur. Next, they decided that iL was not possb]e or appropriate to attempt to change betiefs or attitudes. Thus, there were no programs (e.g., educaLional or sensitivity training progrrams) concerning homosexualiEy. Further, implementation was accomplished in a rlow-key" manner, focusing on the' internal audience of the military and without public pronouncements or statements' FinalIy, cF officials emphasize tre naEure of Lhe policy change. In Ehe words of a senior cF personnel offcial: The guesLion has been asked, "vrhat is our policy on gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces?" Our answer is, "we don'L reatly have one"' We don't discriminate on the grounds of
_80_
sexual orientation, and we don'L have any policies thaL specifically target gays or lesbians. we do have policy on sexual misconduct; we aJ-so have an o.rder on personaJharassmenb. fn general, this esLablishes the same expectations for both groups,i both straight and gay. Servce members can form personal' relationshi'ps Ehat are noL restricted except where they threaten morale and cohesion'
France
coDext. Interviewees all expressed the opinion thaL the French population in generai tolerales homosexuaLs, but does not welcome them. They saw homosexuals in France as quieter, less visible, and more Lolerated Lhan their American counLerparLs, There is some segregation and denigration and a clefinite discomfort.. urban and more educated citizens tend to be more lolerant. People who lve in rural areas do not know many homosexuals and far fewer militant ones' When a homosexual shows visible differences, he or she would probably move Lo a large city, not so much because of persecution, but to find kindred oEhers, The more obvious a manifesLation of homosexuality, the less well it is tolerated; but iL is the obviousrress more than the homosexuafity that procluces the int.oLerance. The fronLier at presenL is for accepEance of homosexuals; sbiecy no longer regards them as immoral, and they can be trustd in, jobs where they were previously banned, such as public school ceaching' Offlcial polfcy. The formal- response one wiIl obbain when a French official is asked about homosexualiLy in the French military is that "there is no po-icy anc there is no problem." In a legal sense, Ehat is true.12 Homosexuality per se is not the basis for exclusion from conscription or voluntary miJ-itary service, nor is sexual orientation a criterion for serving in any military capacity, Interviewees readily named openly homosexua men who achived fame throughouL French history, j.n the mil]tary and government as well as in the arts. The French navy
l2Moskos (1993), in testmony before the Senate Armed Services commitLee, stated that a person found to be homosexual is discharged we, together with l"foskos, investigated the from the military. discrepancy between his version of French policy and ours and found the source to be an infelicitous Lranslation from French to English by French personnel that led to Moskos' misunderst-anding.
- 81 Instead, the never had the strict anti-sodomy laws of the British' officia French pol.icy is captured by, the phrase in ArEicle 6.01- of the generaJ_ code of conducL "attein:e aux bonnes moeurs" Iaffront to sensibilitiesll3 (DonioI, f993), This phrase refers to behavior contrary to the normative sLandards of both French society and its strongly conformist miliLary, and in che concexE of homosexuality, is
applicabJ-e to specific ceeds and not to sexual orientaLion' potential conscrpts are not asked whether Ehey are homosexual, and the matter is brought to the aEtention of medicaL authorities only if
the conscript himself or his superior officers bring iE up' The military officialJ-y regarcs homosexuafLy as a medicaL probLem, and French medicine fol,lows the American PsychiaEric Association (1987) in not regarding homosexuality per se as a disease. However. if a person's homosexuality is associaEed with " Iproblems incompaEible with military service,l" then the person may be excused from military service' The p official reason for exempEion is a disqualifying ratng of "P3" on the (psychological) criEerion of Ehe medical examinati.on: " ID]sfunctional elements of personality which can be manifesEed as behavioral problems or Iimited int.eIlectual capability, without other anomalyl" (Ministre de l_a Dfense, 1989, p. 723 1992, p. 10). The specific category is Article43T:"IMiscellaneousproblems(stuttering.tics,sJ'eepwalking, enuresis, apparent cranial trauma, sexual problems)1" (Mj-nistre de Ia Dfense, L989, p, 126). corresponding to caLegory 302'70 ("miscellaneous sexual- dysfunction,,) of Ehe DiagnosLic and statistical Manual Irr-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987), The inaptitude must have a chronic nature; because a conscript's period of servj-ce is so short, transient probLems will le.waited out. The problem must be manifested in actual behavior ("conduit"), not in, orientation' For all of the officlal disregard, the informal state of affairs is that sexualorientation can make a difference, both for conscription and career military service. If a person's behavior at the medical examinaEion causes the physician to suspect that the person is homosexual, the candidate ui]l- sometimes be invited to reguest an
l3square brackets indicate a transfation'
-82exemption. Whenever a homosexual.requesLs an exemption from service, it is granLed. rn 1991,/ approximately ? percent of the candidates for conscription b'ere exempEed on psychological grounds (Ministre de Ia Dfense, :_992\ i is impossible to know how many of these were homosexual-, nor how many homosexuals actuaLly served. once in service, a conscript may re discharged earJ-y on medical grounds, using the same basis as not passinq the psychological component. of the pre-induction medical examination, but this is rare. Generally, careerst homosexuals do not make public their sexual orientaLion because they wish to forward their careers and must conform (not only in Eerms of sexual orientation but in mosL other ways as well) to succeed (e.g., Doniol, 1993).r4 gain, behavior counts, not orientation. It is against custom Lo behave sexually (either heterosexually or homosexually) in a military conLext, buL behavior in private is not a concern of the military, There are homosexual's in the officer corps who live together as couples and are relatively known Lo their cohorts. As J-ong as certain unspoken rules are adhered Eo (de Laclos, lTBO/tgSB), nobody:takes any action, but when the rules are broken, there are serious consequenes. These Consequences are never connected direcLly to a person's sexual orientation, but his or her military career somehow "s.Iows down." For flagranE "affronbs to common pracE.j.ce is to Ereat the matter as quietly as sensibilities,,,the possibLe and to request the resignation of the offender. lthough some women serve in the French miitary, almosL aLl serve in support roLes (,,feminine joirs") with enlisted or NCo rank. women do not serve in combat roles, only 1.7',rpercent of the officer corps and 0.6 percenL, of the ,,conscripts,, (draftees and volunteers for short-term national service), but 10.4 percent of careerist NCO= are women.15 There was no men!ion of lesbianism in any wrj-tten materials and aII j.nterviewees stated Lhat they had no knowJ.edge of Iesbians in the mi I itary .
14The French Foreign Legion has always had a repulaEion of extensive homosexuality and tolerance. But these soldiers are, by definition, nob French, l5Personal communication,; .efense.AEtach's office, Ernbassy of France, Ialashington, D.C,, 3 'June 1993 '
-83-
Gernany
conEext. In Germany the homosexual community, while a visible presence, is noL especially active politicalJ.y. Those who advocate fUrEher nondiscrimination or greater homosexua] rights in Germany do not place the right co serve in the military high on their political agendas. The German military, as a consequence does not view this issue as one of great importance in setEing personnel policy' within cerman society bhere is consideraut, opposition Eo hbmosexuality, although homosexual behavir has been dcriminalized (since 1969) and the issues oE expanded partnership rights for homosexuals and preventingr job discrimination are the subjects of current debaLe (van der Veen and Dercksen, 1992; Waaldijk. L992). The arena for policy change in these areas, however, has been the courts, not Che Iegislature' The officials interviewed, who are responsible for all policies with regard to homosexuals in Lhe Bundeswehr were unanimous in their view thaE homosexuaLity is ,'noL an issue" for them, and that they would not find it necessary to have a meeting focused on the subject if one had noL been reguested by visiting American researchers. The German miJ.itary currently feels itself under no pressures from the poliLical process or public opinion to review its policies in this area. Po1lcy. Germany has both a conscrpt and a voluntary force' Conscription is nominaLly universal, although in practice only about 50 percen! actually serve. Twenty percent perform alternalive service, and 30 percent no service aL a11.16 Conscrips are not routinely asked their sexual orienEation at Ehe time o, inducton, llf the initial inEerview raises any questions olrcerni,ng sexual orienLation (such as mannerisms, voLuntary statements, etc.), then the recruit is J-ikely to be subjecbed Lo additional evaluation Lo determine suitabiliEy for service. A decision will then be made in the individuat case, and if j.t is determined by physcians or psychologsts that the potential
16The Bundeswehr has aII the conscripts iL needs, and so has a Lberal- exempEion policy. For example, marriage is grounds for exempt.ion, in parL so lhat the military does not incur expenses for dependenbs
,
84 -
conscripE would have difficulEy individual will be exemPLed'
adapting to military
Iife,
thaE
For the voluntary force, which provides Lhe bulk of commissioned and non-commissioned officers, tshe rules are somewhat differentpoEenEial vofunteer who is known to be homosexual will be refused service. As the Germans explaj.n this po1j.cy, the Bundeswehr has spent decades developing its leadership cadres around the concept of "innere Fuhrung, '. a noLj.on implying thac military officers must lead through their ,,inner qualities" or strength of character. The German military believes thaL homosexual officers would not be respecLed by their soldiers and would have difficulty becoming effect.ive leaders, and Lherefore homosexuals are noE accepted into the ranks of potential leaders. If a volunteer is discovered to be homosexual after having begun service. his situation rviLL be evaluated on an individual basis. If he has served Less than.four years, he is like]y to be separaLed (although not in every case if the volnteer's record is otherwise exemplary). After serving four years, the volunceer will not be separated until the end of his conEracE. (i.e,, at the end of six years), but will most likeLy be given assignmenEs that do not require
"leadership. "17 Practice. If homosexual conduct occurs or is documented, the German military is like1y Lo remove the individual from Ehe Bundesrvehr. IJhen homosexuals are removed, the general poli-cy (absent other justificaLions) is to keep Ehe reason for removal confidential, The emphasis j.n the case-by-case approach is on whether the individual is engaging in disruptive conduct or n oLher ways is no longer performing suiLably in the military environment. According Eo our interviewees, the actual number of removals for homosexuality is smalI, totaling only
63 between 1-981 and 1992.r9
17For additional discussions of the cerman military's policies in thj-s regard, see United States General AccounLing Office (1993) and rmy
Times (1993 ) ISIE is important to notq .that ths number refers to expulsions for homosexual conduct, and that th.t "psychological" discharges wouLd not necessarily be capturecl in this figure, Indeed, no figures are kep! lhab would indicate the Eotaf number of homosexuals discharged,
-85The presence of hcmosexuals in military housing is not regarded as a problem by the Budes./ehr. Many of the soldiers live with Lheir families or in civilian housing, and no effort is made to monitor behavior off-base and off duEy. No j-nvestigations are conducted
exclusively to discover if someone is.a homosexual. The German mlitary is primarily desgned for defense of German territory, not for deploymens abroad, and whlel:this may. change in coming years, as the Basic Law is revised and German units participate more vgorously in peacekeeping operations, at present the Budeswehr does not engage in exEensive field dePloYments ' To summarize, Gernan military personneJ- policy with regard to homosexuals serving can best be described as flexible in pracEice, where the decision with respect to an individual homosexual depends on the cumulative evidence of the circumsEances and where personnel authorties exercise considerable discreton in deciding individual cases. Discrimi-nation in fact occurs, but some homosexuals are also permitted to serve if such service is not disruptj-ve to the organization. rerael contexE. IsraeL s quite dfferent from Lhe other foreign countries we visited and the Unj-ted SEates. Since Israeli independence in 1948, Ehe Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has foughts four major wars, innumerable major operatons aga.inst its,hostile neighbors, and since 1967 has been an army of occul)a.tion in the west Bank and Gaza strip. This gives Israel a warfighLing experj-ence unparal'Ieled in Lhe rest of the wor1d. AE the same Lime. ir has undertaken the task of esLablishing a homeland for Jews from alL over the world, who had lived in a wide varieEy of cultures (from contemporary European and American to almost medieval Yemenite) . fsrael has monumental problems of assimil-ating newcomers with different work ethics, who have lived under various forms of governmenL, who speak many languages, and who have vas1y different educational backgrounds. Military service has been one of the tools the naEion has used to estalIish a cohesi-ve socety. The IDF is therefore founded on the model 0f the citizen-soldier. conscription to acLive c)uty is universal, for both men (3 years) and
86 -
(2 years), and annual. reserve duty (not just Eraining) continues for women into their mid-2Os and for men into Ehe 4Os'9 If a person does not serve in the Army, he is outside the norm of society and may face discrimnat.ion when later applying for a secular job; therefore fsraeli exemption policies are very limited and many individuals exempted from service (for example, for severe physical handicaps) appeal Lo be alLowed to serve, Inlomen do not serve in combat units because Tsraeli society is reluctant to expose women to beng prisoners of war and other associaced risks. All careerists first enter the servce as conscripts, moving only laler into the professional- officer and NCO ranks. titudee lloward Homosexualty. Judaism is Lhe establshed religion of the counLry, urith tto major Rabbinates--Ehe Ashkenazic (largely European) and Sephardic (large1y Mediterranean), lthough the majoriLy of Israelis are non-observanL, the power of religion and of Ehe religious poLitcaI parties is strong beyond their proportional represenLation; Lhis influence has been mos! strongly felt by religious control of the Interior and ducation ministries throughout much of Israeli history. Jewish tradit.ional religious thought. based on Ehe BibIe, considers homosexuality to be an egregious sin' Perhaps because of this strong religious influence, homosexualiEy is perceived in Israel to be aberrant behavior ancl homosexuaLs are not generally accepted' our interviewees stated thaE homosexuafs in IsraeL are very reluctanE to reveal their sexual orienLation and they remaln much Less visibl-e than their counterparts in the United States or most Wesbern European counLries (see also Army Times, 1993). Legal Status and Change in Military Policy. This religious attitude notwithstanding, Israeli civil law has followed that of the WesEern European democracies,' hence, sihce 1988 homosexual acs beLween
lromen
lgconscription is universal as sEaeed for.Tews (82 percenE of the populaLion) and certain others such as Druze (1.7 percent of the population). Because Lhe threat is Arabic and }argely Moslem, the loyalty of the remainder of the population is regarded as suspect' CerEain groups of Christian Arabs (2.3 percent of the population) may volunteer Lo serve, and the bulk'of Moslem Arabs (14 percent of the populaLion) are not. eligible.
-87consenting partners above the age of 17 are no longer crimes (Knesset, 1990). Since 1992 (Knesset, L992), discrimination in employment on the But beyond that' basis of sexual orientation has been illegal. parEners have no recognized legal status, in Eerms of eiEher homosexual legitimization of the relatio4ghlp or, benefits, i.e., housing,
insurance, or tsaxafion, fn Ehe military, homosexuals are given the same benefj.ts as are given to singles. There is an acEive gay rights movement in Israel! e.g.' Otzma, a gay political rights organization and a sociey for the Protection ot Personal- RighEs for Gay Men, Lesbians and Bjsexual.s jn fsrae-1, Earlier this year a KnesseL conunittee inquiry into the sLaLus of homosexual-s in the miliEary J-ed the Chief of SLaff of the fDF to esEablish a grolrp Eo study the satus of homosexuals.20 Thj-s effort culminabed in a new policy announced L1,June 1993, whereby "No resLricEions shaIl be imposed on the recruiEment, assignment or promo!ion of homosexual soldiers (in cAreer, regUlar or reserve service) and civilians due to thei-r sexual incLination" (Israeli Defense Force, no daLe) ' The former policy, drafted in 1986, prohibiLed homosexuals from serving in jobs requiring the Eop two levels of security, e.9.. "he placement of homosexual soLdiers in. regular, career and reserve service, as well as civilian empLoyees, v/i1l be limited because of their (sexual) orientation. This is because.the a'formentioned orientation is likely to be a securiLy risk." (Los AngeTes ?jmes, 1993) Moreover, homosexuaLs were required to undergo a mental evaluaLion once t.heir sexual orientation was known,' hat evaluation vr'as Lo determine whether Lhey were security hazards or if they had the mental fortitude and maturity to serve, As a resuLt of that examnation, the servce member could be separated from service or restricted in assignment ' On the issue of security, the new policy states, "If the assigTnment of a soldier requires a security cleairance, he will be requj-red o go through the security check that is normalfy applied to that position-"
20The original reason for the KnesseL's inquiry was a charge by an intelligence officer who had done highly secret research for Ehe military for 15 years, that "he was denied promotions and given cl-ericaL work after his homosexualiEy was discovered" (Los AngeTes fimes, 1993).
are no longer singled out as a class ' Security investigations are routine for highly classifed positions, are always onducted on an indivdual )rasis, and always touch on sexual parLnershps and mentaL health. regardless of sexual orientation. Service Conditione and Ehe Ner, Pol'icy. For service members in noncombat units in Israef the miliLary is very much Like an ordinary job. service members live at home, work a scheduled shift, and mosEly have weekends free. But life for Lhe active duEy IDF soldier in a combat unit is not unl-ike that for many CONUS-based Anerican enlistees, especially those in combat.units. The living conditions for soldiers are not conducive bo privacy, Soldj.ers' quarters are barracks with 12 Lo 15 soldiers per room in bunk beds. CoITnon bathrooms are the ruLe, AlEhough Israel is a smaI country and therefore home is never far a\ay, lDF soldiers in combat uniLs do no! routinely live at home or ge! leave every weekend,2l Even for Ehe few openly homosexuaf soldiers, the IDF reports no problems connecLed to homosexuality regarding privacy, showers, or unwanted sexual advances. Th IDF hoLds unit cohesion and a group orientation as necessary for military effectiveness. A soldier does noLhing in the IDF as an individual. Accomplishments are achieved by a collective uniL. If a service member differentiates himself too much from the group, bhat difference may be disrupLive to the unit's performance; the soldier mus! adapt to the qroup and contribuLe to its performance ' As noted by a senior Tsraeli mj-J-itary psychiatrist, "Homosexuals can become scapegoats if their manifesLaEions of homosexual behavior cause them Eo be rejected or ostracized from the group. This is noL jusL because of homosexuality, but for any social adjstment probJ-em or personality
Homosexuals
2lschwartzkopf (1993) testified that homosexual men in the rDF do not sleep in barracks. Moskos (1993) Lestified Ehat open homosexuals are treated like women--i.e., placed in noncombat jobs where they do not 1j.ve in barracks, The Army Times (1993) reported that openly homosexual During interviews with the IDF men are rarely assigned to combat units, we were told that as a matter of practice, homosexuals are not precluded from serving in combat units but that few did, and they did so largely without inciden. The L ?imes notes, however, that, "AIthough charterized as a restatement of IDF policy. the new order is intended to end discriminaion against homosexual-s and Eo assure them equal opporEunity to serve in a]l posj-ti-ons. "
89 -
problem which does not allow him Eo adapt to the group.'.. (However). if there were no dstunctioncrlity in Ehe unit, he (the homosexuaL) would not currently be removed from the uniL." The new poJ.icy does Ery bo address leadership by stating Lhat, ,,unit commanders shoulcl be made aware Ehat no restrictions apply to homosexua] soldiers.; . . shoutd there be a problem tshaL prevents Ehe soldier from functioning in his uniE, as a direcb result of his sexual inclination, the commander rviIl decide whether the soldier should be
referred to a psychologis!, as is cus.tomary in other cases," However' the psychological examinaEion is 'restricted to determine wheLher the sexual j.nclina[ion j.s accompanied by manifestaLions that could prove a securiLy hazard. should no finding be revealed, the examination will end at EhaE,,,and Lhe homosexual wII be returned to his or her unit. commanders are on notice that Ehey can no longter transfer out of their units any soldier they suspecL of being a homosexual (Los AngeTes Tjmes, 1993). As one senior fsrael- offical told our team, 'It a commander were to come to me and ask to remove a soldier just becasue others cannot adjusE to him, I may t-tot. do it. If a soldier is a scapegoat and we can predict he may adjusL to another group, we may robate him to the same type of unit. If he s a person with very low self-esLeem and subjecLed to external- sEigma, I will try bo assign him to a less stressful job." Even Ehough Israel s a religiors state, Ehe IDF is secular; religious law carrnot :e imposed on nonreligious service members' wiLhin the IDF, religious beliefs are respectecl for the individual, but the individual does no! impose his re1glous belefs on others; hence, a religj.ous service member who has trouble with homosexual-s is expected to make the personal adjustments necessary for the group and to tolerate
homosexuals.
The IDF has no poJ"icy on pubJ-ic displays of affecEion' Neverthe)-ess, sexual harassment is monitored and sociaL interaction is a delicate situation. A sol-dier may hug a man buL noL a woman because of the potential misinterpretaEion Ehat he is involved in sexual harassmen. As a resul,t, soldierS tocay are very restriced in lehavior
- 90 LhaL could lead to misinterpreLations of intent.
When
relating to one's
declared heterosexual lover, behaviors are somewhat more open' The IDF policy on fraternization is more 1bera1 than the merican one. Between persons of hrgher and lower rank, incLudir:g offcers and enlisted personnel, relationships are permiLted as long as Lhey are not between personnel in the same chain of command' In summary, the societal approbation of homosexuality means thaE even given the new nondiscriminatory policy, homosexuafs are Iikely to remain very coverL in ther behavlor; social ostracism is a strong disincentive in the IDF. Although career patterns for homosexuals can be the same as for other soldiers, problems with individual- commanders did exisb. It remains to be seen if. under the new policy Ehat bans discrimination, as suggested by an IDF spokesperson "everyone who felt forced to keep his or her homosexuality a secret will now be able Lo be operr" (Los AngeJes Tjnes, 1993) '
The Netherlandg
context. The geographic siEuaE.ton of the Netherlands makes it a naturaf LransporEation corriclor, and as a consequence, Dutch socie|y has been multicuLtural LhroughouE its history. This has led to an overall oleration for differences among groups and a style of government where minoriLy sensibiliEies are accommodaLed (Lijphart, 19?0), In keeping with thj-s poJ-itical orientaLion, the Netherlands is considered one of the leaders in tol-eration of homosexual orientation and behavior (CBS News, 1993; Kett.ing & Soesbeek, 1992; Likosky, 1992\ ' In 1991, bhe Duch parliamenL passecl one of the strongesL anti-discriminati-on laws and changed most of the anti-digcrimination provisions of the penal code so as to cover di.scriminaEion on che basis of "heEerosexual or homosexuaf orienEation" (waaldijk, t992, ' Pub1lc tLitsudes and Legal slatus. ToleraEion in the Netherlands is not the same as endorsemenE, Just as the in-effecE decrminalization of marijuana does not tfean that Ehe Dutch are a naLion of drug addicts, so Lhe prohbition of cliscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not mean t.hac homosexuals are more open--mUch less more flagrant-than elsewhere, what it does mean is Ehat peopLe who do use drugs or
:'''
- 91 -
are homosexual are acknowledged as members of the Dutch society, bo be incl"uded in Public mabters.2? The Netherlands is gradually moving tovards recognition of homosexual partnerships (Waa1dijk, 1992) . Most politicaJ" parties have recommended such legislation, which j-s expected to work its way through the parliament wj-thin a couple of years. Some municipal authorities have offered semi-official registration of homosexual couples, bu! this however, to track social change is largely symbolic. It. is difficult, in the Netherlands through legislation because the Dutch are very willing Lo Iet official taws lag weLl behj.nd actual practice. This is the case in such areas as drug laws (marijuana is officially illegal' but openly sold under strict condiLions), physician-assisEed suicide for Eerminally i11 people (EechnicaIIy illegal buL highly reguLaEed and not unconunon), and nondiscriminaEion in the public sector' policy, From 1911 unt.il Lg'l:-,_ homosexual inEercourse was by law forbidden for people younger than 21 years, while the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse was 16 (Ketting fr Soesbeek, 1992) ' During this In 1972, time, homosexual.s were not a.Lowed to join the Dutch military. concomitant with Lhe abolit.ion of the civiLian law, pressure was applied on the military Lo admit homosexual-s; in 1974. Minister of Defense vredeling decided thab homosexuals had the right to be service members,2S With Lhis decision, homosexuality was moved from a moral Lo a medical caLegory the mere fact of homosexual orientation or behavior was not auLomatj.cally exclusionary, but could be used as one of multiple criLeria to determine psychoJ.ogical inaptitude for service. This policy eroded over the next dozen years, until 1986, when Minister of Defense Brinkman declared the miItary to be part of an overall- governmental policy of egual rights for homosexuals and heterosexuafs. Since then'
22To itlustrate this vi.ewpoint, consider two public service billboards currently prominently displayed at train stations throughout the Netherlands, They promote safe sex wiEh the slogan "II make love safely or not at a111.,, In the fj.rsL., a. man and a woman are admiringt each oher on a bed, vhil-e in he'second two men are enjoying each other's company in a shower. .Neithbr billboard conveys a sense of Eitillation. 23The Dutch poIiLical system gives mini-sters--who are members of parliament--far more execuEive power than American cabinet secretaries.
-92only has homosexualiLy noE been grounds for exclusion or dismssal from the Dutch military, but the government has actively attempted to ensure that serving homosexuaLs will be well-integrated into the force' This assertive policy of equal righLs goes beyond Ehe passive one of Ehe olher foreign miliEary services r/.Je examined, but is consistenL with other aspects of Dutch poiicy.' At abouE the same time as the assertion of equal r.ghts without regard to sexuaL orentation, the Dutch military has not restricted Ehe jobs in which women may serve (alEhough only men are conscripted). lso, there has been a policy of equal right.s for bhe relaEively few Dutch soLdiers of non-European race (J.arge1y of Surinamese or Indonesian decent). Implemelltatlon of the Nondiscrimination Policy. over and above statemen!s of equal. rights, the utch mj.litary has been proactively invoLved in ensuring the we1-being of service memers. An example of this is their actions with regard !o violence in the mi.lj-Lary. In response Lo active concern (e.g., Tromp, 1986), a survey of over 4000 service members was conducted Eo ascerean the extent and type of violence in Lhe mili,tary and rvhat types of pelsons were perpetrators and viclims of that violence (sLoppelenburg, Mandemaker, serail, & ubachs, 1990). While the major conclusions of thaE study go beyond our present inerest. and the specific quesLion of harassmen[ on Lhe basis of sexual orientation was noE askecl, Lit. j.s worth noting that overall violence was 1ow, and that only 0.1 percent of violent incidenEs were sexual in nature (harassmenE) ancl 0.7 were physical violence. Most incidenLs were verbal abuse and psychological harassment of varj-ous forms. The study led to explicit changes, noL only in terms of educaLion and trainingr against violence and sanctions for wiolent behavor, but means to make it easler to reporL incidenLs of violence (T\eede Kamer der staLenGeneraal, 1992) . ConcomiLant with lhe assertion of equal rights in the military regardless of sexua] orj.entaEion was Ehe establishment in February, 198?, with financial support from the Ministry of Defense, of the SEichting HomosexuaTjtejt en Krijgsmacht IFoundaLion for Homosexualty and the Militaryl by 40 service members. The foundation's membership incLudes conscrip!s, enJ.isted personnel, and officers' as well as civil
noE
- 93 defense workers. At leasL one unit commander belongs Eo the foundation' The general funcions of Ehe foundation nclude (sLichting Homosexualiteit en Krijgsmacht, 198?) :
. . . .
providing a supporL organization for homosexual servtce

members.
providing information to counter prejudicial and stereotypical beliefs abouL homosexuaLs. Advocating and monitoring equal rights' promotinq open homosexual membership in the military at least in proporbion to their membership in Ehe greater population.
An earLy achievemenE of the foundation was the establishmenE of sensitivity Lraining, in accepEance of differenE sexual orientations, as
part of basic training Effectiveneeg of the Nondlecrfmfnation Policy, To test the effectiveness of the equal rights poJ.icy, the Mi-nistry of Defense asked the Netherlands Instj.tute of Social Sexological- Research to conducL a survey of the Dutch mili[ary about the experiences of homosexual service members and the aLLitucles of heterosexual service members Eowards their homosexua] peers. The results of thj-s research appeared in late l-992 (Begeleidingsconmissie, 1992; Ketting & Soesbeek, 1992; van Weerd, 1993). representative sample of 1238 male and 149 female service members completed a wriLten questionnaire on their own sexual orienLation, personal attiLudes, and behavior towards homosexuals. rn cornon with the general Dutch population, Ehe survey respondents expressed generalJ-y tolerant attiLudes towards homosexuals, agreeing Lhat homosexuals shoulcl have the same rights as heLerosexuals' However, in Lheir daily contact.s wiLh homosexuals, mosL heterosexua] service members prefer to keep fheir relationsh'ips aU a psychological and social dj.sEance. For example, 11 percent'of male respondents scatse their relationships with homosexuals as friendly, B percent as acquaintanceship, 49 percenL as collegiaI, and 32 percent as purely
- 94 business.24 Thirty percent of men say that they would react in a hoslile or aggressive manner if a colleague turned out to be homosexual, although the actual incidence of aggression and hostility is low' The survey found that even in the Netherlands, service members would nol openly acknowledge homosexuality. The survey research Leam was unable Eo mee! their targeted number of openJ.y homosexual service members for detailed interviewsi. conscripts in particular were reLuctant to acknowledge themselves Lo the researchers (Ketting & Soesbeek ' 1992) ' Although most Dulch service members believe Ehat between 4 and 5 percent of male servicemen are homosexual (KeEEing t' Soes]:eek) , onJ'y 0'9 percent of the men surveyed declared themselves predominantly homosexual.25 In the survey, 4.8 percent of male responclents reported thaL they had ever had sexual contact with anoLher man in their ]ifeLimes' Even given Lhe strongly encouraging anc consistent message from leadership, many homosexuals in Ehe Dutch military are afraid that their sexual orientation could cause trouble. As a result of Ehis researeh, the Dutch governmenE (Begeleidingscommissie, 1992) concluded that the position of homosexuafs in the uLch military is sEill far from ideal. lthough they have equal right.s, bhe negaLlve atEitudes and behavior of their coLfeagues make Lhe reality of daily life uncomfortable.26 PoIicy recommendations were made to eliminate prejudice and sErengthen efforts to change the aLtitudes of heterosexuals towards homosexuals, . The response of the Dutch Ministry of Defense (ter Beek, 1993) is an intensive effort Eo improve acceptance of homosexuals. A program of
24women in the DLttch mili.tary are considerably more comfortable than men with homosexuals; the corresponding percentages are 39 percent friendly, 6 percent acqualntanceship, 42 percent collegial. and 13 percent as purely business' 2scorrespondingly, only 3.5 percent of females inherviewed considered themselves predominanely .lesbian; informal estimates of actual prevalence range up to ten times that flgure and the officia Ministry of Defense estimate is 5 to 10 percenE, corresponding to Ehe proportion of homosexuals in the Netherlands (Joustra, 1993) ' 26CBS News (1993) portrayed four openly homosexual DuLch servi.ce We note thaf atl four had relaEively members as fairly well satisfied. high rank (a Lieutenant colonel- and a Major j.n the Army, a LieuEenant commander in tl'e Navy, and a sergeant-Major in the ir Force) and were demonstrably proven achievers. Of the 64 homosexuals int,erviewed in he NISSO survey, only 13 were offj-cers-
- 95 education, counseling, ancl information witl be instituted throughout Ehe military, accompanied by sanctions against discriminaLion in any form' The focus will be on leadership, inciuding special sensitivity Craining for military trainers, special courses for counseLors on problems that homosexuaLs present, and soliciting Lhe assistance of homosexual groups to provide information about supPorL services for homosexuaL service members. In parEicular, there will be a focus on dispelling prejudices and false stereoLypes about the nature and behavior of homosexuals ' Procedures w11 make it easier to file complainEs for harassment' units wil"l have a ,,[person you place your Erust inl" for j.nformal counseling-for both heterosexuals and homosexuas. Ter Beek's statement explicitLy notes EhaL the Dutch military will not permit. official discriminaEion on the basis of sexua orientation in coalitional deployments wih armies thaL do exclude or cliscrimnaEe against hornosexuals '
Norvtay
context. our interviewees reported that sexuality is regarded in Norway as a private matter; people strongly prefer Ehat it. not be brought out in public. A staLement about sexual orientation is inerpreted Eo be a stagement about exual behavior, and is thus considered dstastefu], This persona] aversion is juxtaposed against a J-egaI toleratj-on: Laws against sodomy were abolished in 1972; there is a specific law sancEioning insult or injury of a person or group because of sexual orientatj,on; and the soca1 climate in Norway is increasingly tolerant of nontraditional J-iving arranfemenLs, as cul-minated in the passage in priI 1993 of the partnership law in effecL establishing homosexua.L marriage. Thus, Norway might present what appears to be a contradiction: On Ehe one hand,. homosexuals may publicly and legally declare partnerships, while on the other hand, openly sLating one's sexual 0rientati.on is unsocial behavior. The contradiction is resolved When one considers a remaining restriction on homosexual marriage--the ceremony cannot be conducLed in the (established) church. Thus,
- 96 albhough homosexual orienEation may. be staced, and thus Eolerated, it cannoE be sancifjed, and Lhus fully acknorvledged'27 Norway's miLiLary rs based on the principle of home defense by Ehe citizen-soldier; about 70 percenL of young men enter military service, with the remander excused for physical, menlal, or moral unfiEness or for conscientious objection. (Ojectors spend a simil-ar length of time in anoLher form of national service.) The principle dictates that there be essen!ially no difference between military laws and civil- 1aws. The official NorwegTian posiEion is thaE homosexuality is not an issue. There is no regstraLion, cliscriminaEion, or special treatment within eiEher Norwegian societ.y or iEs military based on race religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Moreover, the Norwegian military claims to have no indication that their po1-icy "is in conflict wiLh milit.ary requirements in any form or by any definition" (personal communication, 6 MaY 1993). Pollcy. Before sodomy was civilly decriminalized in I972' acknowledged homosexuality was gfr.ounds for exemption from military service and homosexual behavior of military personneJ- was qrounds for both dismissal f rom servce and civil punisluent.. The decrminal-ization of sodomy in effect immediately ended any miliEary punishment for sodomy and Eriggered a seven-year examination of whether homosexuality as a medical- raEher than a criminal problem might lead to exempEion (Hofm, 197?; Kringlen, 79"17). In 1979, homosexualiLy was removed from the lis! of medical conditions 1miting either conscript or career military service.2S This year, wi-th homosexual partnerships civilly recognized, the military plans to shortly confer upon homosexuaL couples any economic and housing benefits t confers upon married heterosexual
2TInEerestingly, Norwegian law alfovs heterosexual couples an alEernative shorE of narriage, cal-ecl sanlbo, which provides recogniLion of cohabitation and parental staEus. To have sambo status, Ehe COUple must be e1-igibte for heterosexual ntarriage (e.g., not currently married sanbo sLatlls, Like homosexual to somebody else, underage, etc.). partnershiP, maY be statecl buL j.s generalfy not fu1ly accepEed. 28Again, Norwegians clifferentiae and acceptance beEween toleration still define homosexuafity as a even here. Military meclical authorities sexual dysfunction, but one wiCh no implications for miliEary fitness'
-97couples,. Lhis is regarcecl as a maLter of minor changes in the wording of regulations and not a major problem' servlce Condtions. Although bhe regulations declare thaL there is no discriminaton based on sexual orienlation, the realiLy does not completely bear this out. Homosexuality per se is nob gTrounds for exemp!ion from service,' however, if that homosexuafity is accompanied by other psychiaLric grounds, an exempLion wilI be granted' Unlike the case n France, this exemption is 'nelther automatically granted nor
freely offered; the principJ-e of citizen-soldier dictates Lhat homosexuals able to serve shourd o "o.29 Although there are no official statistics, iE !s generalfy agreed LhaE homosexual officers would not advance as quickly as would equal-Iy performing heterosexual peers, One inLerviewee said Lhat open homosexuals are denied security clearances. but this was not verified by oEhers. Homosexuality woufd never be Ehe overt reason for this sl0wdown in career or denial- of Nonethel-ess, such clearance, because that would be illegal' discrimination is a facE of Iife. Both civilian and military nLervewees agreed tha harassment is no! considered a probLem in the Norvregian miliEary. There is generally not much physical violence wiLhin the military, nor within Norwegian society in genera1,30 NCos and officers get educaLion in ethcs, sexuality, and Lhe nature of sexual orientation as part of Ieadership Lraining, and are urgec to treat all soLdiers as individuals and to toLerate differences. public display of af f ection is rare.ly seen even in civil-i-an lif e, There are no regul-ations againsL it, but it is not considered "military custom and order." If either heEerosexuals or homosexual-s displayed
29Moskos (1993) states LhaL in the Scandinavian countries, an openly homosexual person will be exempted from conscription upn Norwegian personnel and meclical staff we interviewed were reguest. adaman! thaL auomatic exemptions are not granfed; only if homosexuafs can demonslraLe oLher psychologica problems that wiLf make life in the wilJ. they be granted Lhe exemption. for them difficult rnilitary 30one informanL claimed L.hat Ehere had been four people kilLed in the pasL three years in incidents that appeared related to sexual This, in a count.ry of 4'3 million people, was refarded by oriencation. this informant as a frighEeningly high raEe'
-98affection in public, there would be no official reaction. but, this rnight affect how people Ehj.nk about the individual ' As the primary mission of Ehe Norwegan military is home defense, few service members are sLationed far from home, Barracks quarters are not mandabory, but are available for personnel who choose them. I'eekend leaves, cheap Lransportaton fares, and attempts to accommodate needs and not much solation in mean that there is a l"ot of flexj.bility There are no special considerations made for Norwegj.an military Iife. race, gender, religious, ol: sexual orienEation status for service members deployed in special circumstances, e,g., in the far North of the counry, at sea, or on UN or other peacekeeping missions'il If an ally v/ere bo request Ehat homosexuals be restricted from a joinE mission, it is not clear that Ehe Norwegian miliLary would comply with the requesE; bhey hope that the issue never arises. women are not drafted, but have been eligible to serve in the milj_tary since the 19?0s. From the mid-1980s, there have been no restrictj.ons on type of service, including combaE units, In pract.ice, because the milibary is regardd as a man's job, few women serve. Even though 69 percent of Norwegians work in trade, services, or Lhe Erawef industry and less Ehan I percent are in agriculEure, fishing, or commercial hunEing, many Norwegians still adhere to its agricultural image where the woman,s roLe was to sEay home, raise babies, and guard t1.e homestead, Our inLerviewees noted that the presence of women in the miliEary has led Lo some problems of adjustment, but there have been very few official cIaj.ms of sexuaL hrassment' Although none of the peopJ-e v;e interviewed in the Norwegian military claimed Eo have any explicit knowLedge of lesbians in servj-ce, a newspaper arLicle lasL year (schmidt, 1992) carried the headline "lesbian sweethearts i.n the barracks." Memlf,ers of Norwegan homosexual groups claj-m, and some mi.Iitary officers conjecture, that Lhere are
3
,' |
'
avaj.fable sfoEs
lDep I oymen t s uP
abroad are popular, with volunLeers outnumbering Eo 10 to 1.
99. -
,,more than jusE
a few,, lesbians in Lhe military,
but that not
many are
^^--
32
uniEsd Kingdom
until Lhe enactment of Lhe sexual 0ffenses Act of. 1967, male homosexual acts were illegal under civil 1aw in the United Kingdom.33 The 196? cE decriminalized homosexual acts for consenLing males over the age of 2L.3a This decriminalization of homosexual acts represenEs a general secularizLion of attitudes since the 1930s as weIl as a 1ieralization of the legaI staLutes. While homosexual marriages are not recognized ancl chilc adoption and fostering by homosexuals are not toleraLed, there has been an increasing shift in socieey towards tolerance of homosexuafs ' publlc ttludee. one of the distinctions between ehe u.s' and U.K. socieEies is in their perspectives on minority righls' The Brj-tish generally do not see their socieEy a! a melting pot, and hence, do not treat minority rights vJith Lhe same degree of concern as they are treaLed in the united staEes. There is neifher a strong homosexual movement, nor j.s Lhere a strong anti-homosexual movement in the united Kingdom, The iniEial impeLus to decriminalze homosexual acts did not arse from a gay activist organization, but from a group ca1led the Homosexual LavJ Reform Socie[y, composed of prominent bishops, doctors, lawyers, and 1i-beraI polit,icians. The StonewaIl Group, associaEed with lhe HealEh and Education Research UniE oi the University of London, has also lobbied for civj-t rights'for homosexuafs and has requested changes in British faw.35 Ithough one might expect that the Church of England conlext.
From L885
of the couple feaEured in Ehe nev/sPaper story remained not a1]ow herself to be photographed, because she did not want her familY to knov. 33when Ehe laws proscribing homosexual acL.s were presenbed to Queen Victoria, she purporLeclly could not imagine homosexual acts between females, and hence those were never enacted34In practice, there is almost no Prosecution for homosexual acts by males over the age of 18 ' l5In a L991 memorandum submitLed to the Select Conrnittee on Ehe Armed Forces Bil"1, Lhe Stonewall Group recommended: (1) that homosexualacts should no }onger be forbiclcen between consenting adulEs under service law, (2) that homosexuali.ty of itself shoul-d no longer be a reason for refusing enlry to the arned forces nor f,or dismissal, and (3)
32one member anonymous and did
i
- 100 to protest on this subject, it does not see iEs duty or iEs role as that of dictating the private behavior of individuals who are not iEs members. Even though it is the established religion, the Church cannot make legaJ. posiLions for socieLy at large' The Mllit,ary Perspective. The united Kingdom, like Ehe united sates and canada, has abancloned conscription in favor of an alIvolunteer force.36 Behavior in the military is governed by the Queen's RegulaEions, which, alonq wiLh the laws establish.ng a military force, are reviewed and renewed every five years--nexE in 1996' of all the foreign countries we visibed, only Lhe united Kingdom explicitly bans homosexuals from military service--under current regulations, participating in a homosexual acE is a punishable criminaloffense under military law. Many of the arguments puE forward by the United Kingdom mil-iLary esEablishment against allowing homosexuafs to serve are similar to those usecl in the united states. That is, it is claimed that homosexuafity undermines cohesion and good miliEary order; that it undermines recruiting Lhab it inEerferes with confidence building and bonding in smal-t groups; etc' In fact, their current practice is much like F,he u.s. military policy Ehat has been in effect since January 1-993. Recruits are not asked whecher they are homosexual, but they are given a pamphlet (Her Majesty's Armed Forces, no date) before they enlist thaE states, n part:
HomosexualiCy anc homosexual behawiour are not compatible wih If you engage in homosexual activiEy you may Service life. noE be prosecuted under Service law (depending on the circumst.ances of Ehe acEiviEy), buE you wilI have Lo ]eave the Armed Forces.
woul_d have much
The sexua] offenses Act of 196? specifically did not decriminafize j's Lhe homosexual acEs among miJ.itary service members. HovJever, Lhere expectation that the Queen's ReguIaLors will be changed in the normal course of their review in 1996,Lo formaLly decrimnalize homosexuaL acts
that members of the armed foces should be guaranteed proEecLion from discriminaLion on the grouncls of their homosexuality' 36Warner (1993) tesLified that Great Britai' has conscripE recruitmenE; we suspect tha lhis is a transcripEion error,
- 101 for service members. A special report from Ehe Select Corunittee on the Armed Forces Bill (1-991-) states:
IÎe
Armed
are not persuacled that the ti-me has yet come to require the forces to accept hmosexuals. or homosexuaL activiby" '
we recommend chat homosexual activity
of a kind that is legal in civ]ian law should not consEitute an offence under service law. We look to t.he Government to propose an appropraEe amendmenL to the law before bhe end of Ehe next Sesson of
Par I iament
Mllltary Law. Currently, Ehe military does not take disciplinary action against an indiviclual. for engaging in a homosexuaL act if the soldier is over 21 ancl the acL is beEween consenting adults--individuals are administratively discharged for participating in such acts.37 As in lhe united stat.es, the mere sLatement by a persorr that he or she is a homosexuaf is not sufficient for discharge; sLatus must be convincingly shown. Dismissal is not automatic, :ut almosE certain (Select CommiLtee on Lhe Armed Services Bif, 1991). Individuals are generally charged with disgraceful conducL. of an indecen! kind, or conduct prejudicial Eo Over the three-year period of ]-987 to 1989, good order and discipline. 32 inclividuals were courL-martialed and 225 individuals were t administraEively dischargec. ,, " This is not to say that homosexuals are noL present in the Armed Forces of Lhe United Kingcom, However, because of the restrictions on homosexuality ancl honosexual loehavior, they are wary abouL openLy declaring themselves, As is Lhe case with the U.S. miIiEary, homosexuals who have been clismissed have provded testimony to the existence of others ab all fevels, who rentain unacknov;ledged'
,
A}I INTERNATIONI, COMPRISON Although each of the countrj-es we visited is unique, a common picture emerges that can inform the policy decisions facing Lhe United
States.
37The=.
administrative clischarges are noted as SNLR--Services
No
Longer Required,
-L02Mllitary Policy and Practice Reflect socletal Norms The trend in alI vJestern democraLj.c societies is for greater toleration of social deviaLions as long as those deviations do not impinge on the argrer group' Thus, remariLal sex and homosexuaf behavior among consentlng adulEs are becoming more tolerated, while drunk driving and smoking j.n public areas are becoming less tol-erated' In each of the counLries, the natj-onal miliLary policy reflects--with a possible time 1ag--national societal aLtitudes and norms regarding tolerance; in no country is Ehe milieary on the edge of social change or a Lest bed for social experimentation ' But Eol,erance does not mean acceptance. ln none of Ehe countries visited 1s homosexuality fully.accepLed' fntervj.ewees sEated and the data available supporE the conclusion that most people are avowedly heterosexual and express some discomfort around openly homosexual people. However, in these countries, the homosexuals are aware of and sensitive Lo the fee-ings of the majority. Most. homosexuals are not public about bheir orientation and even open homosexuals are circumspect about Lheir behavior in most. social sibuations ' This generalizaEion holds particularly true for homosexuals in the milj-tary In each of Ehe countries visited, homosexttal behavior has been decriminalized for many years in civil law' only in the united Kinqdom does the military stiII prohibj.t sodomy, and iL is anticipated thaE ths, too, may soon change. In accordance with the civilian pract"ce of official toleration, none of the foreign miliEary services asks polentiaJ. conscripts or recruits abouE their sexual orientation and only the uniEed Kingdom will acLively invesLigaLe an allegation of
homosexualitY. The accession of aclmiEEed homosexuals inLo military service is less unform in the countries visitecl. Canada, Lhe NeLherlancls, and Norway
do not permit an indiviclual,s homos'exuality to i:e a criterion of acceptance inEo or rejection from Lhe miliEary. France and IsraeI w11, in effect, exempt a homosexual from conscription if the person so chooses and, for appropriate individual casesr may recommend Lo the individual- thaC an exenpLion be clamed' The ultimate choice in these two count.ries, however, is with the inclividual candidate. Germany and
- 103 the uniEed Kingdom formally ceny enEry inEo service to open homosexuals, although Germany wif Loferate homosexuaL memlers upon discovery or declaration,
Homgeexuals Serve--But
Quicly--In 11 Militarles Vi8itsed No matter rvhaL the official regul-aLion, interviewees reporbed bhat homosexuals did serve in Ehe miliEary servj-ce of each country, in the conscript, voluneer, and officer ranks, In none of these countries are heEerosexuals fu11y comfortabfe Iiving closeJ-y with homosexuals, but in none of these countries were there significant disciplinary problems aused by homosexuals lvithin Ehe ranks. In each country, the number of openly homosexual- service members is small and is considered Lo represent only a minority of homosexuafS actua.1y servj"ng' Moreover. n alL counEries. openly homosexual service members were approprately ircumspect n their behavior whiLe in military sJ-tuations; they did not call attention to themselves in ways that could make their service less pleasant or impede their careers.
Problems Are Dealt With on a Case-By-Caee Baeig The foreign miliEaries visiced reported very fevr problems caused by the presence of homosexual service members. Moreower, they reported Lhat these problems were effecrively clealE wiEh on a case-by-case basis. Even in countries where it was cained thaE homosexuaf orientation mighb lead to limited military careers, interviewees ldere emphatic thaE there was no hard and fasL rule, InsEead, each case was considered on its merits, and if there was a net benefit to the mili-Lary of keeping a homosexual person on the job, that acfion was taken. rn France and Norway, homosexuaLity s never an explicit cri.terion in any personnel
decision, but certain homosexual behavior3S could be a component of conduct unbecoming a service member and Lead to sanctions; Canada is expectecl to follow this pattern, rn the uniLed Kingdom, there was a bl-anke dsmissal of discovered homosexuals from the servj-ce, and in the
38In most cases it is Lhe flagrancy of the behavior. not homosexual nature per se, that determines iEs unacceptability'
its
- 104 Netherlands, homosexuality is, by law., never a criEerion in personnel

act ions . where there is the potentiaJ- for uniL disrupt.ion, lhe foreign militaries are proaceive, Posslble sources of trouble are identifj-ed,
and if individual differences among service members are causes, action is taken. The particular action depends, as above, on the circumstances, Thus, if there is a cl-ash beLween a homosexual and heEerosexual Lhat cannot be resolved within Ehe unit, depending on the circumstances, one or t-he other or both may be removed from the unit or sanctioned. Interviewees cIaimed.tha.L. in thej.r experience there was no
significant threat to unit cohes!on or organizational performance creaLed by the presence of homosexuas in their mil-iLarj-es, either home stations or deployec at sea or abroad.39
chaDge Ha Not Been DisruPtive
aL
Since 1"9?2, five of bhe countsres--Canada, Prance, Israel, Ehe Netherlands, and Norway--have changecl policy, broadening Lhe inclusion of homosexuals in military service, 'In the Netherlands and Norway, the change foLlowed the clecriminalization of homosexual hehavior, while in France, change occurred when the psychiatric profession debermined thaE homosexualiEy was not a mencaI disorder. canada's change in policy was more political in nature. According to our sources the change Israel announced in June 1993 was a formal sLaLement of what had become actual practice. In France, the Netherlancs, and Norway, officials report Lhat the change in policy procluced no problems for conscripLion, recruibment, or reLenLion; albhough canacla's policy change is recent (october 1992), Ehey similarly report no problems Lo date, In a]l instances, the change in policy produced litEle real change in practice because al"most no service members or canclclateS for service revealed A homosexual
orientat ion .
rmplementing the change in policy for canada, the NetherLands, and Norway has not. posecl major problems. (France',s change of policy went almosL unnoticed, and implementation was not an issue.) For all three
l9The caveat to hhis sLatement is, of course, the much greater exten of deployment of U,S, forces than any of the services visited'
195 -
.:
'
counlries, strong supporE rrom Ehe highest level-s of leadership, including the Minister of Defense ancl the highest ranks of military officers, communicated the acceptability of Lhe new policy and the resolve of Lhe military to accomplish Lhe change. For Canada and Norway, implementation was clone in as low a key as possible and unobtrusively, For example, there have been no sensiEivity training sessions for Eroops, and neiEher country has atEempted to changre the atEitudes of its service members. ' OnJ.y the Netherlards has attempEecl to assertively establish equal righcs tor homosexuals and to change the attitudes of heterosexual service members. However, this effort does noL apper Eo have produced a better situabion for homosexuaf service members than Ehe situation in countres Ehat made no aLtempt to change attitudes. The Dutch are continuing their efforts in Lhis direction, and recause Ehey are closely monitoring progress, in five years iE wiI,I be possible to assess the effecEs of Eheir Programs '
106. -
A.
ANI,oGoUs ExPERfENcE oF DoMEsTIc PoIJICE ND PIRE DEPRTMENTS]
INlRODUCTION
UsingEheexperiencesofforeignmi}iLariestoanticipateissues has relaEed to affowing homosexuals to serve openly in the u.s' rnlitary limitaEions: The UniLed States and its foreign counterparts each have disbinctivecultures,particularlywithregardEoprivacyandsocial values.onlybyexamj.ningEhisissueintheU.S'culturecanoneavoid theproblemsofinLerprebationthatthesedifferencesintroduce' However,thispresentsLheEhofnydifficultyoffindinginstitutions tha are sufficiently analogous to make the comparison meaningful' WetookadvanLageofthesimilaritiesbetweenmunicipalpub}ic safeEy departmenEs and military organizations Lo examine the experience of police and fire deparEments in six funerican cities tha! have implemened policies of non-discrmlnation based on sexual orlenLation' what We had two primary purposes: First, we sought Eo understand non-discrimnation were happened in these deparEments when policies of implemented. How did homosexuals respond and behave' for instance? How did heterosexuals reacE to Ehe presence of acknowledged homosexuals in their midst? How did leadership view Lhe ultimate impact of the policy change on the ability of t.hese organizations to meet their mandates? What Second, we sought insights .ino the irnpiementation process itseLf' facilitaLed the process of implementing olicies of non-discrimnation toward homosexual.s? What hindered this process? How did the process usually unfold? Thischapterexaminestheanalogybet'weentheU'S'militaryand domestic police and fire deparLments, expforing whether and where Ehe experience of these paramilitary organizations can shed light on issues related to permiLting homosexuals Eo serve in the Armed Forces' The iThis chapter was prepared by Paul Koegel. rviEh considerable -s assistance from James P. Kahan in drafting Lhe first section' It Scott based on research conducEec by JaneL Lever, BrenL Boultinghouse, A'Harris,JoannaZ'Hei]brunn,JamesP.Kahan,PaulKoegeJ.,Robert Maccoun, Pter Tiemeyer, 'John D' liJinkler, and Gaj-1 L' ZeIlman'
1"07 -
non-discrj-minaLion poJ-icies and the conl-exLs in which they were
chapEeralsodocumentsthefociandmethodsofthisstudy,describesthe implemented,addressesEheconseqllencesoftheirlmplementaLion'and examines Ehe implemenLation process itself '

:.
HOW INSTRUCTIVE
IS THE ANJOGY? Therehasbeenafairdegreeofcontroversyoverwhetherthepolice ssues and fre deparEment analogy can Le11 us anyLhing usefuL about n related Eo allowing homosexuals t.o serve in the u-s' military' Committee argument erupbed between members of the House Armed Services onjusEthispointashhey].istened(May5th)topublicsafetyofficials police and from san Francisco and Seattl-e Lestify about how homosexual was whether the AE issue firefighters were serving in ther cities' sLatementsofthewiEnesseswererelevanLtoadebatseaboutnalional securiLy \ArmY Tjnes, 5/17 /93) ' Police and fire departments are cerLainly not identical in nature !'othemilitary.Themembersofthepol-iceandfiredepartment-s interviewedwereguicktopoinLoutfundamentaldifferencesbetween their organizaLions anc the Armed Forces. The most significant was that their force members are on duty for short stints--an eight hour shifL in thecaseofpo}ice,aperiodofl-3daysinthecaseoffirefighters. Afterwards, Ehey go home, where Ehey:have far greater ]atitude in how lhey behave' The military, on the other hand' takes service members Lraining and away from their homes for exEended perj-ods of Eime for both deployment.andconslc]erstheboundariesoftheirjobstobe24hoursa day/Tdaysaweek'DuringthaEtime,itdemandsthatservicemembers live in a variety of close quarters, from Lhe open dormitories of basic lraining barracks to Lhe cramped confines of a two-person pup tent' iLs Moreover, iL requires them to subject themselves to the miJ'itary and codes of behavior at all Eimes' Evenso,thereareanumjerolcharacterisEicsbhatpoliceandfire departmentsshareincommonwiEhtheU.S'ni]-itarythatmakethemthe closestpossibledomesLcanalog'Theseincfudethefol"lowing characEeristics :
- 108 The organzation is hierarchically organized with a well-defj.ned chain of command; the unj-forms carry insignia denoEing rank' The occupaLions are defined as public service for the maintenance of Public securitY ' Members work togeLher as Leams and wear uniforms cJ-early idenEifyng them with' the orgnization'
. . . .
A substanLia.I proportion of job time is spent training for n inherent short intense periods of hazardous activity, job is putLing one's life at risk' feature of the In addit.ion Eo the common general American experence shared by the groups, many police offj-cers and firefigrhters have a miliLary background and share values held by military service
members,
In some respects, fire departmenEs are characterized by even gfreater similarities with bhe military than police departmenLs are. FirefighEers typically -ive together in a firehouse while on-duty, sometimes for days at a time. Close living quarters and issues relabed to privacy, especialJ,y in olcler firehouses, are thus part of their experiencer even if for shorter stretches of time, The work of fighting fi_res s done in coordinaEed fashion against a common enemy. The business of a firefighEing rcompany is tac'tical wiEh regard to a fire' while the command structure concerns itself wth the strategic allocaLion of resources. unless engaged in riob control, police officers work in pairs or, increasingly, a1one, Moreover, although police work focuses on a war against crime, providing human services is one of its primary tasks, ancl this necessiLates sErong community inEeraction. As a result, pol.ice vork is highly subject to political and external- influences '
fgeues the Analogry can IlluInlnate fn exploring the experiences of domestic police and fire , clepartments, we are not suggesting that their similarity to the u's. military j.s sufficienbly strong Eo a11ow predictions relaLed to national
security, i,e,,
whether force performance woud be intolerably
- L09 compromised. However, even aJ-lorving for differences, police and fire deparments are more simil-ar to the milibary than is any other domestic instiEution, especially with regard t.o their internal command sLrucfures The interest in sLudying and requirement for top-down discipline. police and fire departments is not wheEhe| the miliEary should end the restriction on homosexuaf service, but raLher Co learn how such a change mighb best Eake pl"ace were such a change mandated. Thus, these
simiLarities make the analogy a useful one' \Ihile we cannot definitively answer Ehe quesEion of how cohesion and performance will be affected in Lhe miIiEary, rve can confidently extrapolaEe to Lhe military from observations in police and fire departments regarding how many members of Ehe force publicly acknowledge their homosexuality when a policy change occurs; the facEors thaL infuence t.his; the tehavior of homosexuaLs under a policy Lhat a1lows them to acknowledge ther homosexuality; Lhe concerns that heterosexuafs express after, rather than I:efore, such a change has occurred; the role of leadership and chain of conurand; the natural evolution of policy j-n implemenEaEion over time; ancl many others. fE was with these i-ssues mind, rather than issues relaEed directly to naLional securty, that we engaged in Lhis inquirY '
FOCI ND METHODS OF THE
STUDY
Citfes visiteil The selection of ciLies to be visited was based on several criLeria. Firsb, large cities were chosen to ensure that (1) on a chance basis, there would be homosexuals who might wish to serve in the police and fire departments; (2) the city's poJ-ice and fire departments would be large enough to require a paramilitary structure for Lheir command and control; and (3) these departments would be of sufficient size that there rnight be some homosexu-als who had publicly announced lheir sexual ori,entation. These considerations l-ed us to consider the Eop 25 cities in the unj-tecl states, with populations over 500,000. Cities such as San Francsco, California, and Key West, FLorida, were excluded because Lhe large proporEions of resident homosexuafs created aLypical social cfimaLes, SLudying how a nondiscrimina!ion policy v'Ias
- 110 required having such a policy change to examine' Finally, because there might be regona1 differences in how nondiscrim|natj-on mighE be implemented, we atEempted o Select at east one city from the five major regions of the naEion: Northeast, Midwest, south, southwest. and Pacific Northwest. using these criteria, we chose six cities to visiL ' At leasL one departmenL in aIl six aireed to cooperate, although the Houston Pol-ice Department and the Los ngeles Fire Department declined to pareicipate' The leadership of the Houston PoIice DepartmenL carefully considered but ultimately rejected the request Lo participate for fear of involving the department in what they saw as a poliLical mater. They voiced the belief that police departments should remain above politics and wanled !o avoid the appearance of conLribuLing, by virtue of their experience, to advancing any partcular position. we were stil1 able to obtain an overall-, bhough limited, sense of lhe Houston Police DeparEment's experience by speaking with gay community activists and homosexual police officers who have not disclosed Lheir sexuaL orientation to their departmenEs. The Los Angeles Fire DeparEment also declined t.o participaEe in interviews Lecause'of upheaval Ehey wre experiencing over a damaging iire Lhat had just occrred. However, a homosexual firefighter who had not acknowledged his sexual orientation to his deparlment did participate in our off-hours focus group discussion with
implemenEed
homosexual members
of the poJ.ice department' Table 4-1 presents the six cities, along wiLh their population rank and the year of introduction of a poticy change. Five of the six largesL cties in bhe united staEes are ncluded in Lhis set (wor1d Almanac , Lggz) - seattle is the largesb ciEy in the Pacific Northwest ' Tabl-e 4-2 presenEs some demographic information about these cities and their police and fire departmens '
Focus of Vleis The visiL.s were oriented t.oward learning as much as possible about the larger piclure surrouncling the change of policy and its
111
Table 4-X
Citleg Vieited
U.
city
Chicago Houston Los ngeles
New York CitY
S. Pop.
Rank
3 4
Year Policy
Changed 1988
1990-1991
I97 r91
9 9
2
1
b
San Diego
Seattle
2t
1990 1980
Table 4-2 selected Demoqraphic Informatsion About Cftiea VislEd

Los
New
San
Chicago
Houston
1, 631
532
Ange I es
Populat.ion (xl000
2,184
458 388
t whitre t black I Hispanic *

women
202
2B* 2B*
Uniformed police
ts
L2,200
3
4, 100
N. .
Nt
2
minoritY
5t
, 485 53 t 14t 40t '7,700 t4z 41t

3
York '7 ,323

522
Diego
1,
1116'7 Z
Seattfe
516
'7
5Z
292 242
9&
1_08
21*
4Z
28,000
t{z
262
t_,800 13t 40*

850
r,300
108
N.A.
975
7Z
Uniformed fire
83 0 .38 N. A. 0.68 * women 282 6t 2'72 N. A. 2B I minority Source: Census figures from World Almanac (1992); personal communicatons. Note cha.L population percentages can sum Eo greater than l0Ot because the Census separaEely caEegorizes race and Hispanic origin. "N,4." indicaLes where data were not availalf,fe'
4,'t
00
,900
3,200
11,300
242
implemenEat ion
This resultecl in a focus on six main factors in the
visiEs; socfal and eituatlonal climate. This invol-ved atLempting to undersEand lhe general social environment of the city with particular reference to communiLy atbitudes Lowards homosexuals. lt also invol"ved undersLanding the police and fire departneuts ir which these changes r^/ere occurring,
11"2 -
including their histories, the organization and composition of their forces, and thelr occupacional cultures' Politlcg of the change in pollcy' This involved determining what specific events, if any, triggered Ehe change in policy' who the principal acL.ors were and whether they were for or against change, and what. the topics were in Lhe debaLe over
change.
Tbe epecfflc wordJ-ng of Ehe nondiscrimination policy' Issues relaEed to Lhe implementation proceee iselt ' Thj-s involved examining the planning, training, and educaLion that
policy, the role of community and police,/fire leadership in impJ-ementati-on, changes in recruitment and promotion pracEices, and the regulations (e'9" on harassment) chat accompaniecl the chante of poJ'icy' The focus was on factors thaL facil-itated or hj,ndered implemenLation. Consequerces. We attempLed Lo fearn the consequences of Lhe changeinpolicy,par,ticular}ywithregardtopriorconcerns.
accompanied Lhe change i-n MosL j.mporEant, we sought tso determine how many homosexuals had
disclosed their sexual oriet-rtation, the facLors influencing this process, the effect of the presence of open homosexuals their heterosexual co1lagues, and the ability of the instiLubion Lo function effectively' Lessons learned abouE the implemenLabion process and Eher potential application to implementing a policy thaE ends discriminaLion based on sexual orientation in the U'S'
mi Mehode
1
on
itary
The principal source of information was a two-day visiE Lo each During these visiLs, several daEa colLecLion methods were city, These included: uLilized. using open-endecl inLerview Lechniques, buL guided by Intervlews. deEaj-1ed set of Eopic questions.that ilvere firsc piloEed in Lhe police vre intervj-ewed highand fire departments of sanEa Monica, california, opportuniLy officers' ranking leaders, personnel ancl eq.raI employment
- 113 trainers, unit commanclers, recruiters, and counselors. Allhough none of these interviews was audio-recorded for fear of inhibiting the free exchange of ideas on sensilive Eopics, we took extensive notes--as close to verbatim as possible--aL each.2 We aLso interviewed heLerosexual and homosexual- rank-and-fi1e members of the force, boLh alone and in groups ranging from three Eo 20, Rank-and-fiIe officers were recruited by department eaders, usually depending'on who was available at the tj-me set asde for the interviews, and were. inEerviewed wiEhouL leaders being present. Interviews with homosexual force members usually took place on off-duEy hours in off-site, confidential- locations. In addiLion Eo involving individuals who had publicly procJ.aimed their homosexuality in Lhe work p1ace, these meetings often incfuded police officers and firefighters who had not disclosed thej.r orientation to their departments, and so can only be reported in terms that ensure total anonymity. gain, these were nots audj-o-recorded, and Lhe noEes excluded any identification of participants.3 Doc\nentation. We obLained what documentaLion we couLd on the si"ze and composition of the police arid fire departments, plus policies and regulations regarding nondiscrimination, enforcement guidelines, curricuLa for training programs, and egual emp-oymenE opportunity procedures. Meaningful documentation on recruiEment and .promotion was generally not available since in no department was sexual orientaEion entered in an individual's record. Newapaper articles. .By engaging in computerj-zed library searches of the major periodicals in each ciiy, we were abfe to access newspaper articles concerning events reJated to the implemenEation of non..
2one person in whab was usualJy a three-person Eeam vlas designated Lhe no!etaker. UsuaJ-l-y, this person took noLes on a lap-top computer' Our experience was thaL this incieased accuracy wiLhout bei.ng intrusive. lfn no sense can our samples of rank-and-file members of hese departments, either heterosexual or homosexual, be considered a probability sampJ-e. While we did our J:esE Lo ensure that those selected rJere representative of Lheir departments we neiLher used methods nor had the sampJ.e size bhat would allow us to make sEaEements regarding the actual prevalence of Ehe atEitudes and behaviors we describe in subsequent sections. Where evidence seemed strong on a given point, we have allowed our language to convey this. otherwj.se, we deliberately avoid qualifiers thaL suggest precise prevalence estimates,
-LtAdiscrimination policies, such as lawsuit.s, demonstrations, and police recruitment at homosexual faj-rs. Newspaper arEicles were also sometimes voluneered during our deparLmenL visiLs' In NoE all investigative meLhods were employed at all visit sites. each case, we gat.hered as much information as bime and the goodwilJ. of organization allowed, Thus, we were able Eo have focus groups with heterosexual rank-and-file force members aE only some locations, met wth counselors at only one location, and so forEh' Table 4-3 summarizes what types of informat.ion were obtained from which cities.
Table 4-3 Sources of Information,
by CftY New York

San
Los Chicago Houston Angeles

Pof
Diego
SeatEle
ice InL,erviews: Leaders Personnel, EEO Trainers

Commanders
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Recruiters
Counselors
Homosexuals
Rank-and-file Fire fnEerviews: Leaders Personnel, EEO Trainers

Commanders
xxxxxx
x;'
x
x^ xx^
xxx
Recruiters Counse lors

llomosexuals
^^
XXXX
-.
Rank-and-file Documentat ion Nondiscrim, policy PD regs, procs PD Eraining pgms FD regs, procs FD training pgms Ne\,rspaper articles
XXXXX
vv vv
x x
x x
CONTEXT ND VRT.,TION TN NON-DISCRTMINTION POLICIES
By way of setting a contexL. for discussing what was learned from police and fire deparEments regardj.ng what happens when a polj-cy of non-
- 115 -
discriminationagainsthomosexualsisimplemenLedandhowbesttoeffect thalimplemenEation,thissectionprovidesabriefoverviewofthe seLt'ings,p]"ayers,anclpoliciestha!werefeaturedintheimplementation basis processes observed. Thj_s is not done on a detaired ciLy-by-city variation in (1) tne but more generally, with an "y".t,ottd describing (2) the municj.pal climate in which poliy changes were occurringi (3) the climate wiLhin the police ancl fire departments themselves; and nature of the non-discrlmination poJ-ici'es and the prime impetus for
change '
The MuniciPal Climate
in six As already stated, the clepartments examined were situated cities across geographically diverse reg'ons of the country' These citieshaveeachbeensubjecLtouniquesetssofinfluencesthathave contribut'edtoclearclifferencesinboEhbhelroveral]-socialclimates and how t,hey have interacEecl with Eheir homosexual communities' Seattle, on one end of the conEinuum' enjoys a reputation for social
on the and IJos Angeles falL aE Lhis end of Ehe continuum' Houston'
liberalismandiswell-knownforitspoli.ticsofinc,lusion'NewYork
otherendofthecontinuum,issi'tuatedinaregionlhatistypically considered to be the most socially conservaEive in the country'
Chicago
islessconservativethanHoLlstonbutmoreconservaLiveLhanSeabtle, given the strong social andpolitical influence of iLs historically central white ethnic Catholic ommunicies. San Diego, rvhere a strong ldentificationwiLhtheNaVyanc]alargecommunityofwhj-temiliLary retirees likewise has fostered a climate of social conservaLism' also fall-s along the Houston encl of the continuum'4 RegardJ,essofwheretheyfallonEhiscontinuum,allofthese cities have experienceC the growing visibilj'ty of local homosexual into communiLies and their increasing abiLity to parlay that visibility ,"tX.a variati-on exisEs wiEhin each of these ciLes, of course' have had Knowing a person's education, occupation' ancl whether they personal contacE with a homosexual probably tell-s one more about close theirsociafconservaEismandattitudestowardhomosexualieyLhanthe region or city in which they ive, (see the chapter on public opinion foramorecompleEediscussionofdemographicandoEhercorrelatesof attitudes loward homosexuality'
)
- 116 economic and politicaL power, In each of these cities, homosexuals are players in the local poliLical scene and in some cases are recognized as poEent forces. All buL one of these cities have enacted human rights ordinances prohibiEing discriminaLion on the basis of sexual
orientation,
Only Houston does noL currently have such an ordinance (though changes in the police department's policy regarding homosexualiEy occurred anyway).5 There, an effort to enacL such an ordinance in 1988 was voEed down by Lhe public, and sEale sodomy laws This is not Lo say continue to define homosexual acts as illegal.6
Lhat homosexuals are widely accepted everywhere but in Houston. Hate crimes against homosexuals in alf of chese cities testify Lo Ehe variable acceptance they experience wherever t-hey are '
Th Inernal CllmaEe Vllthin Pollce and FIre Departmenus Differences beLween these departments vrere apparent in a number of ways that ulbimaEely affectecl how implementacion of a non-dj-scriminabion
policy occurred. Each is Lhe producE of unique histories or idiosyncratic leaders who have Ieft a distj.nctive sEamp' Overal1, the similaritj.es among the police and fire departments in the cities examined far outweigh vrhatever differences exisE. For instance, though changes are occurring, each continues bo be governed by tradiLions and customs that have informally codifj.ecl norms of appropriate behavior' These deparlments are remarkably alike in being Cightly-knit culLures consisting of peop]-e drawn togeLher by their responsibiliLy to protect each oLher,s lives. What we learned suggested Lhat police officers and firefighters look out for one another. When there are problems, they vork them out on their own. ,,RaLLing" on a fel-low officer, given Ehis value, is sLrongly frowned upon and.. is informally sanctioned j-n most cases, often with ostracism. In both, but particularly in fire departments one's closest co-workers are considered Lo be family, both
Swhile the Houston Police Department does not have an explicit policy of nondiscriminaLion based on sexual orientation, aggressive attempts Lo screen homosexua.Is ouL of Ehe department by asking people whether they were homosexual were discontinued somewhere around 1990799r.
recentfy faced J.egal chall-enge and are being revietved by Ehe SEate Supreme court ' currently
6The Texas soclomy laws have
- tL'7 on and off the job. camaraclerie is high in these setLings but its price is conformity, This is not a cuEure receptive bo ouLgroups, and the hisbories of Ehese deparEmenEs with regard Eo minorities and women supporL this impression Each of the deparEments examined tended Eo draw its recruit.s from Lhe more socially conservatve elements of Eheir communiEies. As a resuLL, they were funclamentally conservaEive organizaLions, boEh poliicalLy and socially. In Chicago and New York, this Lendency Loward conservatism tvas further augmented by a historical domination of police and fire departments by white, cathol-ic eLhnic groups--the Irish and IEalians, in particular. These groups sErongly emphasize Eradj.tional family values, and such values evidently became highly entrenched in police and f ire culture, ,,we,re a catholic organi,zation, " cornented a feader in one departmenb when asked about expectatlons regarding offduty behavior. "we sEill frown on people living Logebher. There's a 1ot of thaL in our organizaLion. You can Ie, sEea, rob--we'11 forgive you. BuL cheaE on your wife? You're in troubLe! " The conservatism of these departments also bransl-aEed inbo negative views on Ehe part of the largely white,lmale, heterosexual rank-and-file toward outgroups, wiCh particularly srrong feelings being voiced against homosexuals. Leaders in some of these departments have arrived at a different understanding of homosexuals, which is n some cases the cause and in some cases the consequence of steerj-ng their organizaLions toward more accepting pol-icies, However, among the polj.ce and firefighter rank-and-file, strong anti-homosexuaL attiLudes are frequently expressed. This is changng as new community attitudes, leaders, and policies have their effecL, but these workplaces stilf give the impression of st.rong hostility to the inclusion of homosexuals. This is especially true of firehouses, where sLronger demands for confomity and close living cuarters increase tensions over homosexuality. Another aspect of the inEernal climate of Ehese organizations is Ehe growing existence of homosexual fraterna organizaEions ' These are epitollrizecl by the Gay offcers Acion League (coAL) of New York, which v,/as founded in 1983 and now consists of approximately 1000 sworn
- 118 -
officers across several l{ew York City crminal justice organizations, including approxinately 250 officers from Ehe police department. GOAL serves two purposes. It provides homosexuaL officers with opportunties to share their experiences with one another in a confidentia] forum (since more than half of he police officers have not made their sexual orientation known to thei-r deparEmenEs) and Lo socialize with similarly minced colleagues ' But iL is also an established political presence in the department, serving as an advocate for homosexuaf police officers and community members. WhiIe homosexual- police fraternal organizations exist in Los ngeles, SeatEle, San Diego, and Chicago as welI, in no city are they as large or as firmly esEablished as in New York, a function of how recently most of them have come together. Houston has no such organization. Homosexual officers in Houston indicated that they \^Jere many years away from such an occurrence: So inhospiLable was their workplace environment with regard to acknowledging their homosexuality hat while they often knov oi oLher homosexual, officers from chance offduty sightings, they barely acknowJ-edge each other's presence in Lhe workplace for fear of inadvertenLly revealing Lheir status. There are not yet any such organizaEions consisting exclusiveJ-y of firefighLers,T though a loosely formed social (not poIj.Eica-) organization of homosexual firefighters in New York is currently negoL.iating official satus with the departmenf through a retired homosexual firefighter whose sexual orientation is known to his department ' No currenLly acLive homosexual firefighters can play this role because none of Ehem has publicly acknowledged hj.s or her'homosexuaIiLy.s TFirefighters in many cities belong t.o t.he same frat.ernal organ.zations as homosexual crimj.nal justice workers. slnterestingly, while GoL offered Lo use its infuence to orchestrate our visit wth the New York Police (which we declined), Fire Flag members (with the exception of the retired firefighter) were Eoo apprehensive regardirg the threat of ther homosexuality becoming pubfic knowledge Eo even consider meeting with us, despite our guarantees of confidentiality.
- 119 -
Varietiee of Non-lscriminatsion' Poltclee The non-discrimination poIci-es implemented by the police and fire departments examined vared, though onJ.y sJ.ightly, along two dimensions: (1) how Ehey were defined; and (2) whether Lhe policy basis was inEernal or external !o the deparEmenL. Across all but one of these six ciEies, department policies essentiafly consisEed of a staEement proscribing any discrimination on the }:asis of sexual orientaEion. Such a sLatement was usually documented in a memorandum from the chief and j.ntegraEed into manuals documenting rules and expectations wherever appropriate. In Lhe police departmenEs of four cj-ties, homosexuaLs were actively recruited Lo some deg'ree, although most aggressively in Seattl-e and New York. Chicago is only now geEting ready t.o target the homosexual community for recruiEing. These departments were recruiLing homosexuals not to meet affirmabive action goals but rather because current policing practices emphasize the imporLance of a deparLment resembling Lhe community it serves. No fire departmen! had activeJ-y recruited members of the homosexuaL communiEy, presumably because the nature of t.heir mandaLe did not necessiLaLe theircloing so. Across alI five ciLies, procedures for lodging formaJ. discriminaEion complaj.nts lased on sexual orientsation were in place and hrere basically identical to Lhose for minorities and women There was no such expJ.icic policy statement in either t.he police or fire department of Houston. The implicit policy sbaEement appeared Lo be "ft doesn't matster." The fire department asserted that it had no policy one way or another; Ehe police department's policy tr'as characterized as one of "benign neglect'--"do your job and \^Je wonrt bother you." (The chief has reportedly been unwilling t.o puL this in writing because of the existence of the Texcls sodomy laws, currently being reviewed by the St.ate Supreme Court, ) The ire deparment had never asked questons about sexual orientation during the recruitJ.ng process and had thus never really experienced a "change." The police department, on the other hand, had until recenLly asked detailed quesEions about sexuaf orienEatsion of all-l prospective recruits but harl dscontinuecl that practice as of f i-c'iaI po1,icy. Bth continued t.o ask prospecEive employees i,f they hacl ever cone anylhing that might
- 120 embarrass the department and posed more specific questions about sexual behavior proscribed by the Texas penal code--questions that were
fn neiLher repeaed during a polygraph required of all recruits, department was this seen as being discriminatory,9 The issue of whether policies were stinulated by external actors or events versus internal ones is acLually more complicated than it would appear, fE is clear that departmenEs lcated in cities where city councils or mayors had imposed non-dscrimination policies were responding to external pressures. In contrast, Houston's changes were Eaken in Lhe absence of such external prompts. However, catalyzing factors were invariably internal as weLl as external. Where formal policies exisbed, they were typically on the books Long before any kind of aggressive implementaLion actuaJ-1y occurred, Usua11y, real change came in response Eo internal developmenEs--a change in leadership, a readiness Lhat developed out of nteractions with the homosexual communiLy on community relations issues, broader changres in the communit.y-at-large, or more occasionafly, pressure from homosexuals within the depart.menE. Changes in Houston, while seemingly internally driven, were clearly Laken in response L.o informaJ- pressure from both Lhe mayor's office and representatives of the homosexua] community, who urrently meet monLhly with the chief.
CoNSEQUENCES OF
NoN-DTSCRIMTNTION POLTCY
the conseguences of ntroducing poLicies making it possible for acknowledged homosexuals tq serve in police and fire departmenLs? VJe focused our att.ention on three levels: (1) the behavior and responses of homosexuals, includ.ng the number and characteristics of people who "come ouL., " the factors that influence Lhis process, Lhe naLure of their experiences, the extent. to which they pursue a homosexual politicaL agenda, and whether Lhey serve in leadership rol-es; (2) the attibudes and behavior of heterosexuals, including wheL.her Lhey accept homosexuals and Lhe nature of their concerns regarding working with acknowledged homosexual colleagues and
What were
9Homosexuafs were
present in both clepartmenEs despite these
obsLacles.
-l2r(3) the functioning of the insLitution. including whether, from the point of view of members wiLhn Ehese departments, integration of acknowJ.edged homosexuals in the workforce can ]re achieved withou[ adverse effects on force effectiveness, recruitment, or retenLion'1C These issues have been highLighted in pubic discussions of allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S' military.
The Experiencea and Reeponsea of Homosexuale
acknowTedge Eheir homosexuaf ity once a poTicy change occurs? Homosexuals differ from African-Americans, women, and others who have sought equal status in traditonalIy white, mal-e-dominated police and fire departmenEs in that ther outgr,oupll sLatus is not selfevidenE. While feflow officers may suspect them, such suspicions cannot usualy be confirmed until homosexual-s actually acknowledge their homosexuality, It is worth examining wheLher and the extent o which
Io what extenl- do they
they make such an acknowledgment following the implementation of policies aimed at enhancing their ability to do so: If only a few disclose their homosexuality, any problems their presence miqht create vJ11 be comnensurably small and Lhus more manageable' fn considering the issue of how many homosexual- police officers and firefighters have publicly acknowledged their homosexuality within their deparEments, it i-s importanL to recognize that "coming out" is not a single action taken by an individual. Instead, it is a process lhat rt begins wiLh usua.ly occurs in stages over long periods of time. and tends to be followed personal acceptance of one's sexual orienbatj.on first by disclosure to members of the homosexual conununity and to trusted heterosexual memlers of one's social network. only later, in most cases, does it involve a more casual and public acknow.edgment of
10As we sLated earfier, the terms of the analogy Leave some of these observaLions more usefu to considerations of removing the resricion aqainsE homosxuas in,the military Ehan oLhers. Ve include the conclusions of these departrenLg on force effectveness rvhile rcgnzing thaL they may not speak directly to the military experience. 11The term "outgroup" is used here in iLs traditional sense and should not be misEaken as a reference to homosexuals who have openly declared their homosexualitY'
1))
being homosexual. This means that homosexuals can acknowledge their homosexuality in certain arenas of Leir 1ives, such as their circle of friends, but not in oLhers, such as fheir falnilies or heir workplace' fb also means that within a seLting such as the workpace, Lhey can acknowledge their homosexr-a,l ity co some olleagues, such as other homosexuals vith whom they work or their cfosesL heterosexual co).leagues, but not to others' The estimates of numbers of homosexual members of police and fire departments that follow reflect the endpoint of this process--the broader and more public acknowJ,edgment of sexual orientation chat invoLves widespread knowleclge of this orienLation throughout the workplace. Ho\^/ever, acclitional- individuals may disclose their sexual orientation to each other or to a selecEed group of heterosexuals ' we had contact with many of these individuals, most often Ehrough the confidenLial homosexual fraternal organiza!lons described earlier' Their perspective gave us insights into the concerns of homosexuals who have not made their sexuaf orientaEion known as they weigh a decision to
publicly disclose their status as homosexuaLs' Acrossafloftheclepartmentsweexamined,exceedinglyfew homosexuafs announced their homosexualily, despite the exisLence of policj-es that codify their right to serve (see Table 4-4) ' This was especially pronounced in the fiVe fire,,departments, where no male who was currently on any force had acknwledged his homosexuality and where acknowledged lesbians were found in only two. While there was general arrareness that far more homosexuals were serving than were of f icialJ-y known in each of the qeparEments we examined, j.n no department did the percentage of openly homosexual officers exceed 0.5 percenL and the median value was 0.03 percent of Lhe tolal force. Heterosexual and homosexuaL members of Lhese departments alike predicted that this would eventually change, however sJ-ow1y. At Ehe time of the l-nterviews, however, homosexual offj.cers remained overwhelmingly reluctant to al"low their homosexuality to become public knowledge, even where leaders in their- departments were actiwcly cncouraging them to decLare themselwes '
8able 4-A Numlcer and Percentages of ope Homogexuals l"n tshe Po1lce and Fire Departmentg of Six Citsieg Total Force
ci
Number
Open
,7
of
Est imat ed
rnst i Lu Police
cir
Chicago
Housfon
Homosexual
0
'1
12
,209 4,100
Los Angeles New York San Diego Seattle
't ,7 00
Prevalenc 0.068 0.00t 0.098

0 .3 68
28,000 1,300 1.300

?00 2, 900
L
-100
_.
0.25S
2
0 0 0 0
0.158
Fire
Chicago
Houston
0.00t 0.00t
0.008 0.00s
Los Angeles
New York
3, 200
San Diego*
Seat t le i
11, 300 845

7
I
5
0.12*
0.5lt
*Al_1 0pen1y homosexual
firefighters
in Lhese cities were
women.
As indicaCed earlier, far more homosexuals were known to each other and selected heterosexual members of their departmenEs. some of these individuals were members of conficlenLial homosexual fraternal organizations, In one deparLment, for insLance, only seven individuals had acknorvledged Eheir homosexuality Lo their department, lcub more than 40 belonged to a homosexual fratsernal organization of deparEmenf
members.Moreover.ineverycity,homosexua]'officersknewofother groups. homosexual- memJers of the force who had opted not !o join such eiLher for fear of being identified or for l-ack of inEerest. There is no way of precisely estimat.ng how many homosexuals are actually serving in Ehese deparLments because peopl-e can successfully keep their sexual orienLaLion hidden. It is thus impossible to estimaLe what proportion of homosexuals declare their orientation'
What are Ehe factors LaE jnfluence this process? perhaps one of the most salient factors thaL influences wheLher homosexual police officers or firefighLers make their sexual orientation
their departments is hovr Ehey perceive their work cjmaEe. A marked deqree of variabion vras apparent both etween and wit'hin each of
known Eo
-124lhe deparEments we examined j'n the messages sent to homosexuals regarding the reception Lhey woul.d get if they acknowledged their homosexuality. This variation coul-d be observed along many dimensions, forexample'acrossanc]withinthehierarchica]].evelsofan organizaLion--beEveen high-J-evel managers. who displayed varying degrees of conmitment to enforcing a policy of nondiscrimination and creating a hospitable environment for homosexuals; mid- and ow-level managers. whose decisions mosL directly affected homosexual officers on a day-today basis and whose tone and attitudes set the boundaries of allowabLe behavior among the rank-ancl-file; ancl individual patrol officers or firefighters, where attitucles ran the gamut from sErongly antihomosexual to strongly pro-homosexual- ' Differences in climate were also apparenE between police and fire departments. The close Living quarters and heavily conformist culture associated with firehouse life, as well, as Lhe insul-arj.ty of fire deparLmenLs from the growing acceptance of homosexuals in many urban communities, created a vastly more hosLile environmenL. In police departments, political pressures Lo serve the homosexual communty more effectiveLy often resulted .j.n cliversiLy'training and an ncreased avareness of the need to conLrol, ne'gat,ive behaviors toward homosexuals, if not a heightened sensitivity to homosexualiLy. Differences in cl-imate were likewise apparent across gender J-ines, wiLh !'romen being far less likely than men Lo viev homosexuality as being offensive, troublesome, and threaLening. In acldition, the climaEe with regard to lesbians was consisLently more tolerant than wih regard o homosexual men, parcicularly from Ehe vantage point of het.erosexual- maLes' It was lhus far easier for women to publicly acknowledge their sexual : orientaLion Ehan for men. HomosexuaL officers made it cl-ear thaL they carefully attend Eo the messages Lhey receivecl on each of these levels, assessing how each conLribubed to the workplace environment' In general, the more hostile lhe environment, Ehe less likely it was that people publicy acknowledgecl their homosexrral t-y, Mor:e people have declared their sexual orienbation in clepartments that have aqgressively pursued a policy of non-cliscrimination bhan in departments characterized by
-r25More people have declared their or benign negfect. in the relativel.y more toferanE c1lmate of police sexual orientation departments than in fire departments. fn addiEion, far more lesians Homosexuals than homosexual men acknowledged Lheir sexual- orj-entation. to be public about their sexual orienEation if they v/ere far more likely pervasive hostiliEy worked in setEings within a cleparLment known to be more accepting of homosexuals. Indeed, several police officers who were "out" noted LhaL from they had acknowledged their homosexualiEy only after transferring to less hosL1e work precincts where anti*homosexual sentimenL was high in clegree nocwithsCanding, our observations indicate Ehat mos of Ehese pol,ice and fire cleparcments can be characLerized as being overLIy, and in some cases ex!remely, hostile toward homosexual-s. Nonpolicies have noL magically transformed these departments discrimination into basEions of tol-erance and restraint ' The derision with which
homosexuafs are viewed by many members of these forces manifests
environments . Variation
itself
on a daily basis in the workplace' Epithets such as "fag" and "dyke" and disparaging commenLs about homosexual-s are commonplace. as are cornenLs Ehat dispJ,ay cisregard for the lives and human righs of homosexuaf men and women. According Eo the peopl-e interviewed, Ehese provide constanL and Lroulrling reminders to homosexuals who have noE yet publicty acknowl,edgecl their homosexuality of the disda j"n rvith whlch homosexuals are viervecl by many of those \^rith whom they work and upon \,rhom they depend. even in departments where Given Lhe persisbence of these attitudes, pursued, unacknowledgied attempts at change are actively being homosexuals harbored serious fears abouE Lhe conseguences of revealing their
AE a most }:asic level. they worried abouE their homosexuality. be abLe were reasonably convinced they would still While most safety. Lo count on Lhe support of Eheir fellow offcers n lj.fe-Lhreatening it was not unusual to hear people express worries about situations, back-up, placing in doubE something they need to t-ake for granEed in order to effectiwe1y lrerfor-m their: jobs. They also worried abouL their careers, wondering if the knovrJ.edge haL they are homosexual might subtly color evaluations and hurt their chances of promotion. They knew
-126that at the very Ieast acknowleclging their homosexuality could entai] beng socially ostracized. They feared not being treated as "one of the crowd"; that peopJ.e woul-d talk behind ther backs; that previously comfortable sociaL interacEions woul-d suddenly become awkward; that they would be excluded from the camaraderie thaL Lypifies the smlI groups j-n which they work; Ehat they would be subjected to mean-spirited pranks such as having their locker painted pink or being barraged wiEh anonymously deLivered AIDS LiEerature. It j.s Lhus hardly surprising thaL most reached the conclusion that not going public, despite the personal EoII it exacted, was preferable to acknowledging bheir homosexuality Eo their departments. Other facors beyond the negaLive attitudes of Lhose rvith whom Chey work also influenced homosexuals' decision to make public their sexualorientation. We r,rere told that unacknowledged officers were ofEen sEill engaging in a personal struggle to become comfortable wiLh their homosexuality, having internalized the stigma Lhat society pl,aces on it. These individuals \^rere noL. at a point where they fell ready Lo Others were quite acknowledge Eheir sexuaL orientation pullicly' comfortable rvj.th their sexuafity but felt that their sexuaL orientation was no one's business buL their own. Many just wanted to do their job and worried that public knowledge of Lheir sexual orientation would make them "gay" officers or firefighters, wiEh al] the noEorj.ety thaE such a status impliecl. st.iLI others felc E.hey couLd "come out" at work without substanEial discomfort buL were loath to do so because Lhey had not yet told their families of their homosexuafity, or because they had relatives on Lhe force whose lives would become more compficated because of Eheir discosure. Yet others felt thaL "vaiting until they had greater rank woul-d make disclosing their sexual orientaLion easier. Acts of harassment against a superior rvould be viewed as insubordinatj.on, and such overt threats to di.scipline and command would be viewed by the top brass of these departments as a far greater threat than homosexuality. funong Lhose rvho did acknowledge. Lheir homosexual.ty. several factors were cited as conLributing to their decision. Many sensed a readiness of those around them bo accepta homosexual in their midst.
-r21Many had
already told their parLners and in some cases their supervisors, thereby testing the waLers' Some had observed the experj,ences of others and felt reassured that t.hey could publicly acknowledge homosexuality without serious consequences--thaE back-up was there; that it was possible Eo move up through the ranks'' still get reasonable assignments, ancl not get their lockers dumped out' Most felt themselves bo e personally well-suited Lo bhe challenge of blazing a trailfortheirmorereLicenEcountelparts,eitherbecauseEheyfelt comfortable with themselves and their sexual orienEation, because they had the social skills Eo smooLh over whaL tensions mighE exist, or because their reputations as excellent. officers plotected them from the condemnation that those who had noc yet proved themselves might face ' sEj,ll others felt iL important to be accepEed for who they were and felt that the strain of aggressively hiding Lheir homosexuality was far more costlythantheconsequencestheymightfacebyVjrtueofapublic
acknowledgment.
what are the actuaT e,vperience s of Chose who have acknovtledged their itY? Given the risks invol"ved in a public acknowledgment, the decision to do so was rarely macle without careful deliJreracion and considerabLe
homosexual
fear'onepoliceofficer,forinstance,describedpublicly acknovrledgiing his homosexuality as a far more frightening momenL than anyLhing he had experlenced in his many years of police work and was convinced Lhe event woulcl be caEaclysmic: "I expecLed the world wouLd sLop spinning and fall of f .i,ts axis. " ,In reality, most people who publicty acknowJ.edged their homosexuality reporCed that the consequences of doing so were far less clire Eharr they or their unacknowldged counterparEs feared. Each faced some degree of hostility, but this typical-ly took the form of offensive remarks or epitheEs. Pranks were occasionally reported, but back-up (with rare exceptions) could be relied on and overt viofence was virtualLy unheard of' Most were socially accepted and even applauc]ed for their courage,. where they were not, social disruptions clid not get in the way of Lher dolng an effective job. Many spoke of the frustraEion of having to prove themseLves over and over again with each transfer !o a new assignmenL,
-128-
but
in their ability to do so and believed that acknowlecging Lheir sexual orientafion had enablecl them bo perform their Many beleved it mproved their work duEies more effectively.i2 environment, since people who had previously feLt comforEable expressing antj.-homosexua] sentimens in their midst felt constrained by their public status from doing so, at least j-n their presence. IsolaEed examples of more serious and threatening hostility do exist. For insLance. an officer who had generally lceen viewed as a model policeman on bhe fasL brack before knowledge of his homosexualiLy became known ul-timate-y left his departmenE and filed suit against it after a protracLed series of inciclents left him fearing for his Life. Fell-ow officers engagec n hostile pranks, such as seratching threatening messagfes inLo his car, solicited a false accusation from a suspect that the officer had inappropriaLely strip-searched him, and ultimaLely failed to adequately responcl to cal-ls for back-up. EqualIy telling is an example suggestj.ng that the experience of dealing vrith quieter forms of harassmenL can exact a significant personal tolI over time. An acknowledged homosexual and wel-1-respected police officer recenEly lefE his departmen! ciE'ing his unwillingness to cope with dail-y affron!s to his digni|y any onger, However, dire consequences appear to be the exceplion, raLher than bhe rule, among the officers wth whom
mosL had confj-dence
we spoke. where Lhe most serious instances of abuse against acknowledged homosexua officers occurred, the siEuation was usually one in which the offj.cer's homosexualiEy had become public knowledge not by design but by accj-dent--where people had }een "outed," in other words,
Interestingly,
lzThe experiences of Ehese officers may seem to conLradict our Loward homosexuafs exists in these claim that a cLimaEe of hosfility departments. As we stale ]ater in Lhi.s secEion, homosexuals tend to is less pronounced. Also, Lhey come out in precincts where hostiliLy tend to come out after Ehey have proven themselves to be good officers, allowing them to be defined by those who reLain anti-homosexual Eeelings as ,,the excepLion to the rul-e.,, Finally, the anti-homosexual sentiment evidenL in these clepartments often takes Lhe form of negative remarks regardj.ng homose:cualiEy .rnc homosexuals - These, as w poinl .,lt Iater, are not necessarily relaEed to how these officers will behave to someone they know, though homosexual- officers who have noL discl-osed their are noE usually convinced of this' sexuaL orientation
-r29or were mereLy Suspected of being homosexual- in departments where an Where especialLy hostile climate Eoward homosexuals prevailed,l3 themselves were alfowed to exercise their own homosexuaf officers judgment regarding whether public acknowfedgment is wel-I-advised, profems, if Ehey emerged, were usually manageable'
'
Do acknowiedged iomosexuaJ police officers attd firefighEers engaqe in personaT behaviors that are disruptive to their orqanizations? It is an often-cj.ted fear among those anE.cipating the inclusion of homosexuals in work settings like the military or police and fire deparEmenLs thaE homosexuals wiIl behave in ways tha! wj-ll challenge local insEitutional norms and cusLoms, e.9., by engaging in such pracEices as dancing Eogether at departmental functions or sexually harassing heEerosexual members of Lhe force. Evidence to support these fears was very rare. GeneralJ.y speaking, homosexual officers are sensiEive to Lhe climate in which Lhey work, There are occasional exceptions, but the vasL majority behave in ways that are designed to neither shock nor offend. No case of a homosexual male sexualy
harassng a heterosexual male was reported; indeed, the question itself sometimes evoked disbelief amonq those who had actual-Iy worked closely with homosexual.s that such an event mlght occur. Occasj.onal reports were offerecl by commancling officers o:f lesbians harassing heterosexua women--staring at them in Lhe :locker room or making unwelcome sexual conments, These were saicl to be rare, far more rare than incidents of heerosexual men harassing vJomen. Public displays of affection were even more unusuaf; officers overwhelmingly conformed Eo established convenLions regarding professionalism while in uniform' A few officers repored brj.nging same-sex partners to social functions, but only where it had been assumed th.rb this wouLd either ):e accepted or would serve as a nudge, rather than a hard push, againsb Lhe established social order. MosE either avoided clel:arEment functions or aLcended bhem al-one, but
13In departments where hostitity toward homosexuals was parLicularly sLrong, it was reported that individuals suspected of iromosexualty a:-'e f r:eguently harassed, heEerosexual man who had reen subjeccecl to persstent harassment because of such suspicions v'as one of several litiganes in a recently seLLled faw suit againse one of lhe police departments examined.
- 130 even Lhose who includecl their partners at Eimes commented that. there urere environmenEs in which they would choose noE Co do so. A homosexual lieutenan cornented that while he couLd readily bring a partner to New York Police Department funcEionsr he would not consider doing this were In his opinion, Ehe NYPD is not an environmenL bhae he in the military. bo homosexuals; the military is' is overEly hostile Another way in which Ehe behavior of homosexual police officers and firefighters mighL inadvertently strain the organizaLions in which they work relates to how they react to Lhe sometimes daily instances of
personaL harassmenE Ehey face. A predisposition to aggressively file formal compl.aints regardng each incident of harassment coul-d quickLy overwhelm the systems in place to deaL with Lhese problems and exact further demands on scarce resources, In reality, formal complaints are
A strong cultural emphass is evident wiEhin both police and fire departmenLs on working ouE problems within Ehe ranks and not informing on a peer. Homosexual officers have internal-ized this norm. In the words of one officer, "Being a rat is 1000 times worse than being called a fag." Mosb develop Lhick skins and either ignore or deflect the harassmenb Lhey experience. Those i\ho turn Eo Ehe chaj.n of cornmand tend to do so informally, reaching out Lo a supervisor for assistance on the condition that he or she keep the complaint confidential. Usually, the goal is to end or contain the offensive behavior not to punish the offendj.ng parLy. FormaI complaints are invariably acts of desperaLion and are usually brought only against those whose behavior is recognzed as going far beyond what most heterosexuaf officers r,vould consider accepLable. Even in the New York PoIice DeParEmenL, where acknowledged homosexuals are at LeasL 100 sLrong and have an esLabished political presence within the departmenE, only four complainEs of discrimination based on sexua oientation have been lodged over the last three
rare,
years
. 14
l4Another val-ue Eo which firefighLers in particu.ar subscribe is that one should never brJ-ng embarrassnent. or negative attention to the firehouse group. The onJ,y openly homosexual (retired) male firefighter wj-th whom we spoke talked about taking pains L.o ensure that his public discussions of his homosexuafity never made reference Lo the firehouse in which he worked for Lhis very reason.
1?1
WhaEarethecharacterjsticsofho:llosexuaTswhojoinpoTiceandfire capacity? deparEmenEs? Can they serve n a Tead'ership military and Many who contemplate Lhe effect of opening paramilitary organizaLions !o homosexual-s worry that stereotypic will compromise Ehe image of homosexuals, parLicularly effeminaEe men' theirfor'ce.ThedemeanorofhonosexualofficersinE'hepoliceandfire concerns have litLle basis departments we vj-sitecl suggested that such virLuaf ly inclisEinguishable from because homosexua] individual",t"t: men were their heterosexual peers' Imost unilaterally' homosexual innocuous in reported as )reing, and seemecl Lo us to be' sufficiently pass as heterosexual their behavior ancl appearance to have been able to said one homosexuar of Eime. memlers of the force for rong perods Most gay men who are poLice policeman, "You can't le flaml:oyant' have to look like a officers are probably more on the "butch" side' You policeofficer',,Lesbiansa].sotendedEobeindistinguishablefrom were told by their heLerosexual counterParLs ' Occasional sEories heterosexualpollceofficersofleslianswhocameacrossassomewhat work n Lheir favor both on Ehe beat and "but.ch, " bu. this was saicl to houses' In general' whiLe socializing wibh the "boys" in the precinct thaE those our observations and peopre with whom we spoke suggested drawnEopo}iceworkandfirefightingwereunlikelytomatchstereotypes job at hand' L.hat were inconsistent v'ith the and behaviorally resembling their In addition to physicalty officers and firefighters heLerosexual counterparts, .homosexual police factors Ehat actracted are identical Lo their heLerosexua). peers in Lhe In both cases' many had them Eo the organizations in which Ehey work' alwaysassumedtheywouldbemem]ersoftheforcestheywerein'eiLher in such rvork' because because therr families hacl Lraclitionally engagec simply because of a of childhood fascj.nations rviEh these professions, or desireEoservetheirconmunit'ies.othersciEeclpayandbenefitsasa deparLments with an prime moLivator. No one we spoke bo entered their where job-related eye toward advancing a homosexual agenda' fndeed' passion wac expressecl, it tended to reflect a stronger identificaLion than a nember of the wi.Lh being a police offj'cer or a firefighter
-132'
For some, this was only a job, but mosC believed in Eheir work, believed strongly in Lheir departmenEs' and As one fire chief wanLed to be good police offcers or firefighters. staLed, "Anyone who is atLrcted Eo this profession is a benevolent person who wants to save lives and property' This is true acrss any
homosexual community.15
group.
"
As for performance, Ehere was no:quesEion that homosexua] members of these departments could clo Lheir jobs adeguately,16 Each had passed hisorherdeparEment,srigorousscreening,hadsuccessfullycompleted training, ancl was currently carrying out his or her assigned duties' If
anything'therewasageneralsenseamongbothleadershipandpatrol officers Lhat homosexuals who have publicly acknov.rledged bheir sexual orienLaEion tend to be overachievers, perhaps because of the constant only an demand imposed on Ehem Lo prove themsel-ves, perhaps because to advance unEarnished record coulcl allow an acknowledged homosexual within the ranks, several, inclucing hi.g)r-1eve1 chief s, vJere convinced that if sexual. orienEation wer a matter of record' an empirical comparison of the performance of heterosexuals and homosexuals would place homosexuals in a positi-on of advantage' There was general consensus, aL leasE among the leadership of poli-ce departments, thaL cespite Ehe overa].]. climates of hostility toward homosexuafity that remained pervasive in their organizaEions, it was possib}e for homosexua]s to Serve in positions of leadership, provided that Lhey were weIl-respecLed for Lheir polce work and were equiLable managers. challenges to their authority because of Lheir homosexua}iEywerealwaysaEhreaL'However,theabilityofhomosexual leaders Lo serve was faciLitated by the structure of their paramlitary ttftr,""s as hard for some of these officers Eo explain Lo their homosexual friencls why Lhey wanLecl to be police officers as it was Lo explain to heterosexual rolice officers why homosexuals might wanL to join the deparLment ' l6perfor^.rr.. went to |,he hearL of Lhe controversy surrounding the inEegration of I'vomen irrto poJ.ice'and fir'e departments and to Lhe resenEment that accompaniec uheir inclusion, especially where performance stanclarcls hacl been lowered Eo alIow Eheir inclusion or whet-e rt was noL an ih"y *.r. hired despite a lower rankinq on a hiring tist. for ej.ther the leaders or heterosexual issue with regard Lo homosexuals members of the rank-ancl-file with whom we spoke'
- 133 organizations, which featured strict guidelines for how one treats an officer, a strong value on maintaining discipline and respecting counand, and a thick ruLe )ook that couLd be utilized when people sEepped out of 1ine. rn facL, where homosexuaLs had reached positions of leadershj-p, such punitive actions were rarely needed. In Ehe same r/ay EhaE homosexuafs clicl noL go public until there \tas a readj-ness for them Lo acknowledge their homosexuality, they did not make their tIay up the ranks nor were they placecl in.posj.Lions of commatrd UnLil there was a reacliness on the parg of the leadership of the organzation to support them and a reacliness, or at least a near-reacliness, on the part of the rank-and-file to foll-ow Ehem.iT In this regard, it is worth pointing out Ehe one exception that we founc to Lhe general rule thaE homosexual feaders were able Eo command effective.y. This occurred in a police department known Lo harbor parEicularly virulent attitudes toward homosexuals, where a sergeant who had never inlended to reveal his sexual orientation was "outed" as a result of a chance off-duty
occurrence.
The Respongeg and concerns of Heterosexuals
To what exent do hecet-osexual. poJice officers and firefighters accept s who acknowledge Eheir sexua.l orjenLaLion? Are they willing and abTe Eo work with then? s the discussi.on of the hostile climate within each of the departments makes c1ear, negative atUibudes Eoward homosexuals do noL mraculously clisappear once a policy of nondiscrimination is enacted' Anti-homosexual aEtitucles arelrea in Ehese cepartments. These attitudes. however, are not uniformly held eiLher across or wibhin the Settings we examinecl. Indeec, among those who have acfuaIIy worked with homosexuaLs, there are signs of more accepting attiEudes that, according t.o those in leadership, have been groling steadily over Eime'
homosexua.l
to only Ewo officers There with some degree of rank--one a sergeant, the oEher a Lieutenant' olher examples, and respondents cited these in concluding Lhat were lead. couLd effectively homosexuaf officers
homosexuals were acknowleclged, we spoke directly
17This asserLion is based on limited
data'
Because so few
- 134 one heEerosexual woran whose sguad car partner was a lesbian arrived aL a focus group meeEing with a button proclaiming her commitment to gay righLs. Many straight officers in a varieLy of contexts voiced the belief chaE a person's sexual orientation was immaterial to them. Bobh heterosexual and homosexuaf officers confirmed
lhat homosexuaLs were freguencly, even ir not consistenLly, included in Homosexuals made reference Eo the support off-duEy social activities. they received from individual coJ-leagues when bhey acknowledged their homosexualiLy and Lo Lheir surprise at both Lhe sErenqth and, in some cases, the source of that support. More than one LoLd sEories of coworkers who, upon learning they rvere homosexual, reassured them of their own comforb with Lhe person's sexual orienlation but warned them thaL oEhers woul.d have a harcl Lime,.only to,have those others pull them aside and say the same thing. In oLher words, Lhese members of thej'r departmenEs enclorsed the notion of pervasive anti-homosexuaL aEtiLudes, but each saw himseLf or herself as an exception to Ehat rule' Even heterosexuaf officers who expressed }ess positive attitudes loward their homosexual co)-leagues ofLen adhered to a strong ethic of professionalism bhat allowed them to work smooEhly with homosexuals in spite of their personal feelings. who one went to bed with, however objecti-onab1e, was less imporLant Lo..these officers than whether a person performed well on the job; good officers, they believed, "judged each other as cops." For these officers, getting the job done was paramount.lS They mace a poinb of not allowing any personal animosity they might feel toward homosexuals Eo interfere wiLh their mission or lhe overall goals of their department. They expected back-up when they needed it and respondec immediately to others when they requested it, regardJ.ess of how t.hey felt about ther, Not responding to a call because an officer vas homosexual or dLsmissing hj.s or her performance
whose homosexualiLy had been common firefighter he v,as sLationecl n a firehouse cornrnented Ehat he worked with 60 men of whom 20 wouldn't give him the time of day, 20 were Before and after a fire, he cordial, and 20 were his best friends' Volunteered, anti-homosexual senEimenE exisEed, bUtr during Ehe flre Ehey worked togeEher as f they were best buddies'
knowJ"edge while
lBA reti-red
- 135 because of sexual orientat-ion wenE against every principle they believed
t-n . *-
The apparent contradiccion between descriptions of the antihomosexual climaEe of Lhese departments provided bo us and the positive experiences that some of Ehe acknowJ-edged homosexual officers reported suggests thaE the attiLucles and behaviors of heterosexual members of these departmenLs are compex and sometimes counEerintuitive' while strong negative and positive messages were loth evidenE to varying degrees across and within departments, much of what bhese officers
offered defies simplistic cabegorization. It was not unusual for officers to advance seemingLy conLradicLory sEatements or behave in conEradicLory ways as they Eriecl Lo reconciJ.e strongly felt buE inconsistent values. For instance, heterosexual officers could insisb that Lhey v/ere offencecl by Ehose who felt it necessary to share Lheir sexual orientation buL express anger and hurt Lhat a Lrusted partner might withhold such inormation. Nor was it unusual to find evidence lhat vhat officers said in one context might differ i-n anolher, In this regard, j.t is worEh pointing out thaE some members of a group of heLerosexual officers who espousec highly chargecl and negaLive attitudes toward homosexuals in a focus group discussion reminded us tha the aLtitudes people proclaim before the judging eyes of ther peers may differ from the opinions they actually hold'20 Even more importanE, ic was clear that how people behave is noE necessarily consistent with Lhe.attitudes they profess. There are counLless exampfes of bhis, such as the many heterosexuals who insist they respecL homosexuals J:ub continue to make derisve comments about them. No statement coulcl be more telling or surprising, however, than the reflections of an officer who aotively participated in a highly damning discussion of homosexualty on Lhe force--one that even included
l9This eLhic of professionafism was usualy expressed where It heterosexua officers hacl ctualIy worked wit.h homosexual offj.cers. was ofLen present even where expressions of anti-homosexual sentiment were typicaL and an overclll climate of hos!iIiEy in the department-atlarge ex j.sted. ?0our experience was consistent wiLh this observation: One-on-one j.nterviels clid yield less-pronouncecl negative views on homosexuality'
136 -
slow' sLatements suggesting thaE back-up for known homosexuals might be is a gay Toward the end of a long evening, Ehis man volunteered: "There officer here that we all work with , 'If he were about to clie. and I had get to perform CPR, I'd ProbablY hold my breath and do ic. Then I'd I f I see someone down. I will take care tested for the resL of mY life' of them. Probably everyone would. Life is something more than a series
of probabilitY curves." l,.lha: concerns are voied by heterosexuaT poTice and f iref ightets, particufarTy those who have had experi ence wiLh homosexuaL colTeagues? For insance, hout saliertE are concerns over privacy? HM While privacy vas often voiced as a strong concern by police
officers and firefighters who hacl no worked cJ.osely with homosexualcolfeagues, it was not a very salrent issue for those rvho had' This latter group admi.ttedly dic not include firefighters (whose experiences are far more comparabLe to t.hose of military service members), since no acknovrledged male homosexuals served n the fire departments we examined. PoIice officers and Eheir leaders, who were quick Eo notse that. they neiLher had to live wth heir colleagues nor necessarily had Lo shower with them, confessed Lo some intia] discomfort in communal locker rooms but reportecl that whatever tension existed l'as managed quickty ancl relatively easiJ.y, either by acclimacing to the situation or by changing it--moving one,s locker, for instance, or subtly changing one,s schedul,e to avoicl unwanted encounters. while some continued to worry abouE being ogec1 in Lhe Locker room, others--mosL pointedly Ehose working in a precinct wiEh several homosexual males--rejected the notion Lhat anyEhing unt.oward woulcl occur. "Guys there wouldn'E act unprofessionally.,, Ehey assert.ed. while women \{ere genera}Iy thought to be less concerned wiEh locker room issues, privacy was said to be more of an issue for female officers than for male officers because of what vas referred to as the more aggressive' naLure of Lesbians, These commenLs were uniformly seconclhand, having been reported by heterosexual
men
rather than
women themselves.2l
r''According to male leaclership in several departmenEs, privacy was --an issue when women fi-rst enEered firehouses buE usually noL for long. nterestngly, iE was not concern of males/ li;ho reportedly comporLed
-r31concerns with regarcl to HIV were fa stronger. I,Jhile in many cases, these concerns were aE.IeasE partially mitigated by the training officers received in order to effectively carry ouL their duties (i.e.,
sLandard practices for dealing with situations involving contact with bodily fluids in the case of police officers; emergency rnedica service Eraining in the case of firefighL.ers), concerns that the presence of
homosexual- males
in the workplace would raise one's personal risk of contracting AIDS ran high. We hearcl police officers raise the question of whether Ehey would provicle emergency firsE aid to felLow officers known to be homosexual. we heard firefighters express fears that exposure to the virus through shared clishes or use of baEhrooms might expose them to risk, and a general Ievel of suspicion that AIDS is more easily transmj.tted than common knowledge would have one beLieve' we also learnecl from one department of a lawsuit broughL by an HIV+ firefl-ghter who agreecl to Lake a deLail outside of a firehouse after knowledge of his HIV status became public, but subsequently clained to have been coerced. This inciclent generated much concern among not only rank-and-fie but a high-J-evel Leader of Ehe department whose son-in-Law the top brass of Ehe deparLment worked in thaL firehouse. It'left believing that wj-thout Ehe AIDS issue, homosexual men could be inbegrated into firehouses vtithout threatening operational effectj.veness. buL thaE given the strong link between AIDS and mal-e homosexuality, probtems would be inevitabfe. "I think f'd have a massive educat. j-on probJ.em, " one leader of this department of fered' "People woutd be hurt unLi-I they learned iL has to be this way'" in the presence of women as they had prior Eo their enLry-sleeping in Lher underwear, and so forth. Rather, it was a concern for female firefighters, rvho by necessiLy shared bathrooms and open dormitories with their male counterparLs. Locks solved the problem of men walking into a bathroom l:eing used by a woman. women temporarily used screens ancl other improvised vrays of creaL,ng privacy but these d-sappeared guickly in most places after wonen decj.ded they were inconvenient and unnecessary. One woman commenled that faced with Ehe discomfort of sleeping wiEh a bra under a t-shirt, she quickly learned to puE aside her feelings of modesty. In other departments, however, women saw privacy issues as an ongoing problem and a prime source of
hemselves harassment
-
- 138 Perhaps Ehe mosE sharply expressed concern on the part of rank-andffe members of Lhese cleparEments, however, was the fear that homosexual-s rvould achieve--incleed, in some instances had achieved-speciaJ- class status, This issue spontaneously emerged in each of our
focus groups with heEerosexual- rank-and-fiIe officers, mosL of whom were white and male. OuLrage was consistently voj'ced at the possibility that homosexuals might be disproportj'onately hired, receive specia promotional opportunites, be held to a lower standard, or be afforded special class proEeccions (such as unique procedural pathways for J-odging complainEs), These individuals aready felL hampered in their interactions with minoriLies and women because of the perception tshat such individuals could lodge formal complaints against them regarding behavior they themselves felt was harmless--LhaL these groups had power over them because of Eheir special proLection under the law. They aJ.so perceived themselves as experiencing,the sting of reverse discriminaLion rvith regard to women and minoriLies wiLhin Eheir organizations and bibEerly resenled it. The last thing they wanted to see was another protected cl-ass. In the words of one firefighter, "I have acquaintances who work in dispatch with gay males and lhey clon'! have a problem with iL. If Ehey were in the crew and could do their job, it would be okay, But when the gay group gets inlo place, they'11 have special access, just like Lhe oLher groups. There's no special committee for regular people. So many others geL special atbention that the voices of regular people like us are drownec out:.
To what extenE are negaEive aEtitudes Coward holosexual.s subject to change? How does Ehis change occur? As indicated earlier, rhere was a genera sense among Ehose in both leadership and rank-ancl*file roJes in the poice and fire departments we examined that change js occurring with regard Eo che ateitudes of
heterosexual officers and firefighEers t.oward homosexuals, but Ehat such change i-s occurring slowly. Many offered the'prediction Lhat twenty years from now far more homosexuals would be acknowledging their sexual orenEaEion and EhaE many of ghe seemi-ngIy ntracLcble rrolers thats currently exisLecl woulcl be solved. as had a"ready occurred with regard to the integraEion of mj.norities and ivas currently occurring wiEh Lhe
- 139 integration of women, In the meanLime, leaders asserted that members of their departmenEs had Lhe pelsonal righE to believe whatever Lhey wanted aslongastheyactedinwaysthatwereconsisEentwithdepartment expectaEions- Anti-homosexual attitudes coufd le toferated, they offered, as long as they dicl noL manifest Lhemselves in behavior' said one chief , ,, I don,t l^rant to be. in a position of telling people how to Ehink. It is more valuable to leL people know how to direct Lheir behavior whlte on the job." Leaders felt it possible Eo be patient wiLh the slow pace with which atEiEudes change. Behavioral change, on the other hand, cou].d be made to happen inmediately in these paramilitary organizaui.onswiEhEhepropermessageproperleadership'andeffec!ive
enforcement
.
valuable by-proclucL of clemanding nondiscriminatory conducE toward homosexual offcers, Ieaclers believed, was that attitudinal change would eventually resulL: ,,change their behavior, " said one, "and their hearts and mncls will- folIow.,' This was not the only factor nfluencing attitudinal change, however. The inclusion of younger, betLer educated cohorts of officers with more Lo.leraut views of homosexuality was repeatedly mentioned in discussions of attitude change' as was the simple passage of time','You constanLly hear macho people saying"I'm one fire chief' noL going to Lol-erate gays in the firehouse,"'offered ,In the 60s, people claimecl that they wouldn't sleep. in a room wiEh black guys, and look at things now. Things evo.Ive and take care of themseIves.,. Also mentionecl was the process thaL eLevates one's sLaLus as a police officer or firefighter Lo a higher level of importance Ehan one,s status as homosexual, a transformaion that usually occurred after a particularly competent or heroic handling of a dangerous situaeion' Corunented one commancler, "Over Lime. if sLraight cops accept the individual, the facE that they are gay or lesbian l>ecomes inconsequential. If a gay officer becomes invoLved in a police incident
and proves his worLh, he Jeaves the i.ealm of 'them'and becomes an
- 140 -
potent But by far, posi Eive co)-tlact was'.poinLed to as the mosE to know determinanE of aEtiEudinal change,22 Given the opportunity homosexuaf colleagues and thereby test the sEereoCypic images' understanding of heterosexuaL men and women could arrive at a different one deputy poll-ce chief offered' "I don'L want someone homosexuality. wj-th making advances on me and I have my own prejudices ' But contacE process of initial gay leaders in the business community during Ehe changehe}pedSLarttobreakc]owntheStereoEypeslhad.,,Homosexua]. in turningr officers concurred thab contact coulcl be the pivotal factor .,Most people don,t know someone who is gay. arounc] negative attiEucles. and Once they geL Lo know someone who is gay' the negative attitudes behavj-orsstartEobreakciown'Peopleareamazedtofindoutyouhavea fu]1,we}]-formedlifewiEhasbablepartner,andEhatyou,renotjust Lhat out ]ooking for anonymous sex' IE's not being alcfe to be honest afJows the sLereotypes Eo contj-nue"' There was far less consensus on the issue of whether formal change among heterosexual attiLudinal training facilltaLed sensitivity sLrong officers ' Homosexual memJ:ers of theqe departments tended to be would give way to bel.ieving Lhat ignorance advocates of training, knowledge and understanciing if people were exposed to accurate information sensitivity regarding homosexuals' Leaders' Eoo' tended Eo advocaEe and diversity training especially in the earliest scages of
anofficer.scareer,LhoughinpoliceclepartmentsEhiswasusually }recauseasErongvaluewasplacedonofficershavingE'hetoo]-Sthey needed to interact effectiveJ.y with the honosexual community' Heterosexual members of the rank-and-f,i1e of Lhese organizations, however,werefarmoreskeptical'WheretrainingwasnoLpercei.vedas beingdirectlyrelatedtoperformingtheirjob'theytendedtoresenL thaL they perceived as the need to sit through cliscussions of lifestyles immoral or in which they hacl IiLEIe inEerest ' To t-heir way of Ehinking, the integration of sensiEivity training clesigned Lol facilitaLe homosexuals into their forces was the very kind of coddling that
,rS." the chapter on public opinion for informa!ion on public opinion surveys that support Lhe association beLween contact and at.E itudes
-L41signaled special class staEus ,ancl dl-1 [he deleterious consequences that accompanied iL. This was especially che case when such training took place in departments where resources were clearly conscrained. Where people were being laicl off, benefits were being t.hreatened, promotiona opportunities were shrinking, and equpment was not being replaced because of budget shortfalls, training efforts designed to increase tolerance sometimes exacerbated resentment against homosexuals.
The Impact of Policy change on the IngtiutLon To whaE extent djd a poTicy of EoTerance toward homosexua-ls affect the funcEioning; of these police and fire departntents? Djd j E comptomise their abjljty to perfornt Lhejr nrjssjon? Did it nake jL more difficuit to recruiE guality officers? Did it resulE in val,ued menbers of the force Jeaving? It was the shared consensus of leaders across each of Ehe depart.ments we examined that a policy of non-discrimj,naton had in no way compromised their abilitry Eo perform Eheir mission. Admittedly. the
effect. of boLerating openly homosexual, .i.ndividuals had not received an adequate test in any of the deparLments examined, given Lhat so few homosexual officers have "come oLlE"' In oher words, the scale of the phenomenon was such that even if the effec! of open homosexuality were a LhreaL to force performance, its overall effect would be negligible. Where homosexuals had acknowledged their homosexuality, however. leaders denied Ehat their ex.istence constieuted such a threat, In New York, for i.nstance, Lhe Ewo precincts with the highest proportions of acknowledged homosexual officers both enjoyed reputations as well-performing units in which morale was high. Moreover, Ieaders across departments--both top rass and commanclers--uniIaLeralIy believed that members of their departmenLs wouLcl acknowJ.edge Lheir sexual orientaLion in pubJ.ic only in relation to the ability of their units t accept and accommodate them' None anticipatec a threat Lo force effecEiveness at any time in the future, This is not to say that concerns regarding cohesion and morale do not manifest themselves on various levels within many of the departments we studied, especa1ly in fj-re departmenEs. Fire chiefs worried about lhe impact of "AIDS-hysEeria" in firehouses and pointed to the
-142disrupLion hat often accompanied the introclucEion of women into firehouses. FirefighEers in one cicy insisted thaL bhe presence of members of such a revifed ouEgroup would disrupt the smooth functioning of lheir uniL and compromise cheir ability bo perform' In another department (where two Iesbians hawe "come ouL"), fi.refighters emphasized ,,we work with it, we that wha! the Eop brass says is irrefevant, since have to live wiEh iL.,' These firefighEers went on to descrj-be how resentmenL over special class protections affordecl homosexuals and women had so compromsecl morale thaE "we are at a point now that we have seen eamwork and the level" of performance go down'" However.Ij-LtleconsensusexisEedonLherelationshipbetween social cohesion23 and performance. I'lany members of poJ-ice and f ire deparlments, in fact, voicecl Ehe suspicion Lhat cohesion (referring to social cohesion), vhile helpfuJ-, was noc realIy a necessary ingredient Lo accomplishing the work at hand. oEhers ciEed ohesion (referrj-ng to task cohesion)2a as being critically imporLant bu! offered that it was not necessariJ,y threatenecl :y bhe exisLence of people who did noE Iike one another. These vafues were offered not only by leadership but by rank-and-fiIe department members as welL; moreover' they were offered by boLh homosexuaf and heterosexual respondenEs. Professionalism, a shared mission, Lhe cultva!ion of a cornrnon "police persona," and the existence of common exLernal threats were, overa1l, considered far more salient than affective ti-es. Task cohesion, Ehese individuals seemed Eo be saying, was far more imporuant than social cohesion' and Eask ohesion vJas nt as Lhreatenec by the presence of homosexuals on their
forces. As for recruiLment and reEention, neither of these had yet been problemabic nor were they future causes of concern. wiLh regard Lo recruiLment, each of Ehese cleparLmenEs continued to receive far more qualified appLications than they couJ.d possibly accommodate. None lost the ability to be as selective as they deslred; neiLher had any of them
-* ,rs".i"l cohesion, as defined 1n the chapter on uniL cohesion, refers to the nature arrd qualiEy ot the emoE.ionaf bonds of friendslrip, liking, cari.ng, and closeness among group nemlrers' aTask cohesion refers to Ehe shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that requires Ehe coll"ective efforts of the group'
- 143
:
heard of a gualified appl.icanL declining to pursue employment in their departsments because homosexuafs might be there. Experiences with retention were somewhat less unilateral. Occasi-onaI references were made to officers wiLh twenLy-five years who took Eheir retj-rement rather
than adjust to a change. Intheend,itwastheconsensusacrossthe]eadershjpof departments wiLh acknowlecgecl homosexuals that the homosexuals couLd be nLegrated wiEhout compromising mission readiness or effectiveness. This process was not probl'em-free, buE Ehe challenges that arose were eminently manageable, especially given the paramiliEary features of their organzations. All foresaw a future in which far more openly homosexual personnel woul-cl serve on their force,' none saw a future in which t.heir ability to meet Eheir operational goals would be diminished' Concerns regarding the shorL- and long-term effect of integrating prior oub-groups, particularJ-y Ehose wherg individual performance v,ras not an issue, had been shown by past gxperience to be overinflated in Ehese departments. For all of the concerns of some departmentaL members that their forces were straying from traditional standards, those aL Ehe helm remain convinced that they had not. and woul-d not, Iose the high levels of effectiveness they hacl traclit.ionally maintainecl. In the words of one fire chief: "when I startecl firefighting, I heard the oLd Eimers saying, ,The young ones can'E cut it; they could never do whaL we had Eo do., Their time was nore clifficult-rlaclclers were wooden rather bhan aluminum; hoses were heavj,er. In thir eyes we coud never make the mark but we clid our jobs welL-*as well as they did. Now our chj-Idren are coming on, and I have no doubt Ehat they will sits and make the same
judgmentinlwentyyears'Therewi]]bemajorchanges,buEthe firehouse strucEure wilI stiII be Lhere' Females won'E change that; gays won't change that either. !e bas j.cal-Ly attract the same individuals and train ancl molcl them n the same way. The force wil-l'
afways be one we can be Proud of
THE IMPI,EMENTTTON
PROCESS
-"
How the i.mplement-at,ion process unfolded differed
department in the six cj-ties we examj.necl .
Variation
from departmenL to was observed/ for
-L44instance. in the time between the formal initiation of a polj'cy and the aclual process of taking sEeps to put some teeth into that policy. In some cases, that periocl spannecl more than a decade,' in others, it barely exj.sted. Variation v/as aJ.so apparent in hov clearly and consistentl'y conitment to a non-discriminaEion policy was expressed and on how aggressively the policy was implemented. In some departments, highleveI leaders sent mixed messages regarding whether the department actually endorsed such a poJ-j.cy, or they allowed middle-1eve] managers, eiLher by word or deed, to communicate messages thaL were antj-Lhetical to formal policy. In others, leaders bel-ieved Lhey were implemenLing a zero-tolerance poJ-icy buE Lhere rvas cl-ear evdence of pervasive, tolerated discriminaEion. SLiII elsewhere, policies were implemented in ways that suggested Lhat Lhese were legal requirements luL. were not necessarily consistent "vith overal.I department philosophy or actual departmental practice. !,Jhere any of these occurred the message heard by the rank-and-file was that discriminaLion was permissible; the messagfe inEernalized by homosexuals was that publicly acknowledging Eheir homosexuality was j-11-advised. This variatj.on noLwithsEanding, our efforts to understand how domestic police and fire departments implemenEed policies thaL a1low acknowledged homosexuals Eo serve produced a number of insights into factors that influence the mplementation process in boLh posiEive and negative vays, MosL of these 'oserva:Eons were articulated repeaLedly by individuals across the variety of departments visited. A smaller number are based on our own synthesis of the voluminous data provided to us, In this secticrn, we move beyonc corrsequences of non-discrimination policies to summarze what. rve learned about facLors that facilitate and hinder the implementation plocess, and about how the implementaLion process iEself Lends to unfofd.
The Nature of tshe PoIicY Virtually aLI of Ehose int"rviewed agreed Lhat non-d isctimination poTicies vtere most readiTy irnpJertented where they were sjmpJe, c7ear, and consisLent, anc thus easily communicaLed. Complicated poJ.icies were vulnerabLe to misinterpretation, whether innocent or calcuLabed' Cfear
- 145 messages. staLed forcefully, left l-ittle to hide behind' In all buL two of the departments examined, simplicity and clarity in the policy message were evidenL. Even more important, however, poJ.icies were most successfully Implementation was implemented rvhen they were enforcecl consistently. most successful- where leacership at a1 level-s was saying Ehe same thlng and where practice matchecl Ehe letter and spiriE of formal policy. Departments were less uniformly successful in this regard; in many, mixed messages were senL. t times, high-1eve1 leaders who voiced supporL for nondiscrimination policies behaved in ways Lhat gave Ehe lie lo that supporL, briefly suspending an officer found guilty of comporLing with a heterosexual prosLiEuEe, for example, whj,Le terminaEing the officer founcl guilty of soliciting or procuring homosexual sex. Midclte- ancl lower-managemenL rvere often reported to have loudly and very inEenEionaIly publicizec Lheir disagreements with
official policy and the vishes of top brass through )oth their comnents and behavior. Official policy might hold Lhat recruiLers be sexualorienLation blnd, ]ut in practice' they woul-d ask direct quesEions about Lhe dating habiEs and sexual partners of Ehose seeking entry into the deparEment. where these inconsistencies exisEed, Lhe ul-timaEe message received by those in Lhe rank-ancl-fiIe was that discrmination was unofficiafly tolerated ancl even supporEed. Invariably, behavior refLected ths suPPort.
The ppropriate llnphasis in Implementing Non-Discrfminaton Polcles Through the course of implementing non-discrimination policies with regard to both women and homosexuals, most of Lhe departments examined
ultimaLely concluded that aggrressjve atternpts to aLter attitudes were foolhardy. Tarqeting behaviar, they reported, was the appropriate a>proac!'t" It was unreasonabe, in, oL-her words, to expect members Lo give up strongJ-y held ancl cleeply entrenchFd beliefs overniqht. It was not unreasonable, however, to insrst thaE tlrey keep those beliefs from nterfering with their aclherence to rvorkplace expectations of behavor' In other words, pol!cies of coexistence neecl not demand acceplance of homosexuafs or homosexuality. Behavior coufd be controlled, they came
-L46to realize, where clear sLandards of conduct exised; telling people what they could or should beLieve, on the other hand, was presumptuous and sure to provoke resenLmenL. The rvords of a fj.re chief, offered as he contempLatecl the errors his cepartment had made in trying to integraLe women inEo firehouses, convey this sentiment. "If I were able to do it all over again,,, he saicl, ,, I woulcn't be as ambiEious ' I,d accepL LhaE firefighLers hacl a l.ifeL.ime to form the attitudes Ehey have and that those atEitudes cannot change in a rveek. You can't Lry to make nice persons out of them. They're entitled to their opinions. But in the workpace, they have to understancl lhat there is a code of conduct' ,Abide by the rules, ancl if you don'!, here is what is going Lo happen' your personal convictions have no bearing on the workplace'' If you go beyond that, you leave yourself open to all kinds of problems," whiLe leaders across these deparEments believed that clear standards of behavj.or were necessary ancl that Lhe consequences for not meeLing them shoufd be egually clear, none tried Eo spel1 ouL every conceivable situation an oficer mighE face to rvhich codes of conduce mj.ght apply.25 Raher. general principles of fairness, respecE, honor, decorum, and the need to avoicl the creabion of hosLife environments were embedded in statements of expectd,.behavior, Lhe assumption being that Lheir application to most sj.tuations woulcl be sel-f-evident. Leaders and members of the rank ancl file of these organizaLions alike emphasized thaE successful- codes of conduct recognized the responsibj-lity of both sides*-the out-group as well as.Lhe j.n-group--to adapt Lo one another. ,,we shouldn,t bug each other,,, saicl one poJ.ice of f icer. This meant being sensiEive Eo Lhe "graY" line between tolerabe and offensive comments on the part of heLerosexual oficers ("If something I say bothers you, let me know; now I knorv where Lhe gray l-ine s"), and an efforE Eo be Ehick-skinnecl on Lhe part of those who are homosexual. rt is aso worth poinLing ouE thaE codes of conduct tended to be wriEEen in generic terms to cover behavior as it- applj.ed to any individual, rather than targeting special. groups. This approach was
2SonIy n sexual harassmenE guidelines prohibiEed behaviors Provided'
were detailed
definitions
of
-141usually much more sensitive to the tendency of special class treatmenE to breed resentment ancl an unintended backlash'
The Critcal. Role of LeadershiP Leadersip a all- fevel"s was unjlateraJJy recognized as being one of the most criEical ingrredjenEs ta Ehe successfu.l impJementation of controversjal and poEentiaJJy unpopular poJicies. This was certainly evident aL the highest 1evels of these departments; clear evidence exist.ed that strong leaders could push a department in one directj-on or
another. In one of the ciies, for example, a new chief was able, in a relat.ively few years, to transform a department wich no acknowJ-edged homosexual officers ancl an extremeJ-y anEagonisEic relationship with the homosexual community into one with an increasingly open and comfortable homosexual representaEion and a relatonshj.p of trust with that comlnunity, His }eadership scyle was a strong one that conveyed intention noE only by pronouncemenL but by example. This was a chief who marched in the city,s Gay Pride parade and t.erminaEed lhe department's relationship wiLh Ehe Boy scouts of America when, in a neighboring city, a moclel officer's articipation in an Explorer scout program was disallowecl after his homosexuality became known. An equally strong chief wlth antitheticaL beliefs was, until recently the head of the police deparLment in anoEher of the cities. while this chi-ef pad 1ip service to the formal non-ciscrimination poJ-icy his deparEment had enacted in accordance with a city council directive, his Erue beliefs were a maLter of record ancl readily apparent Lo those throughout the ranks. An extremely hostile atLiLucle towarcl homosexuals pervaded aIl aspects of his department Ehrughout his tenure While having a strong, commiCEed chief at Lhe helm was generall-y recognized as being a necessary ingredienE in implementing a nondiscrimination policy, members of every deparLmenL recognized tha! it is not enough for top leaclership Eo value a policy. Tt is also essential that this value be internal-izecl clown the chain of command. For a policy Lo be successfully im:Iementecl, in oLher rvords, middLe- and IOw-leveI managers have to communicate a simil-arly sBrong set of expectations and
- 148 bo put sone muscLe behincl them, The front line supervisor, in lhe final analysis, was po|nLed to,as Ehe criEj-cal link' The experience of Che police and fire departments we examined suggests that enfisting the cooperation of middle- and lov-levef managers is not always easy. Multiple respondenLs in each department
be willing
in the extent to which managers conrmuni.cated and enforcecl messagtes sent clown from the top. while chiefs acknowledged, in some cases with sadness, that "someLimes you need to hang a few fol-ks to get the message across," most, in efEect, tol'erated highly variable commitment on the part of middle- and ow-Ievel managers Eo nondscrmination policies againsE women and homosexuals. Each understoocl, however, Lhat vJithout the strong support of such managers, pol-icy implementation was impossil:le. Several departmenE leaclers spoke to Lhe issue of how best to en]ist and secure the support of middl-e and lower management in implementing policy changes, one, in particular, feIE he had erred in taking too Taissez faire an approach and suggesLed that there were lessons to be "I. I were doing it now," he hazarded, "I l_earned from his faifure. would have a rap sesson wj-Eh the staff chiefs, I'd allow Lhem to scream and holl-er about what will be ruined and how wrong it all is. But I would emphasi-ze Ehe law. I woufcl tel] them, 'whelher you believe I would also have rufes in in it or not, you must comply with Ehe lal,' pLace about behavior. At the end, sLaff chiefs would leave the session with the knowledge thaL regardLess o how they feel or think, 'These are lhe gudelines; now go out ancl tell the peopl-e lvhat. we want.' You have Lo all-ow Lhe staff chiefs to'get it ouL,' But after the session is over. t.hey have Lo get on with it--mec with bhe subordinate commanders and tell them just as strongly, 'This is Lhe way it is going to be"" Bringing managers on boarcl, he implied, meant giving them a chance to vent Eheir feelngs. But it aLso clearly meant insisting, in the same way as t-hese managers woulcl insisL to t.hose below them in the chain of command, that whatever thej-r atLitudes might be, thej-r behavior had to cited variability
conform Eo organizational rol icy.
Respondents across many cepartments aclcled
Reference was macle
to this prescription. to leacing by exan'ple'as a firs! choice of action but
-r49'
beingwillingtomakeanexampleofsomeoneasanecessarysecond_-to think sLrongJ-y sanction nappropriate behavior' in oEher words.,'I there,sgoingEohavetolesomebutLkickingifyouaretogetthe point across," noEed one fire chief' oEhers tafked about the importance of "being oub in front of the issue"--of creating a climate in which about undesirable behavior is unthinkable and thus avoided' Many taJ-ked under leaders having Eo assune responsbIity for the behavior of those their command and insisted that leaders be held to a high standard' one chief went so far as Eo argue that Leaders who fol}ow a policy of benign in actss of egJ.ecL should be punishecl as heavily as Lhose engaging in rvhich a discrimination, and that leaders who set a climate sanctionab}eactmghLbeperceivec]asaccepEableshouldbeEreatedas harshly as Ehe indivicluals uncler Lheir command who commit those acts ' T\dofactorswerecitedasfacilitatingtheeffortsofleadersat all levels in bringing behavior inLo line' The first of these was The poinL was made in one departmenL, for insEance, lhaL credibility. thefactEhatthepolicychangehadbeeniniEiaLedbyamayorwhowas perceivedashighlysupportiveofthepolice--amayorwhoearlyinhis tenure had been deridecl by the police ancl even suspected of being Where leaclers enjoyed broad homosexual--j-ncreasecl iLs acceptability. suPportandwerewell_respectecbythosebeneaEhEhem,Eheirmessagewas more wideY accePted. The second of these \.ras acEualy a set of factors that might besE be referred Lo as leadership abiTicy. All departments recognized the exisEenceof].eac]erswhoseabilirystood.inmarkedcontrasttothatof ordinary leaders . l/\h j. le isol-at ing 'what cisc inguished the f ormer f rom the latEer !^Jas often c]ifficult, Lhere vJas ]iLEIe doubE that a direct correlationexis!eclbeEween}eadershipabiliLyancbhesuccessv]iEh which unpopular policj-es rvere implemented. said one chief wiLh regard LoEheintegraLionofwomenontohsforce,,,Incaseswherethefemale firefighter was inlegraLed smoothly, there was strong leadership on the partofofficersandthecompanycornmander.converSe]-y,wherethe in Lhe company commancler abrogatec hrs responsibiliEy or stuck his head sand,thaE,swherewehac]theprobJ.ems'Good}eadersdidn'thave troublegettingolherpeop}el'o;goa]"ong'ThosewithoutsErong
150 .
eadership qualities left it to individuals to work it ouL on their own.,,Thiswasequa]]yaPParentEomembersoftherank-and-fiIe.In the words of a firefighter in anobher deparEment (speaking with regard to discrimination towarcls women), "I ktrow people on this job who' if
theyknewtheycouldgetawaywiLhit,wou}ddopeopJ.ein'Buthere Lhey know they can't, so Ehey do their job and keep Lheir gripes to Lhemselves.,. Under strong leadership, it was generally agreed, aEtitudes coulcl be containecl and professionalism in the workplace could
be assured. The impossibilEy of bringing every leader into line was also recognized, Chiefs, midclle managers and members of Ehe rank-and-fil-e all used the term ,,dinosaurs" n each of the departments we examined Lo refer Eo old-timers who had not, and would no!, keep pace wiLh Ehe changing times. some of these could be given a golden handshake, but oLhers enjoyed powerful proE.ectiol from those within trhe political or organizationa establishmenE acl hal no plans to leave Ehe department' It was generally recognizecl that departments had to live with these individuals. In such siEuaEi.ons, it was thought best Lo minimize Lhe damage Ehey could do by placing them where they could do least harm. comfort was invariably drarvn from lhe fact Ehat they, Iike their
namesakes, woufd
eventually disappear'
Unintended consequenceg of Special Clasg Stagus rntegrating new groups into police and fire departmenEs often required quick soluLions Eo problems in Ehe workplace. This was probably more true with regarcl to int.egrating women into these forces than iL was with homosexuals, ancl most true with regard to firehouses' where close living quarLers raise concerns pertaining !o both homosexuals and women. The feaclers and rank-and-fle of many of the
deparLmenEs we examinecl suggestecl Ehat r,lhere
the soTutions to these priviJeges or inadvertentfy confer problens either provide speciaJ special c.zass staEus, Lhe f.iales of . r.esen:nlenL djrecEed aE Ehe outgroup in quesEion vtill be fanned, and mor.e troubTittg problems may ensue. Heterosexual- members of these deparLments befieved that wherever possible, soLutions shoulcl benefiE Lhe entj.re force, rathe than
r-51 -
that selected members of that force, and shoulc be described in language rei.nforces this idea. Forinstance'manyfj.receparlments.]-aterregreELedthe"by-theused when seat-of-Eheir-pants" solutj'ons Lo Lhe privacy issues that were womenjoinedLheirforces.Departnients'LhaEmoveclcommandersoutof privateofficesorcommanc]eereclcomrnonroomsforuseasbedroomslearned thaEtheyhadonlygivenfirefightersfurlherreasonEoresentLhewomen privacy in their midst. where departmen!s had the resources Eo improve sleeping for alI firefighters (by installing sE.aIJ- showers or curtained areas,forinstance),theintroductionofwomenintothefirehousecould that broke be associated with a positve change. Like',ise, deparLments privileged access Lo with esbablished EradiLion Lo give ouEgroups higher-ups in Ehe chain of commancl someEimes cliscovered that these altemptstodeterharassmentexacerbatedtheresenEmentEhaElvasfeeding it.Inasimil'arvein,policeclepartmentslearnedLhatthetargeted recruitmentofhomosexualswasbestunderstoodasnotanaffirmative actionattempEtoincreaseEherepresentat'ionofadeservingminoriby that the more a buE rather a practical app)'ication of the principJ-e forceresemblesthecommuniLybej.ngservec],LhebetteritwillbeakIe positive to get j.ts job done' "ff you can make a change aPpear to be ,,it will for aII members of Lhe organizLon,,, noEe(l one police chief , be much easier to imPlemenE "' ThissnotEosaythatharassmenLguicleJ-inesshouldnotreference specialclassStaEusorthaLnospecialc].assprot,eceionsarewarranted. outgroupsareinvariablyaLasignificantc]isadvantageastheyenLer Lraditiona}organizaLionsandmayneedassiscanceasEheseorganizations adapttoLheirincJusion'Itistosay'however'thatsolutionstothe problemsofinclusionshouldkearrivedaLonlyafterful]'considerabion of Eheir impact on the force-at-Jarg' and should sLeer clear of possible' uninLended costs Ehat creaCe new problems' Wherever accommodaLionstospecialpopulationsshoulc]conferadvantageLoal} members of a force '
:
t52
Trainlng come to be Accurate information on vrho homosexuals are' how they members of Lhal way, and how they lead their Iives was cited by many leaders and homosexual members of the these departments, parLicularly as a potenLially powerful tool in combating the rank*anc-file, sEereotypic views helcl by m"rny police offj'cers and firefighters' especially if conductec by somene--preferably homosexual--who earnedEheirrespectintheworkp}aceandknowswhabitmeanstodothe
has
workoftheorganization.ButLheresponsesofheterosexualmembersof Lherank-ancl-flesuggesteclLhatErainingcanalsoclrav'ridiculeand especially if it is not seen breecl resentment, as lve inclicated earlier, Eraining as being refevan to one's mission, consequently, sensjEivity rnceed, if designed solery canno' uniLaEeraTly be vievled as positive. cofor the purpose of changing negative attitucles toward homosexual for workers (as opposed to how best to discharge one's duties' training may be inconsisLent with Lhe clearly instance), sensitivity arLcuLated principle Ehat as long as people adhere to behavioral Where sensitivit'y guidelines, what they think s their own business' trainingcannot'bejusLj"fiedbythedemanc]sofvlorkp}aceperformance, therefore, it may not be appropriate' best Lo On the other hancl, provicling Lraining to }eaders on how implementapo]icywasalwaysseenasbeingappropriate,Whilegood leadershipmayprevailintheabsenceoftraininglWeweretoldthatthe provisionofsupport--helpingleadersunc]ersEanclthepolicy,offering insigh[sinEohovhypotheLj.calsituaconsmightlrehandled,providing Ehemwithrep]iestoLhequesLionsEneyrnl-ghtt'ypicallyreceivefrom to their ability Ehose under Lheir conr-nancl--can subsLantially improve incluce some of Ehe effecE positive change. ImplemenEatj-on traj-ning may informationLypicallycoveredinsensitivit-ytraining,butsituaEesit ta realin a framework where the goal- is Lo provide pracEicaL solubions lifeproblems,nottochangeaLtitudes]Aclesj-rable.by-productofbhis change among vre were EoIc, may iricleecl be'the kind of attitude training, policy implementation' leaders tha! can serve to furlher facificate
1a
The SeIf-Regulatng Nature of h Implementatlon Process
AlasLbutextremelycriLicalfindingLhatemergesfromthe experienceSofthesepolice'anc]fireclepartmentsiSEhatregardlessof is when a forma policy of non-cliscrimination Coward homosexuals In reality, officially enacted, change is not necessarily immediabe. institution impl-ementation proceeds at a pace thaE is particui-ar to each we and consistent with what it can absor' While the departmenEs examinedsharedmanythingsincommon,eachissituaLedinadifferent culture, and ever-changing social climate, has its peculiar history and different pools of candidates for upon slighLly buE significanLly
draws
itsworkforce,andhasbeeninf}uencedovertirnebyverydifferentseEs of leaders. AlI of these combne to produce a unigue level- of readiness for change in each clepartmenL that constantly evolves over time' Our in the observatsions suggest that neiEher Lhe behavior of homosexuals of workplace nor the aggressiveness wiEh which the implementation This nondiscrimnaEion poJ-icies occurs sErays far from this Level ' their sexual orientaLion explains why so few homosexual-s publicly reveal It also in these departments, and in fire departments in partcular' explaj.nshowapolicyofnonc]iscriminationcanbeformallyinp}acefor significantperiodsoftime,aswasthecaseinseveralciEies'butnot resultinanysubstantialcepa.rtmenta}acEiontowardimp}ementaton until Years later. ThisisnotEosayEhaLactionsnevergoif,eyondwhatmighbe perceived as tolerable by an organizaLion' on rare occasions' homosexualsontheonehancl,anclcepartmenLleadersontheother,may They invariably do approach the threshold, ancl even acvance beyoncl it' In so onl-y sIigheIy, however, provoking a mild ancl manageabl"e reacLj-on' suchsit.uations,theeffectoftheir'actionsisoftentostretchthe boundariesofthethresholclsl:.ghtlyfurther.wherecheydosotoo aggressively, seff-correcting mechanisms usually communicale their misjudgment ancl susEairr the existing Eolerance zone' Thus' in one departmenE the fact that a homosexual- brought hs parbner to a f deparmental funcLion met with some cliscomforE among sel-ected members theforcebutnooverwhelmingconclemnation.Asotherswhohadbeenmore similar comfortabLe v,atching him from the wings became willing to take
-154actions, heerosexuals became further accl-imated to this social practice and a higher threshold of tolerable ehavior resulted. rn another departmenL, however. where the tolerance threshold was different (perhaps because homosexuafs had no been "out" in the force for as ]ong), this same acL evoked a much stronger reaction' The homosexual patrol man in question acknowledged that he would not repeat his action Lhe following year and Ehe tolerance "line," at l-east for Lhe moment,
rernained in Place. what this suggescs is that poLicy actions calculated o sfow the implemenLation process down in order to allow actions to remain consisEent wiLh an organizaEion's..readiness for change are probably unnecessary. In all of Ehe cities we examined, a st-ep-wise implementation process and an overalf conservative and measured reaction
ontheparLofhomosexualofficersisoccurri-ngnaturallyovertime. Change will happen, but rarely if ever will it move from Point "4, to point ,2" regardless of whether stated policy, for the sake of simplicity and accuracy of intention, sugTgests that this is where it should go. Rather, ic will take place in a more linear and siaged fashion, with behaviors clustering arround a readiness or tolerance threshold that constantly and nevitably adjusts tself over time'
IMPI,ICTIONS FOR IMPIJEMENTING POTJICIES OF NON-DISCRIMINTION
our comprehensive examinaion of police and fire departments in six cities supports a number of critical findi.ngs and insights that are potentially relevanb to the u.s. military's efforts to assess iEs own policy toward homosexuals and to determine how the policy agreed upon canbeimplementedmosteffectiv,eJ'y'Theseinclude'butarenot restricted Lo, Lhe following:
Homosexuals who
join police and fire deparbmenLs do not fiL stereotypes Ehat are inconsisl-ent with Ehe image and mission of these organizaLions' Moreover, they are atEracLed to police and fire work for the same reasons as their heberosexual
counLerparts.
1EE
Even where policy
changes permit them Eo do so' homosexuals in
these organizations "come ouL" in very small numbers' to parLi-cularIy where the environment is perceived as hostile where work Lhem. This is especially Erue in fire departmenLs' the and living arrallgemenLs,are more similar to those of
mi I iEarY '
Homosexua] olficers
usually perceive the consequences of as acknowledging Lheir sexual orienEation to their departments to being manageable, especially if i'c has been their decision serious negative consequences disclose their homosexuality' with those who have been "outed" are more freguenEly associatecl or are merely suspecLed of being homosexual ' are openly homosexual police officers and fireflghters sensiLive to the overal-I norms and cusEoms of ther shock or organizaE.ions. They tend noL to behave in ways that values on offend, and they subscribe to the organization's Formal workinq problems ouE i-nformally and within Ehe ranks' harassment comPlainLs are rare ' While anti-hontosexuaf sentiment does noE disappear after heLerosexuals homosexuals acknov].e(lge their Sexual orientation, generally behave toward homosexuafs more rnj-ld1y than stated atEitucles towarcl them woulcl precict ' Prof essional work attiLudesanc]atendencytosee,,goodcops',or,,good this' as excepLions to general rules facilitate firefighters" and not one that is AIDS is a serious concern of heEerosexuals aIl-eviatecl by eclucation' The fear that homosexuals pronounced' wiIl receive special class protections is even more suggescs a however. The experience of police and firefighters need to protect homosexuals from harassment without conferring on them privileges thaL majoriLy groups feeL deprived of' these Policies of non-cliscriminaLion against homosexuaLs in and deparEments clo not affect patLerns of recruj-tment What people say they rvill clo before a policy is retention. quickly implementedsoftenquiEeclifferentfromwhattheyactuallydo Nor are policies of nononce a policy is in place'
- 156 discriminaEion reporEed to affect force performance' a fact tshat is noL usualfy lied, but may le related' to the realiEy lhat very ferv homosexuals publicly acknowledge their sexual orientat ion . where ImpJ-ementation is most successful in Lhose deparEments delivered' and the policy was unambrguous, consistently uniformly enfoced. Leadership was cited as being critical in
this regard. primary emphasis DepartmenE eadership came to ]:etieve that Ehe in implementing policy should be on changing behavior' not attitudes. A non-discrmination policy need noE be viewed as an endorsement of lifestyJ'e or a staEement abouE r'hat is moral' to Leaders suggestec thac mem)ers of a force should be entitLed view homosexualiEy in any vJay Ehey choose as long as their behavior is consisLenL wiEh organizaEional codes of personal conduct. Such codes should clearly restrict harassment and Ehe creaLion of hostile environments vis--vis any force member' The codes will- le taken seriousJ'y if they are rigorously and uniformly enforced. The overriding value on discipline in these organizations was cited as facilitating ths' Trainingeffol.tsthacprovide]'eaderswiLhtheinformationand skills they need Eo impJ'ement policy were seen by Lop department leaders as essenLia] elemenls of an effective implementation process. SensitivEy training for rank-and-file mixed members of a force, hov"ever, was observed as having effects where it rs not .vierved as being explicitly Ielated to performing one's job effectivelY' The implemencatj-on process is self-regulaLing' and actual in change occurs over J-ong periods of time' Homosexuals behave that may be unique ways that clusLer around a zone of Eol-erance to each organzaEion anc Eo settings wifhin that organization' Moreover, the aggressiveness wiLh rvhich a nondiscrimination policy is pursued at an organizational level is similarly sensitive to organizational readi'ness for a change' This suqgests LhaE "fi-lebreaks" need noL necessarity :e built inEo
implementation strategies; Ehey occur naturaJ-Iy' Where
attempLstoformal}ycoclifysuchfirebreaksmakethemessage
more confusing. they malu increase the difficuJ'Ey of implementing a PolicY'
WecannotpredictwiEhcertainEythaEapoJ.icychangewithinthe military similar to the ones experienced by these police and fire lesson departments will result in identical consequences, or thaL every learned from these public safety organizatons c.an be applied directly ,,proven., to the Armed Services. consequently, this exercise has not anyehing. Moreover, wiLh regard to certain points' the analogy beEween publc safety and military organizations may be tempered by features uniquetothemilitary.Forinstance,aspectsofhowthemilitary carries out iEs mission weaken the analogy wiLh regard to force performance.Privacyi.ssuesarenoLcompletefycomparable'evenifone The extent to which draws upon lhe experience of firefighters' work lives homosexuals can keep their privaEe lives disEincE from their livng may be different on military bases, where Lhe presence of facilit.ies, clubs, and other recreational facilities makes bhem very much lke small towns, than in police or fre deparLments' where parbnersmaybeexpected!oattendonlyoccasiona}socialfunctions. MosEofLhel.nsightswehavedrarvnfromtheexPerienceofexamining poJ.ice and fire departments, however, are not compromised by such threas to the analogy ]:etveen public safeLy and mil-itary organizations' These include the facLors influencj-ng decisions to publicly acknowledge one,s sexual orienLation; Ehe actuaf process of doing so and the rates aE which it occurs; the overall behavj.or of acknowledged homosexuals withregardtoloca}normsandcusLoms;t'hefacto}.Sthat'facilitate greateraccepEanceofhomosexualsamongheterosexuals;Lhefrequent mismaEch witnessed in heterosexuafs between anti*homosexual sentiments and behaviors Eoward inclivicuaIs in Ehe workplace; recruitment and retentionissues;andLheimplemenEaionlessons]earned.Totheextent that ths s true, insights that have emergecl from our examj'naEon of police and fire depar-Ements can inform efforts Eo plan and implemenL policies regarding homosexuals in the U'S' miliEary'
158
S.PorENTIIJINSIGHTSFRoMNI,oGoussITUTIoNs:INTEGRATINGBIJCKS
INTO THE
U'S'
MIIJIRY1
TNTRODUCTTON : | undergone since the end of InJortd war rr', hP u's' milEary has racial significant clranges in force compositon--most notably' of women' rn in.egrati:on and the increased numbers and expanding rores thedebateoverallowinghomosexualstoserveinthemilitary,bot.hof review indicates these changes have been put forth as analogues ' Our tha!racial.integrationisamuchful}erandmoreinstructiveanalogy' Llmitatlons of tle Aalogry of Women in e Milltaryz below' the Unlike Ehe experience wth racial integration' discussed policymessageaboutwomenhasbeenambiguous'In194g'conqresspassed a nucreus of women lhe r,Jomen,s Armed services Tntegratj.on Act to create durng the cord sordiers in the event of a need for rapicl mobirlzation and advancemenL of War, However, by the early 1950s the recruiLment role in Korea than in women had sta]led (women played a far smaller WorldWarIT)andwomenmadeVirtual}ynoprogressinthesucceedingLwo decades.Untilthelatelg60s,womenconstitubedapaltrylpercentof LheArmedForces,andLheirareasofservicewereseverelyconsLrained by gender occurred Significant changes in the place of women in the mj-litary wiEhtheadventoftheAll--VolunteerForce(AVF)in19?3'Theformal (wC) in 19?B symbolically disescablishment of Lhe women's rmy cortr> the need by the captured the changing status of women' reflecting of the draft and the Defense DeparEmenL for personne] after the end genera}advancesmadebywomeninthecivilianworld.Militrarywomen occupacions than ever began gainng access to a wider range of military
l
Mershon, 4frlt "n.pter was prepared by steven Schlcssman' Sherie and Timothy HaggerEy' Ancella Livers, Tanjam Jacobson, 2see the bibligraphy to this chapter for Lhe exLensive references study of this we consulLed in pr.prirs thls chapter and a forthcoming subj ect .
-159before, and by Ehe end of bhe decacle they grew to nearly 10 percent of the EoEaI force. Yet many restrictions remained to the fulI participation of women in military culture. In 1980, Congress rejecLed Lhe carter Administration's attempt !o register women for any future conscription, The Reagan and the Supreme Court upheld a male-oIy draft' on plans to increase the number of women in the AdministraLion cut back nd, of course, there remained the bottom-1ine restriction: military, women soldlers could not participale in combat ' Even afEer Ehe Persian Guff war brought wider recognition among the American public to the increasingly inLegral place of women in the modern military' a presidentiaL commission votecl to continue the exclusion of women from combat. only recently has the secretary of Defense allowed Women aviators in the Air Force and Che Navy to volunteer to fly combaE alrcraft on combat missions. Whi]ewomen'sro]-einthemi}iLaryisclearlyevolvingtoward greater and greaEer equafity, remaining restricLions with regard Lo combat set women apart from men,, If it were contemplated thaL homosexuals would be set apart in separaEe Iiving guarEers and restricted from criLj.cal jobs, then the experience of women might be instructive. HovJever, if the purpose is to fulIy end discrimination the basis of sexual orienation, Ehen the experience with racial inEegration is more analogous.
on
The nalogy of Racial Integration Blacks and homosexuals are boLh minorities in American society wiLh long histories of exclusion or severe resLrictions on participation in
both the Armed Forces ancl civilian ins!ituEions.l In the opinion of many recent conmentators, the similariLies end there' Their insstence rests on the proposition ChaL minority sLaEus based on race is inherently different from minority sLaLus based on sexual orientation' According to this view, Lhe differences are so great that Ehe experience ,S." ahe bibliography to this chapter for extensive references consulLed in preparing this chapter and forthcoming history of homosexuals in the U"S' mi'litary.
- 160 of blacks is not comparable Lo tha! of homosexuals, and bhe inLegration of blacks cannoL serve to guide thinking about the integration of homosexuaLs into the militarY. one version of Lhis argumenL holds that sexualorientation may be a more fundamental defining characterisLic of human identiEy than race is in shaping people,s personal lives and social refaEions, The conclusion drawn from lhis assertion is that putting homosexuaLs and heEerosexuals together in military organizations will creae a level of animosity and disruption that far exceeds Ehe tensions that the integration of bfacks and whites created in the past. Racial integraLion. it is said, did not and cannot generate Ehe same depth of feeling, the profound sense of violaEed privacy and social impropriety, that the presence of homosexuals in a predominanty heterosexual environment necessarily
engenders,
this argumenE may hold from a psychological or sociological perspective, it incorporates a misreading of history. It IE is undersLates the difficulLy of race relations in the military. perceived today that the racial integration of Ehe rmed Forces widely was a fairly simple, sCraightforward matEer, in comparison with the numerous complexities involved in integraing homosexual-s. In reality, racial integration during the:1940s and 1950s was a long, convoluted process which inspired many of' the strong emotj-ona1 reactions thaL the possibility of i.nEegraLing homosexuals provokes Loday. Many white Americans (especially Southerners) responded with visceral rewulsion to the idea of close physicaJ. contact with blacks. Many also perceived racialintegration as a profound affront to their sense of sociaL order' Bl-acks, for their parL, often harbored deep misLrust of whiLes and great sensitivity Eo any language or actions that might be construed as racial discriminat ion , In lighL of the hisLoricaL evidence, any assertion that racialintegration was inherently less probJ.ematic than the integration of homosexuals oday musts le viewed with skepticism. The similariLy of the difficulLies involved is ab leasE, as str-king as any differences.
Whatever validity
16L
IN THE U.S. MIIJITRY analysis of the racial integration of the U.S' Mlitary has Close generated severaL concrete conclusions to help guide civilian and rnilitary leaders responslbile for policy mplementation' These are:
IMPI,EMENIIING F.ACIAIJ INTEGRTION
Major changes in military and raciaf policies can be implemented wj.thouE a favorable public consensus. Leadership is crucial for implementation of change--civilian and military leadership mus! work togeEher Eo ensure effective implementation of .controversj-al policies related to social change, and sErong civi,ian monitoring of progress may be
essent ia1
.
Experiments during World War II and especially during the Korean War indicated that black and white troops were able lo work togeLher effecEiveJ,y in alI sorts of stuations, even the most demanding battlefield situations, wiEh 1it.t.1e evidence of
pror social integration. Leadership and sErongly enforced standards of conducL can change how Eroops behave toward previously excluded (and disliked) minoriEy groups, even if underlying aLLitudes toward those groups change very Iittle.
The analysis befow is presented under three broad headingsr (1) the crucial rol-e of leadership; (2) racial inEegration, unit cohesion, and military effectiveness; and (3) attitudes versus behaviors during
the process of integration.

THE CRUCIIJ ROIJE OF I,EDERSHIP
study of blacks in Lhe military highlights the key role of leadership, first, in integrating blacks into the Armed Forces and, second, in expanding opportuniEies and lmproving conditions under which bl-acks served. Leadership from both civilian and mi1tary 11 major policy sources--independently and in concert--was critical. changes originated wiLh particu.Lar i-ndividuals and groups who felE strongly about j.nequj-ties in race relations and who, by virtue of their
The historical
_t62_
official positions ancl their ai1ity to communicat.e ideas effectively. were able to incluce the Armed F-orces t embark on new courses of action. As the chapter on imPlementation indicates, the need for sErong leadership is especially crucial when a change affecls the social and cuftural tradiLions of farge organizations.
The Importance of Civilian f,eadership
civilian leadership, particul-arty tha of the President and the Secretaries of Ehe rmed Forces, was decisive at severa] turning points where the miliEary,s fundamental policies Eoward blacks underwenE transformaEion. For instance. the intial decisions to admiL blacks in he early 1940s Eo the Army Air Forces (F), Lhe Marine corps. and the feneral service of Ehe Navy resulEed from Ehe personal intervention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Before 1940, the AF compfetely barred blacks, and its officers strongly resisEed demands from black interest groups and some members of Congress to end Lhis exclusionary policy.a president Roosevelt endecl the conention in october 1940 by informally but firmly pressuring the AF to accept blacks for Eraining'5 The result was the creation of.sevea] all-black flying squadrons--the famous ,,Tuskegee Airmen,,--and numerous aIl-black non-combat units in the
AF,
A similar sequence of events Eranspired in the Nawy Deparbment. AL the beginni-ng of World War II, the Navy enlisted blacks only as stewards (mess attendants and persona] servants), and the Marine corps had no blacks at all, Responcling Lo black desires for greater partj-cipaion, and to complaints from the Army that Lhe Navy was nt accepting a fair share of black personnel, in 1941, President RooseveLt and Secre|ary of the Naqz Frank Knox requested Lhe Navy Lo prepare a pJ-an for greaEer utilization of b,lacks.6 Many Navy officers i-nitiaIly opposed this
4ulysses Lee, UniEed .StaLes Arny in World l,lar II; Specral ,9udies, of Negro Troops, WashingEon, D.C', Of f j-ce of the Chief of MiliEary History, United States rmy, 1966' pp' 47, 55-65; ALan M' osur, Blacks in Ehe Army Air Forces During Worid rlar I, Washington, D.C. ' Office of Air Force History, 1977,9p.20-235lee, ErnpJ oytnenE of Negro Troops, pp . 7 6 , 18 ' 6Bernard C. Nalty, Strengch for the Fighx, New York: The Free Press, 1986, pp. 186-187; Secretary of the Na-\ry, memorandum to Chairman
EnpJ.oyment
- 163 r
idea, but the Presidenb persisLed, ancl n early 1942 he secured an agreement under which the Navy opened some of its general-service posJ-tions to bJacks.T This agreement also covered the Marine Corps.S Il completed the adoption of Ehe racial Policy that Ehe Armed Forces followed during the war: a policy of permitEing blacks Eo serve in al} branches of the miIiLary, buE only in strictly segregated units, The next turning point. in the miliLary's treatment of blacks was Ehe abandonment of the system of raciaL' segregation and the adoption of a pollcy of racial integration' Again, a patEern of civilian leadership, in which the President esLablished the new policy and civilians in the dministration worked out the deLails of implementation wibh the Armed Forces, dominated the chanqe. On 26 July 1948, President Harry S. Truman, who was concerned with boEh the inequity of segregation and the po].iEica appeal of taking action to end that inequity in an efection year, issued an executive order requiring "equaJ-ity of treatment and opportunity for all persons in che armed services withouL regard to race, color/ reJ-igion or national origin,"9 He specifically Lhis requirement vouLd mean putLj"ng an end to stated that fulfilling segregation.l0 Knovring that his order marked a radical step in race relations, Ehe Presiden emhasized the need for clear guidance and monitorj-ng j-n iLs execution. He established a seven-member civilian committee, which incluclecl both white and black members, Lo oversee the process of bringing Ehe Armed Forces into compliance. This commiEtee--known as Lhe Fahy CommiEtee after iLs chair, Ehe lawyer Charles Fahy--had no power of enforcement, The commiE,tee derived its authority from.its staEus'.as the Presj.dent's representative of Navy GeneraL Board, 16 Jan. 1942, reprinted in Morri.s J. Maccregor and Bernard c. Nalty, ecls., BTacks jn the tlnited.gtates Armed Forces, Basjc Docutnents, VoL. VI, Wilmington, DE, Scholarly Resources fnc', 1977 , p. 18 . ?Morris J. Maccregor, Integration of Ehe rled Forces 1940-1965, Washingbon, D.C., Office of MiliEary HisLory, 1985. pp.64-66' SMaccregor, In|egraEion of Ehe Armed Forces, p' 101. 9Text of Executive order 9981-, 26 July 1948. lOExcerpL from Presiclent Truman's News Conference of. 29 July 3-948, reprinLed in Morris J. MacGregor and,,Bernard C. Na1ty, eds., BLacks in the Jni|ed Staes rred Forces, Basjc tocuJlens, Vol. VIII, Wilmington, DE, SchoLarly Resources Inc., L977 , p ' 689.
-t64in the preparation of racial-integration plans for each of the Armed Forces. In this capacity, the committee exercised ongoing leadership in the crucial matter of defining exacEly what consEiLuEed an acceptable integrati.on p.Ian. IE investigaLed mj-libary personnel practices, made recommendaLions Eo military officials Lo help them understand what was required, and provided a sEeady central focus for a process that involved numerous and often biEEer dispuEes among and wiEhin varous agencies, By April L950, the Fahy ComtiLtee, a]l Lhe Armed Forces. and Lhe Department of Defense had reached agreement, at least in principle, on plans for eliminaLing the formal-. legal structure of racial segregation and enabling lhe mixing of ]lacks and whites n the same military unitsli (see later discussion of implementation delays, especially in the Army). A third important Lurning point thaL displayed the patt.ern of civilian leadership came in the early 1960s, when the Defense DepartmenE began Erying to deal with a recurrent problem.: discrimination and violence perpetrated against black service peopJ-e by civilians ' Segregated off-base housing and recreational faciliLj-es, and the general hosLility of some civilian communities Eoward the presence of bl-ack miliLary personnel, were having negative impacEs on moral-e in the Armed Forces.12 Beginning in 1961, President John F. Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara i.nitiated several measures Eo address this
tuc.
':
The Administration began by forbidding civilian organizations that practiced racial discriminaE j.on f rom'-using miliLary properEy. ]l In
1963, at the recommendation of an advisory committee, the Defense
llNalty, SErength for the Fiqht, pp. 245*254; Maccregor, Integration of the Armed Forces, pp. 313-314, 343-378; transcripts and working papers of the President's Cornit.tee on Eguality of Treatment and Opportunity in the rmed Servj.ces, reprinted in MacGregor and Na1ty, eds., BTacks jn the tJnited States Armed Forces, Basic Documents, Vols, IX-XI, WiJ-mington, DE, Scholary Resources Inc . , I97'7 , 12Uni.Led SEates Commission on Cvi1 RighLs, "The Negro in the Armed Forces," Civil RighEs '63, 7963 Report of Ehe UniEed stes Commission on CiviL Rights, 30 Sept. 1963, reprinted in MacGregor and Nalty. eds., Bl.acks in the United ,stdtes r4ted Forces, Basjc DocumenEs, Vo7. XII, Wilmington, DE, Scholarl-y Resolrrces, Inc. , 19"17, pp. 495-519 . llMaccregor, Inegration of che Arnted Forces, pp, 511-512,
- 165 Department formally adopfec the principle that opposing discrimination againsE military personnel- on base and off base was an inEegral part of A departmena1 every mi.litary officer's command responsibility. mechanisms that were directive of 26 July 1-963 created administrative
designed to establish accountability on this subjecE' It set up a department-wide civil rights office and ordered each of Ehe Armed Forces o deveop inLernal civil righLs. noniLoring systems. It also enabled base commanders to apply off-limits. sanctions to civilian organizations that discriminated against black military personnel'14 By adopting these measures, which were very conEroversial at Lhe time, the Kennedy AdministraEion sought Eo insEiL.ut.ionalize leadership in bhe fiel-d of military race relations--to ensure a conEinuing commitmenL to protecting
the rights and the welfare of black service people

SLrong
'
Military f,eadershlp in Tandem wleh Scrong Civillan Leaderehip while the initiative for major policy decisions on race relations tended to come from civilian officals who were concerned about broad issues of jusLice, governance, and poJ-itical advantage, change coufd and did originate within Lhe military as welf' Some military officers concluded, on the basis of their own experience and reflecEion, that the organizaLions that they commanded would perform more effectively if raciaL discrimination were reduced or efiminaLed. They translat.ed Lhis commitment into action, becoming leaders in efforts Lo design and implement reforms. Indeed, some of the most importanL transformations of military racial policies hqppened when sErong military leadership and strong civilian J.eadershlp converged. The deveJ.opment of racialintegration plans in Uhe Navy and t.he Air Force in the 1940s exemplified his paLtern of military-civil,ian inEeracEion' The Nar,y began moving toward raciaf incegratJ.on during the last stagtes of World War II as a means of solving a practical problem. When iE began using l:1ack sailors in L942, the Nawy initially assigned these men to positions on shore and did not permit them to go to sea. Soon there were large concentrations of blacks at ammuniEion depots, porEs, and ocher such facj.]ities, and serious morale problems emerged. Bfacks
l4Maccregor, lnEegration of the Armed Forces, pp. 547'548,
t66 resented the fact that Lhey were confined to unglamorous, often unskilled service t.asks on land and could noE participaLe in the "real Naw1z, " the ships of the f l"eeE. White sailors, for their parL, resented the fact Ehat most blacks remainecl safely outside conbab zones.15 Racial Eensions rose/ and Navy officiaLs became concerned t}at the overall efficj-ency of the war effort was being undermined. In 1943, the Navy staf f establ-ished a ne\.r agency, the Special Programs Unit (SPU) , to find ways of improvingr the situation'16 The smafL group of Nawy officers who constj-tuted the SPU determined Lhat the only way Eo correct Ehe problems was Lo dj.stribute black sailors more evenly across afI elements of the Navy, including seagoing ships. Particularly aboard ships, this policy would necessitate racial integration. To determine wheLher such a change could work, the SPU aclvocatecl an experimenL. It proposed assignng blacks to the predominantly white crews of 25 supply ships and observing these ships closeIy. This idea quickly gaj.necl the support of secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who was personal-ly interested in promoting raciaJ. equality' Forrestal's office, in turn, convinced the Chief of NavaL operations, Admiral Ernest J. King, to Lend his authoriLy and prestige to Lhe cause of expanding opport,unities for blacks in the Nawy.l'r WiEh the backing of the Nawy's highest civilian and mlitary officials, the experiment with racially integrated supply ships proceeded during late 1944 and early 1945.18 IE wenE so smooEhl-y thac rn April 1945, the Navy decided
lsMaccregor, Integraton of l:e rred Forces, pp, 46-47; Secretary of Ehe Navy James ForresLal, memorandum to President Roosevelt, 20 May 1944, reprinted in Bernard C. Nalty and Morris J' MacGregor, eds', BTacks in the MiTitaryr EssentjaL Documencs, WiJ-mington, DE, Scholarly Resources Inc , , 1981, p, 154 . l6Historical Section, Bureau of Naval PersonneL, The Negro in the Navy, Washington. D.C,, DepartmenE of the Navy, 194'7, reprinted in Morris J. Maccregor and Bernard C. Nalty, eds., BJacks in the United ,StaLes Armed Forces, Basic DocumenEs, Vo1, VI, Wilmingt.on, DE, Scholarly Resources Inc., L917), pp. 321-328; Lee Nichols, Breakthrough on the Cofor FronE, New York, Ranclom House, 1954, pp. 54-55, 57-58; Nalty, SErength for the Fight, p. 190. lTMaccregor, IntegraEion of the Armed Forces, pp. 84-85, BB-91. 18L, E. Danfield, AssisLanE Chief of NavaI Personnel, memorandum to Commander in Chief, UnLecl SLates FIeeE and Chief of Naval Operations, 4
-761to expand irrtegration to alI supply ships'19 In February 1946, after careful review of the wartime record, Ehe Chief of the Bureau of Naval' Personnel ordered the abolition of alf raciaL resEricLions in the assignmenL of sal.ors to general-service' positions.20 Thus miJ-itary leadership, assisted by a symathetic civilian Navy Secretary, achieved Lhe partial racial- inLegration of the Naqz two years before President Truman's desegregation order. The convergence of military and civilian leadership became egually clear in the Air Force during the late 1940s. s in the Navy, the desire to solve a practicaL prol:Iem sparked Lhe Air Porce's interesE in racial integration. The posLwar Air Force contained one afl-bfack tactical unit, the 332nd FighEer Wng, and Ehis organization had chronic problems in obtaining enough qualifid black pilots and other specialists bo keep it flying,2r Noting that the 332nd was cosEineffect.ive and probably would not be much of an asset if another war broke out, several Air Force officers began to consider the possibility of breaking up this segTregated uniL and redistributing iEs black personnel to predominantly rvhite unj,bs. The prj-mary advocaLe of Lhis step was LieuEenant Gereral Idwal H. Edwards, the Deputy Chief of SEaft for Personnel Edwards worked hard during 1947 and 1948 to convince others of the desirability r feasibility oft racial integration' Early Juty 1944, reprinted in MacGregor and NalLy, eds., BJ-acks in the United ,StaLes Armed Forces, Basic DocurlenEs, Vol . Vf , p. 246; RandaIl .Tacobs, Chj-ef of Navaf Personnel, memorandum to commanding officers of 25 fleet auxiliary shi-ps, 9 Aug. 1914, reprinLed in MacGregor and Na1ty, eds., Basjc DocumenEs, VoJ, VI, pp. 258-259; MacGregor, InEegration of Ehe Armed Forces, pp. B5-86; Nichofs, Breakthrough on the Col-or FronL, pp'
59-61. commands, 13
l9Randall ,Jacols, chief of NavaI Personnel, memorandum to service April 1945, reprinted in MacGregor and NaILy. eds', Bl.acks in Ehe United .gcales rred Forces, Basjc Docutnencs, Vol"' VI, p. 268. 20Na1ty, Strengrth for che FighE, p. 21-0; MacGregor, In|egration of
the
Armed
D.C., Office of Air Force History, 1978, pp. ?8, B1; Integra|ion of the Armed Forces, pp. 283.
Foces, pp. 166-167. 21Alan M. Gropman, The Air Force InEegrates 7945-1964, Washington,
MacGregor,
-168in 1948, the ir Force staff formed a planning group to investigabe the idea further.22 This p]_anning effort hacl the support and active participation of secretary of the ir Force sEuart symington, his sLaff, and the first Secretary of Defense, James ForresEaf (who had moved into this position from his work wth the Navy), BuE many senior Air Porce officers opposed any move away from racial segregabion.23 fE was President Truman,s July 1948 executive orcler that broke the stalemate, giving the military and civilian advocaLes of integration the leverage Lhat they needed to move t-heir plans forwarcl to the implementation stage'24 Because of the work that it had already done, the Air Force was able to move quickly in preparing a proposal that met the requirements of the Truman Administration. The abolil-ion of segregated units in Ehe ir Force began in 1949 and was compleLe by the end of 1952. Internal military leacership was imporEant not only in the formulation of Ere new Air Force policy, but also in the execution of that policy, From the begnnj.ng, Air Force Chief of Staff HoyE Vandenberg and his deputies made it clear that compliance with the policy was a command responsibility of all Air Force officers and that no res j.sance would ]re LoleraLed' "llhere wi1] be f r j-ctions and incidents," General Edwards told a gathering of officers in 1948. ,,However, Lhey wil be minimized if commanders give the implementation of this policy Eheir personal aLtention and exercise positive command
contro1. "25 The Air Force followed Lhrough on its expectaLions by carefully monitoring the j.nitial ncorporation of black airmen into white units. When cases of disruption or noncompliance arose among enListed personnel
22Gropman, jr Force Inteqrates, pp, 87-BB; MacGregor, IntegraEion of the Armed Forces, pp. 287-288; Nalcy, SErengEh far the Fight, pp' 232-233, 248. 23Nichols, Breakthrough on the cofor FronE, pp- 75-77; Gropman' Ait Force Inteqrates, pp. 89-92; MacGregor. InEegration of the Armed Foyces, pp. 338-339. 24cropman, Air Force InEegrates, pp' 97-92. 25LieuLenant GeneraL ldrval Edwards, "Remarks on Major Personnel Probfems Presenbed to USAF Commanders' Conference Headquarters, USAF," i.2 April 1949, reprinEed in MacGregor and Nalty, eds', Bfacks in Ehe UniEed States Arned, Forces, Basic Documents, Vol' VIII, p, 26'
-169or officers response was swj.ft, Disorderly enlistees were punshed, and offj-cers who procrastinated abouL implementation or who failed Lo Ereat blacks with respect received sharp warnngs that repetition of such behavior would jeopardize Eheir careers.26 But such cases were rare: bhe freguent progress reports Ehat Air Force headquarters insisted upon revealed no serious ncidenLs.27 That the presence of sErong leadership was of grea! value in implementing new racial policies was further demonsErated by the example of Ehe Army, which lacked such feadership on this subject during th labe 1940s and thus responded very differently to the L948 desegregation order. Unlike the Nawy and Ehe Air Force, the Army had not developed a coherenE internal group of officers who favored racial inegration, and i had done very lit.t.1e planning or experimentation concerning t,he issue, Civilian Secretaries of the rrny, far from supporting integration were firm opponents of iE,28 As a conseguence. the Army had a diffj.cult experJ.ence during 1949 and early 1-950. ft expended much time and effort resisting Lhe Truman AdminisEration's demands for an inEegraEion plan. After reaching agreemenL on such a plan, it moved very s1ow1y in carrying ouE,that agreement,2g This resistance did not last. long, however. When faced with severe shortages of personneL in Lhe Korean War during IaLe 1,950 and 1951, several rmy officers in Lhe field placed black troops j-n white units and found thac the resulbing racially mixed organizations functioned well,30 Such evidence soon convinced the Army staff. By the mid-1950s
26Nicho1s, Breakthrough on the CoTor Front, pp. 102-105; cropman. Air Force Integrates, p. \24. 2Tcropman, Air Force Integrates, pp. 123, 135; Nichols, Breakthrough on the CoTor Front,, pp..,100-106; The President's corunittee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in he Armed Services, "A First Report on the Racial InLegratj-on Program," in MacGregor and Na1ty, eds., Basic Documents, Vo7. XII, pp. 39-76. 2SMaccregor. Integration of the rmed Forces, pp. 322-324, 360. 29Maccregor, IntegraEion of the Armed Forces, pp. 350-3?8. The variable success of the services support.s general tenets of implementation research abouL lhe roLe of leadership in implementing and monitoring policy change (see Chapter t2). 3h,facGregor, Integration of the Armed Forces, pp. 433-434; OperaEians Research office, .lohns Hopkins University, UtiTizaEion of
r'l
the rmy was racially integrated, and most interservice policy differences had disaPPeared.
Forces Reetraining Integration Good l_eadership consistenLly made vital contribuLions to the incorporaEion of blacks inEo Ehe Armed Forces, but it was not a panacea for a1f the problems that surrounded mlitary racial polices. For one thing, it could no! prevent change from being slow and often dfficult' Even in the presence of the,clearest possible commitment from civilian officials and military officils, as in the case of Air Force integration, policy formulation and implementation took years Eo accomplish. The process of moving from racial segregation to racia] integraLion spanned a decade, from the Navy's first experiment in 19441945 to the abolition of the last segregaed Army uniE in 1954, The forces of Eradit.ion and prejudice, and the naEural inertia of large, complex organizations, meant that significant innovatj-ons j.n race
relaLions couLd not and did not come quickly. some of Ehese forces long remained beyond the reach of eadership. For example, the Navy, under the terms of bhe integration agreement thaE iE had negoLiated with Lhe Truman Administration, sought to increase the low overall percenLage of blacks in its enlisted ranks and officer corps during the 1950s. Navy offcia1s discovered thau in the black comnunity, the Navy had such a reputation for racial discrimination thaL even a greaEly expanded recruiLng campaign specifically designed Lo attract blacks could not convince many 'b1ack youth to enlistcompounding this probfem wis the rfusal of some Nawy officers to abandon the long Lradition of''ptacing:bl-acks and members of other racial minorities in the SEeward's Branch--rvhich created a public perception Lhat the NaW sLill endorsecl racj.al segregaLj"on.3l Thus Ehe Nawy's pioneering work in racial integrration, and iLs subsequent educational and public-relations efforts, did not really ouEweiqh entrenched stereotypes boEh inside and ouLside Ehe service.
Negro Manpower, Chevy Chase, MD, Johns Hopkins UniversiLy, 1954, pp.
LB5-1_87.
3lMaccregor, lnEegration
of the'Armed Forces, pp. 413-415,
417-426,
- l7L -
closely related probJ.em,was the difficulty that the Armed Forces had in doing what the Kennedy Administration sought to achieve through the 1963 directive on command responsib.J-ity; institutionalizing leadership so that it would endure. Whj.le parLicular miliLary officers or particular civj.lian administrations succeeded in defining and impi-ementing reforms, Ehe momentum of these efforts Lended to diminish over bime, corlrnitment to equal treatment and opportunity for blacks did not necessarj-ly become a rouLine, ongoing function of military organizations, The fate of Ehe civil righEs monitoring mechanisms t.haL the 1963 directive estabLished illusErated this probl"em, Civil rights offices j.n the Defense DeparLment and the individual rmed Forces lacked Lhe human and financial resources needed to make them capable of performing their missions; for instance, the Air Force Equal Opportunity Office had only one employee unLL I97I.32 Relying primarIy on the voluntary compliance of local commanders and civilians in nearby communities, the Armed Forces did noL establish clear standards of accountabiJ.ity or mechanisms of enforcement.l3 .In consequence many complaints and incidents of discriminaEion went unanswered during the 1960s. his situation suggest,ed Ehat unless appropriaLe incentives were built into organizational" structure and practices, Lhe personal leadership Lhat was so evident at many poinEs in the hisLory of mj-litary racial policies was inadequate to guarantee the fufl incorporation of bLacks inEo military
life.
RJICIIJ INTEGR.,TION, IJNIT COHESION, ND MII'ITRY EFFECTIVENESS
During Ehe first half of Lhe 20Eh century, merican military officials constantly raised questions about the impact of racial heterogeneiLy on unit cohesion and Lask performance. Many military officers and civilian commentaeors on military affairs emphasized the widespread antagonism lhaL exisEed beEween blacks and whites in civilian 1ife, and the differences j-n historical experience that separated the lwo groups, Given the strength of these racial divi-sions, the prospect
32cropman,
Air Force Integrates, pp. 206-207 . 3lMacGregor, IntegraEion of trhe Atmed Farces,
pp. 561-566, 581-586.
L'7"2
of bringing whites and blacks togeEher in close quarters in the Armed Forces, or of creating situaLions n which blacks rnight have to give orders to whites, seemed a]arming. such compuJ.sory interracial associations, it was argued. could only create personal Lensions and social divisions that would distract military personnel, disrupt work, and perhaps lead Lo violence. Racial mixing, in short, would undermine unit cohesion among the trops ancl thereby rmpair their morale, readiness, and ability to perform a's'J unified combat, force. Until the mid-1950s, the view that raciaJ- heterogeneity would imperil miliary efficiency provided a key justificaLion for seqregating blacks by unit and occupaEion, and minimizing conEact between white and btack units. The Nawy expJ.ained in 1935 that it had to confine blacks to steward's duties because if blacks were enli-sted as seamen and became petty officers, "team work, harmony, and ship efficiency IwouId be] seriously handicapped,"34 In 1949, the Secretary of Lhe Army staed that effecLiveness in battle ,,ca1Is for a warm and close personal reLationship within a uniE,', and that such a relaLionship could noL exist between blacks and whiEes; thus, he asserEed, segreqation was
necessary.3S
The essential argument here was clear: effective cooperaEion in performance or military tasks, such as operating a ship or fighting Lhe a land battfe, dependecl upon the prior existence of a high degree of unit cohesion-rmore specifically, the socia.I cohesion that stemmed from raciaL homogeneity. If blcks vrere introduced into units thaL were primarily whiLe, it was presumed chat sociaL cohesion would immediately decLine and the qualiLy of task performance would necessarily
deteriorate,
34Rear'Admira] Adolphus Andrews, Chief of the Navy Bureau of Navigation, letter to A, c. MacNeal, PresidenL of the chicago Branch of the NAACP, 19 Sept. L935, quoted in Frederick S. Harrod, Manning Ehe New Navy, WestporL, CT, Greenwood Press, I978' p' 623STestimony of Secretary of the Army KenneLh Roya11. in Minutes, President,s Committee on Equality of, Treatment and OpporEunity in the rmed Services, 2B March 1949, reprin!ed in MacGregor and Nalty, eds., B|acks in Ehe United StEes Armed Forces, Basic DocumenEs, Vol, IX, pp,
506-508.
773
During the 1"940s and 1950s, under wartime conditions, the miJ.itary pub this premise to the lest on several occasions, and the resulEs did Empirical evidence suggesbed thaL task cohesion-noL confirm it. effective cooperation in carrying out military mi.ssions--could exist without racial homogeneity, and thus that task cohesion did not necessarily depend upon a sense of group identity (or sociaL cohesion) ar.sing from racial homogeneiL,y. This distj.ncion between social and task cohesion is comprehensively described in the chapter on unit cohesion and military effectiveness in Ehe context of allowing acknowledged homosexuals to serve,
Unit cohesion: Evldence from world War II and Korea The Navy's planned experiment with racial integration on supply ships during 1-944 and 1945 was the fi::st such test. Evaluations of these ships revealed high performance and morale, and low incidence of racial friction. among the racially mixed crews.36 This evidence was nstrumental in convincing Navy officials to abandon their long-standing contention Lhat such racial mixing would harm "ship effciency," thus clearing the way for the integration policy adopted in 1946 (two years before PresidenE Truman's integration directive) . At about t.he same time, Ehe Army engaged in a simj.lar experiment, one that emerged from abrupt military necessity rather than careful planning. Durng the winEer of 1944-1945, shortages of infantry troops in Europe became so severe thaE Genera Eisenhower and his staff adopted a plan to take black soldiers out of non-combat units, Lrain them as riflemen, and orgtanize Ehem into platoons that were combined with white platoons to form racially integrated nfantry companies. over 4.500 blacks volunteered to take part in Lhis program; 2,500 were accepted and served with Lhe First rmy and the Seventh rmy during the final sEages of the war againsL Germany13?
36Minutes of press conference held by Lester Granger, 1 Nov' L945, reprj.nted in MacGregor and Na1Ly, eds., BLacks jn the UniEed '9taEes Armed Forces, Basjc ocurlenls, pp. 183-184 ' 3TlieutenanL General John C. H. Lee, drafL direcLive, 26 Dec. 1-944, reprinted in MacGregor and NalEy, eds., Bl-acks jn the United.States Armed Forces, Basic Documents, Vol-, V, Wilnington, DE, Scholarly Resources Inc,, !977, p. 98; Lieutenant General Lee, memorandum to
l"l
4-
Reports from Ehe fielcl indicatecl that the black pJ.atoons performed very wel1, workj,ng in close conjunction with whites in a variety of combat operations and on garrison cuty in captured towns.36 No incidengs of racial violence or non-cooperation beEween whiEe and black soldiers occurred in combat situations. Some reports indicated that occasionaf tensions arose over the use of recreaLional faci'lities in rear areas. However, other reports pointed to examples of blacks and whites volunbarily sharing work assignments and participating on the
sports teams.39 fn July 1945, an Army survey of 250 white officers and noncornmissioned officers (NCO5) rvho had experience wiEh Ehe integrated companies revealed that 79 percent of the officers and 60 percent of the non-commissioned officers juclged thaE race relatj.ons in these units had been good or very good. sixLy-Ewo percent of Ehe officers and 89 percent of, the NCos recommended that Ehe Army continue to form such raciall-y mixed companies in Ehe future.40 Many senior rmy officers believed EhaE this experimenL wiEh racially integrated companies was too smal1 to provide conclusive evidence that racial heterogeneity clicl noL undermine cohesion in combat. uring bhe Korean War, horvever, the Army gained experj-ence with racially mixed unts on a much larger scale. During 1950 and 1951, severe personnel shorlages, imbaances between overstrength black units and underLrength whiL.e units,, and dissatisfaction with Ehe combat effectiveness of some segregated black units led some commanders j-n the Korean Theater to insert black soldiers into rvhiLe combat organizations.
same commanders in the Cornmunication Zone, European TheaEer of Opera!ions, reprinted in MacGregor and Nalty, eds., Efacks jn Le united states Armed Forces, Basjc DocumenEs, Vol. V, p. 99; Lee, EmpToynent of Negro Troops, pp. 688-705 ' r8lee, EmpToymenc of Negrro ?roops, pp. 696-702. 39lee, EmpToyment of Negro Troops, pp. 701-702; Research Branch, Information and EclucaEion Division. Ileadquarters, Army Service Forces, Opinions .bou Negro InfanEry Platoons in WhiEe Companies of 7 1945, reprinted in MacGregor and Nalty, BTacks in the Divisions,3,luly United,gtates rmed Forces, Basjc DocurnenLs, VoL' V, pp. 516-518' 40Research Branch, Opinions About Negto Pfatoons, in MacGregor and NalEy, Basic Docunents, Vol' V, pp' 516-51-7.
.-
I75 -
These decisions enabfed the Army Lo make a more comprehensive assessmenL of the performance of racially mixed infantry units' In 1951, the Army asked a Leam -of social scienLisbs working under the auspices of Ehe operations Research office of Johns Hopkins Universiy to study Lhe utilization of black Eroops in Korea.41 The researchers discovered Lhat because integrated and segregated infantry
units existed simultaneously and were operating under the same condiEions, it was possible to conduct somethng very close to a controll-ed scientific experiment, They collecLed data on boEh types of uniE, and compared the atEitudes of so.Idiers who had experienced racial integration with the attitucles of sol.diers who had not' The result'ing reporE, known by its code name of Project clear, demonsErated that racial integration hacl no discernibLe detrj.mentaL effects on task performance. including combaE effectiveness' projects Clear data indicaced that on key dimensions of Performance, inLegrated units performed just .as well- as all-white units. For instance, B9 percent of officers who had served with integrated units reporEed Lhat these units hacl a levef of teamwork Lhat was equal or superior to that of white unibs; 84 percent said that integrated unj.Ls were as aggressive as or more aggres,sive than white units when conducting attacks.42 Moreover, integration did not Lower overall unit morale. In fact, bl-ack soldiers were more likely bo display hj-gh morale and desirable combat behavior vrhen serving in racially mxed than in segiregated units. rndivj.dual inciclents of overb racial- hosEility or violence did occur in the Korean Theater, but the Project Clear data indicated that they were rare and dj.cl not present serious threats to military efficiency, wheEher in combat or non:.combat situations. on one particular point that. had trong concerned Army officials, Lhe daLa were particutarly reassuring: there was,no evidence thaL white soldiers
41],eo Bogart, d., ProjecE C-lear; Social' Research and the Desegregation of the united "sttes nny, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Books, 1991, PP. xxxi-xlv' 42operations Research Offce, Utilization of Negro Manpower, p, 18.
11
6-
refused to take orders from black officers or non-commissi.oned offcers . qr A major conclusion of boCh Project Clear and the earl-ier 1945 Army sudy of the integratecl infantry companies was tha! among whEe soldiers, a strong correlation existed between experience wiEh racial iirtegration and accepLance of it. whites who initialJ-y expressed disLike of or resistance to the prospect of workinq side-by-side wiLh blacks often changed their attiEudes after actual service in an integrated unib. In the 1945 study, 64 percenE of boEh the white officers and the white NCOs inberviewed reported that they had initially regarded the idea of combining black and whiLe platoons with skepticism or aversion. But 77 percent of both groups asserEed that L.hey had gained a more favorable view of integraced unEs as a result of
irsthand experience. 44 project clear generated similar conclusions. white officers who had commanded integraEed units, and vhite en1!sEed personnel who belonged to such units, showed much higher regard for the miliEary capabiliLies of blacks and greater Eolerance of inEegration than did whites who had never servecl with blacks. Of a group of white officers interviewed in the unit.ecl states, 69 percent of those who had fought with integraLecl units in comJ:at believed that blacks and whibes made egually good soldiers; only 34 percent of those who had noE been assigned to integrated units hel-d this view.45 In a sample of white enlisted men, 5l percent of those in a1L-white units favored the segregation of black Lroops and 22 percenL favored inEegraLion; Lhe comparable figures for whiEes in racially mixed uniEs were 31 percenL and 34 percenE.a6 (Th. chapter on mitritary opinion seconds these findings. In military focus groups conducted by RAND sLaff, a number of service members remarked that Lhe experience of working with minority
f
43operations Research Office, l)EiTization of Negro Manpower, pP.

44Research Branch, opinions Aboul Negro Infantry PTatoons, in Maccregor and Nalty, eds,, B,i.acks in Ehe United SEaEes Armed Forces, Basic Documents, VoL. V, pp' 514-515. 4soperations Research office, Utilization of Negro Manpower, P. 24' 46operations Research office, UEiJization of Negro Manpower, p.
141
.
27
-28, 239-242.
L71
group members had changed previousty heId, negative attitudes toward those minoribies')7 These findings suggesLed that shared experience in performing military Easks could actualJ.y generate a sense of socaI cohesion--a sense of muua] respect, Lrust, and even liking--among members of differenE racial groups who had previousLy had liEtle contacL with one
another. QuaJ.itative data supported.this hypothesis. Officers who responded to the 1945 Army survey indicled Ehat race relations were smoothest in those integrated'companes that had undergone the heaviest combaL.48 This phenomenon is supported in Ehe literature on cohesion: As the chapLer n Lhat subject reporcs, successful performance and "task cohesion., are reLatecl--wi.ch successiul performance having a sEronger effecE on cohesion than vice versa. The comments of solcliers interviewed for the Project Clear surveys revealed numerous examples of changed attiLudes and nterracial friendships that had resul-ted from common experiences. Racially grounded expressions of suspicion and hosElity remained, but the interviewers concluded LhaL both blacks and whites in mixed units were more Iikely Lo make favorable assessments of race reLations than unfavorable ones .49 The Project cLear findings reinforced Lhe judgmen of senior Army officers (most notably General Ridgway), who had already ordered the aboliEion of racial segregaLion in the Korean Theater, and provided support for extendj.ng the integraEion process to Army units in Europe and, lastIy, Lhe United States In 1953 and 1954.
47In the chapber on clomesEic police and fire departments, some personnel who were interviewed said Lhey had similar attibude changes The after serving wiEh homosexual poJ-ice officers or firefighters. chapLer on public opinion also sr-rggesbs that people who know homosexuals have more favorable aEttues E,ward that group Bhan Ehose vho do not report knowing homosexuals. 4EResearch Branch, opinions AbouE Negro Infantry Pjatoons, in Maccregor and NaIty, eds. , Bl.acks jn the united .gtates rmed Forces, Basic Documents, VoL. y, Pp. 515-516' 4gOperabions Research Office, Ut.Lization of Negro Manpower, pp. 205-208, 2lt-214.
- 178 i RaciaI fntsegration and Milltary EffecElvenees By the late 1.950s, Lhe rmy, like the Nawy and the ir Force before iE, had come Lo accepE a new perspective on racial policy: the view this new that racial j_nt.egration actually benefited Lhe military. argumenE, which had emergec gradually during the L940s, held that raciaL integration improved miJ.iEary efficiency--which r^ras a reversaL of the oder argument Lhat. racial integraEion would impair military efficiency' The reversal came partly because of external political pressure for Ehe equaL trealment of blacks, and partly because of mounting evidence that an extreme emphasis on upholding socaJ. cohesion--defined as mainEaining racial- homogeneity--interfered with the Armed Porces' ability Eo conduct a large-sca1e, long-term war' During World I''Jar IT, and again in the Army's operations during the early years of the Korean war, the system of strict raciaf segregation proved to be very coscly in Eerms of money, time, and inefficient use of human resources. IE demonstrably impaired task performance at the Level, of the Army as a whole, or the Navy as a whole, or the Air Force as a who1e. segregation was costly because of the expensive and rrustratj-ng administraLive work involvecl in building separate facil-iLies for whites and bfacks, calcuJ.ating raci-al quotas, and keeping Erack of separate deployments for white ancl black troops. It aLso caused substantial waste of human tafent, especially in the case of skilled blacks who were assigned to inappropriate jobs or prevented from obLainng necessary specialized training sole1y because no places for Lhem existed in black uniEs.5u Irrvestigations during the war, and an exhausEive inquiry by the Truman AdministraLion's Fahy Committee in 1949, reveafed bhe systematic nature of this mismatching'51 But the highest costs of segregaLion lay in the destrucEive social dynamics that it generated. Black soldiers and sail"ors n segregated
S0osur, BJ.acks in the Army Air Forces, p' 31' 5lMaccregor, Integration of le .Arted Forces, pp. 352-355; Minutes, presdent,s cornictee on Equality of TreatmenE and opportunity in the Armed Services, 26 ApriL 1949, reprinted in Maccregor and NaIty, eds', BTacks in the UnjLerJ .gLaLes rned Forces, Basic DocumenCs, Vol-, X, pp. 69'7-BO7; E. W. I(enworthy, memorandum to Charles Fahy, 30 May 1949, reprinced in MacGregor and NaIty, eds', BTacks in the United SEaEes Armed Forces, Basic Docuntents, Vol, XI, p. 7264.
- r'79 units often suffered from Low morale as a resuLt of the raciaL discrimina!ion and second-rate facilties tha! they consbantly had to endure, and their sense of isolation from the mainsLream of the war efforE. Tensions beEween black enlisted personnel and white officers-many of whom dislikecl commanding black units--were common.52 These morale problems contrbutecl directly and subsbantially, in the judgment of several mili|ary historians, to the poor combaL performance of some black units in hlorld War II and Korea.53 segregaLion per se afso encouraged racial conflicE between bl-acks and whices. rt promoted strong feeJ.ings of group consciousness and Members of bla.ck units developed a 1ive1y sense interracial hostility. of collective grievance ancl nger aC the discriminaEory practices of whites. while whites found black units to be easy EargeLs for ridicuLe and resentment.54 The Navy's problems with Lhe mutual- antipathy of black sailors who had no opportunity to go to sea and white sailors who dislj.ked the fact that blacks remained safel-y on shore typified the situations that exisLecl in aLl lhe Armed Forces. This exaggerated ingragroup cohesion anc intergroup tension resuLLed in a wave of serious race riot.s at military installationsr in the UniCed States and around the world between 1941 and L946.s5
1\Lee, EmpToynent of Negtro Ttoops, pp. 182-191, 23I-232; Ri-chard M. Dalfiume, Desegregation of the U. S, Arned Forces, Columbia, MO, University of Missouri Press, L969, pp' 69-71; E. T. Ha11, "Race Prejudice anc Negro-White Relations in Ehe rmy, " ,4nerjcan JournaT of Sociology, 52, March 1947, pp. 408-409. S3Truman K. Gi.bson, Jr,, War DepartmenE Civilian ide on Nefro ffairs, memorandum co the AssisEant Secretary of l^lar, 23 ug' T943' reprinted in MacGregor and Nalty, eds. , E.lacks jn i:e Uni,ed .SLates Armed Forces, Basjc Documents, Vo1. I/,'pp. 273-2'79; Mary Penick Motley' ed., The Invisibfe SoJ-dier, Detroit, Wayne State University Press, I975, pp. 268, 2g7-2g8, 303-304, 313. 318; Lt" CoI. Marcus H' Ray, leLLer Lo Truman K. Gibson, 14 May 1945, reprintd in Lee, Enployment of Negro Troops, pp. 5BB*589; Clay Blar, The ForgotEen War, New York. Times Books, 1987, pp. 15L-152, L92, 475-416, S4osur, Blacks in the Arny Air Forces, p. 54; Ha]1. "Race Prejudice, " p. 404 ssl,ee, EnploynenL of Negro btoopt; pp. 348-3?9; Bureau of Navaf Personnef, "The Negro in the Na\Y," in MacGregor and Nalty, eds., B-Zacks in the United States r-med Forces, asjc Docuntents, VoL, YJ, pp. 385387; Dennis D. Nelson, The Integtation of Ehe Negro into the U. S. Navy,
E
- 180 The rmed Forces cliscovered during the ate 1940s and 1950s LhaL racial inEegraLion removed'the inefflciencies and diminished the occasj-ons for violence thac Ehe sysCem of segregation had engendered' once separate black and white unit.s weie abolished, assignmenb of personnel became easier and more rational. once blacks and whites began
!o share the risks, revrards, and responsibilities of miltary life more equitably, moraLe problems diminished. These advantages were important in persuading many military officers--even those who remained hostile to blacks and to racal mixing--that integration did not necessarily threaten task performance in the rmed Forces. The Fahy Committee and other advocates of racial inbegration emphasized Ehe link between integraion and improved organizationa performance in Eheir efforts Eo convince the Armed Forces to accept che 1948 Truman directive. Racial Turmoil and Military Effectiveness in Ehe venam Era By the L96os, the argument that integration promted military efficiency was widely accepEed, and many civil righEs advocates viewed the military as a paragon of jusE race reJations. The evidence of renewed racial tensions within Ehe mj-Iitary during Ehe Vietnam war was therefore very troubling !o many obpervers. Beeween 1968 and I972, aL:r the Arned Forces experienced numerous outbreaks of racial hostiliEy and viol-ence in a worldwide pattern that near.y matched the strife Ehat had existed during World War If- Riots and proEests at bases in Ehe United States and abroad, and even on Navy ships at sea, reached a leveL thaE c]early undermined moral"e and threaEened to impede the smooth functioning of mititary units.56 fn wortd war II, such events had been attribr-rLable Eo racial segregation, bub in the Vietnam era segregation no onger exi.sEed, There had to be some other explanation for Lhe racia: Eurmoi. our research suggest.s that during Lhe vietnam \tar, the social psychology of segregation was recreated in a new way through the
New
York, OcEagon Books, 1982, reprint of origj-nal 1951 ediLion, pp' 8285,' Gropman, .Ajr Force -Irrtegrrates, pp' 64-70 s6Na1ty, Strength for the Fight, pp- 305-311' 3L5-317' 32L-324 ,Jack D. Foner, Bl_acks and Le Military jn ,merjcan History, New York, praeger, 1974, pp. 201-260; Gropman, Force InEegrates, pp. 2t5-2I6. ,Air
r_81-
convergence of two factorg, First, it became clear that although Che formal, 1ega1 system of segregalion had disappeared, many practices tha! had discriminatory effects--whether intentional- or not--had survived. The much-publicized fact Ehat the ctraft disproporlionaEely affecbed blacks was only one exampJ.e. Others included discriminaEion in housing' n promoti-ons, in the aclminisLratj-on of military justice, and in the uneven distribuEion of bl-acks amonq and within the Armed Forces (for instance, the concenLration of bJacks |n frontline comba! posiEions).5?
cumulatively, these pracLices'may have had much Ehe same kind of impacL as formal segregation previously had: they created an inequiLable aLloca!ion of risks, rewards, and responsibilities among different racial groups. second, boLh blacks ancl whites displayed a heightened sensitivity to such inequities as a result of the extraordinary racial polarizaLion that exisbed in American society at that time. Members of both groups brought their experiences and interpretaEions of events in civilian life with them when Ehey entered Ehe military, Many blacks were influenced by ideas that emphasized Ehe importance of preserving a distinctive black culEure and ressting white domination. Many whites reacted sharply against these ideas, A sort of voluntary segregation emerged within the Armed Forces, with both blacks and whiEes stressing the cohesion of their own groups and their hostility toward one another. At Lhe same time, blacks pro!ested strongly againsL the organizaLional practices that continued Eo deny them equal opportuniLy'58 Even this hej-ghtenecl level- of tension, however, did not interfere greatly wiEh acual combat oplations, ,As in World War II, most of the racial violence durinq Lhe VieLnam war Look place not in frontLine units but rather in rear areas, at. ases within the United States and Europe (particuJ.arly in WesE Germany), and in civilian communities. For a1I the fears expressed aL the time a:out the potential impact of racial
57Foner, Bfacks and he Mili ary, pp. 201-204, 221-228; NaltY, Strength for Ehe Fight, PP. 298, 328*331; Charles C. Moskos, Jr., The Amerjcan EnLjsted Man. New York, Russel-l Sage Foundation, I9'70, pp. 115115
.
MiJitary, pp.
S8Nalty, Strength for the FighE, pp' 303-306; Foner, Blacks and 207 -2)'3.
Ehe
.- t82
' .i
lensions on miliEary performance, Eask cohesion under conditions of comaE does not appear to have been a serious problem'59 In sum, the historica] evidence concerning relationships amongf race, social cohesion, and task performance is complex, but t does suggest that it is possil:e to draw clear dlstinctions between social cohesion and task cohesion in military settings--a suggestion supported by the Iiterature reviewed in the chapter on cohesion, Perhaps the best generalization is tha! while Lhe mplementation of racj-a1 inLegrati-on could have been a major source of Eension and difficulty in Ehe rniliLary--given the strong racial prejudices of earfier eras--it was not necessarily so. The emergence of racial animosities severe enough Lo impair miliary efficiency seems to have been erraLic and contingent upon oEher circumsEances--notably organizational practices that created systemaLic ineguatities among racial groups, and culEural influences that promoled an unusual clegree of ,group identLt.y. High LeveLs of task cohesion among peopJ-e of diferent races, parEicularly in combat situations, existed even at times when the very idea of interracial cooperaLion wj.Lhin military unj.Es was a noveLty (as in the [Îorld War II experimens and in Korea) and even when considerable racial- tension was presenE (as in Vietnam). There is also evidence to suggest Ehat social
5eNalty, strengEh for the Fight, pp- 301-302. Nobe, however, the caution expressed by scholars on this topic: "Impressions about race relations in VieLnam are largely anecdotal, since intergroup relations during that era were not subjected t the rigorous scrutiny that social scientisLs had applied to the world viar II and Korean experiences. Accounts were often conflicLing." Martin Binkin, Mark Eitelberg' eE aI., Blacks and the MiJitary, Washington, D.C', The Brookings InsLitution, 1972, pp. 36-3?. See afso Lawrence M Baskir and wilLiam A. strauss , chance and cjcuntstarce: The Draft, the war, and the vieEnam Generation, New York, Vintage Books, t9'78, pp. 137-138; Foner, Blacks and Ehe MiTitary in American History, p' 211; Thomas D' Boettcher, Vjetnarn; The VaLor and the gorow, Boston, LiLLIe, Brown, and Co., 1985, p, 401; Guenter Lewy, merica in VieEnam, New York, Oxford University Press, 1978. p. 155; Byron G. Finman, JonaLhan F. Borus, M. Duncan Stanton,,,Black-white and American-VieEnamese Rela!ions funong Soldiers in Vietnam," JournaL of SociaT, fssues, 31, L975, p. 41; and "Report by Ehe Special SubcommiEbee on Disciplinary Problems in the U'S' Navy of the commiEee on Armed services," House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, January 2, 1913, reprinL,ed in MacGregor and Nalty (eds'). BLacks in ihe united staLes rinecl Forces, Basic Documents, vo7. {III, pp. 605-631.
183
cohesion could and did arise from equal participation tasks ,
j-n shared military
,TTITUDES VERSUS BEHVIORS DURING THE PROCESS OF INTEGRTTON: MINTINING CIVIIJITY WITHOUT OVERTURNING PREirUDICE
The process of integr:aEng blacks inEo Ehe military was lengLhy and in part because'it'Eook pic" againsE a backdrop of public difficult,
The standards of opinion that was generally hosLile or indifferent. equal EreaEment and discipline Lhat Lhe Armed Forces officj-alIy promoted oflen contrasted sharply with bhe views LhaE mosE military personnel held about race relaLions. While blacks themselves formed an active constiEuency in favor of broader black partici.pation, and while some whites, including key civilian and miliLary Ieaders, supported this position, major changes in miliLary and racial policies were j-mplemented without a favorable public consensus.
PubIic Opinion During the Traneition to IntegraElon: From Highly Unfavorable to ModeraEely Unfavorable In 1943, the federal governmenL's Office of War fnformation conducLed a survey on this subject, IL found that 90 percent of white civilians and 1B percent of black civilians favored segregaEion in tshe mi1itary,60 An Army sLudy in that same year concluded that 88 percent of white soldiers and 38 percent of black soldiers believed thaL whites and blacks shouLd be assigned'o separate units.61 These results paralleled an earlier naLional polI, taken tn 1-942, which indicated that only 30 percenE of whites approved of raciaLly integrated schools and onJ.y 35 percenL approved of raclall-y inLegrated neighborhoods'62 SenLiment for maintaining segregation n major American institutions was thus very sLrong during World War ff.
6osurveys Division, Bureau of Special Services, office of War Information, The Negroes' Ro.ie in the l,/ar, Washington, D.C., B JuLy 1948, reprinLed in MacGregor and Nalty, B-lacks in che UniEed SEates Armed Forces, Basic Docunents, Vol. V, p. 237. 6lResearch Branch, Special Service Divisi.on, United States rmy, LLiLudes of the Negro SoTdier, cited in Lee, EmpToymenE of Negro Troops, p. 305 , 62Herbert H. Hyman and Paul B. Sheatsey, "ttitudes Toward Deseqrega!ion," ^gcjentific Anericat, Vol, 195, No. 6, L956, pp.36-37
-184fn 1948, just one month before President Truman issued his executive order requiring racial integration in the Armed Forces, a Ga11up pol1 revealed thar although support for segfregaLion had declined from the wartime leve1, it remained very high. Sixty-three percent of merican adults endorsecl the separation of blacks and whites in Ehe miltary, while only 26 percent favored integraton.63 survey of whiEe Army enlj-sted personnel and officers in May 1949 indicated that. 32 percent of white soldiers opposed any degree of racial integration in the Army, and 61 percent opposed integraEi-on if it mean! thaE blacks and whites had to sleep in the same barracks and eaL in the same mess hafls. This l-949 survey did, however, find thaE 68 percent of the soldiers expressed tolerance for he idea of partial integration. in which blacks and whites worked Eogether l:uE did noE share dormitory and mess pparently, some nuances had appearecl in white attitudes; facilities. Lhe major concerns among white solcliers seemed to be the prospects of intimate physical contact wiEh bLacks, not the presence of blacks per
se.64
Even during the Korean vlar, when racial inLegration n Lhe Air Force and the Navy was virtually complete and integration in the Army and Ehe Marine Corps was well under way, considerable hosLjliEy bo integration persisted. The 1951 Project clear study found that while larqe majorities of black solcljers favored integrated Army uniLs, white
soldiers had sharply divided oinj-ons. Of a sample of white enlisted men in Ehe Korean TheaEer, 52 percent favored segregaLed uniLs, while 46 percent beLieved that soldiers should be assigned Lo any uniL regrardless of race. (Althoug]n 52 percent favored segregation, only 24 percent said they would object strongly Eo serving in a racialJ.y integrated platoon.)6s Many white officers and enlisted men who fefE Ehat inLegration had succeeded during comllat in Korea expressed trepidation
63ca1up organization, Survey of 3000 dul-ts Based on Personal Inberview, June 1948. 64Attitude Research Branch, Armecl Forces lnformation and Education Dvision, MoraLe AEtitudes of EnfisEed Men, May-June 7949, reprinced in Maccregor and NalLy, eds., Blacks in the Uniled 'gLaLes Armed Forces, Basic Documens, VoJ. Xfr, pp' 145-149' 6soperations Research office, UtiTiza1ion of Negro Manpower, p. 200.
- 185 about extending that policy bo the United States j.Eself, where comba!inspired cooperation woufd be absent and resisbance from civilian cornmunities would become a factor.66 The Armed Forces implemented integraLion plans amid Ehis povrerful, if gradually diminishing, atmosphere of interracial suspicion and aversion'
ttltudes Versus Behaviore: During the desegregation process, a disjuncture between attitudes in race and behavior was clearly evidentr, MainLainng civility relations, not transforminq racial prejudices, was the principal object of implementation overseers. Whites who had noL previous)-y worked wiLh bLacks and had some degree of antipathy Eoward them were nevertheless expected to dispJ-ay Eolerance and cooperaEe as needed. BIaCks who distrusted whites faced the same expectation. The Armed Forces usually managed this disjuncture between atEiLudes and expected behavior $eIl enough for day-to-day operacions. But the aEtiLudes themselves freguenEly resisBed change. and civil-ity did noE mean the absence of racial tensions and incidents' However, unfavorabfe attitudes toward integraEion did not necessarily translaEe into viol-ent or obstructionisL behavior, The Project clear data suggested Lhat military personnel were able to separaEe their personal feelings from their conduct. For instance, repors on the process of integration in the Air Force during 1949 and 1.950 indicatecl that--cespfte ominous predrctions of "troubIe" beforehand--white airmen who resented blacks generally expressed tha resentmenE quietly and dicl not provoke serious incidents.6T Some of the white Air Force officers whom the executive secreLary of the Fahy CorniEtee interviewed in early 1950 said frankly that Lhey disliked the new policy and would have preferred to continue segregation, but Ehey also emphasized Lhat integration was working welJ- in pracLice and thaE lhey were committed to enforcing it'68 pp. 245-2s0 .
66operations Research office,
6TNichol-s
UtiLizaEion
of Negro Manpowet,
, BreakEhrough on Ehe col,or F'ront, p' I02. 68"4 First Report on the Racia] rntegrati.on Program of the Air Force," in MacGregor ancl Nalty, Basic Docunen:s, Vol' XII, p. 43'
_ 186
Evidence from Korea was simiar. The Project clear researchers found that among white officers'in Korea, practical miliEary considerations such as personnel shortages outweighed unfavorable personal views of blacks, thus creating a willingness Lo incorporate black soldiers in white units. White enlisEed men simIar1y separated lheir concerns about mJ-Iitary effectiveness from Ehej.r uneasiness about integrating blacks. lthough many of fhese soldiers expressed discomforE and fear of possible trouble, they also cibed the acute need for comaE troops, and Ehe probabi-lity that black troops would perform
better in white unts, as good reasons to accept integration'69 But this "Eesting" was reJ-atively infrequent,T0 almost never led to disruptive events, and had little or no impact on unit performance.Tl
Deeplte Success, Problems Beneath the Surface During the 1950s and 1960s, the rmed Forces gained a reputation for having significancly betcer raceirelatons than most civilian ConEemporary accounEs drew vivd contrasEs between institutions. conditions on miliLary bases, where there was a fairly high degree of formal equality and interaction beEween blacks and whites, and the strict segrega!ion and interracaI violence that existed in many nearby civilian communiLies.?2 These accounbs were accuraLe as far as they wenL, buE they overlooked some persistent problems which indicated bhat disjunctures between attitudes ancl behavj-ors continued to exist just beLow the surface. Racially grounded inci.dents of discrimination and harassment were never absent from Lhe Armed Porces. Such cases existed in offical
69operations Research office, UtilizaEion of Neqro Manpower, FP.
70'A First Report on the Racial Integration Program of the Air Force, " in MacGregor arrd Nalby, Bfacks jn Lhe United .gtaEes Armed Forces, Basic Docuntents, VoJ. XII, p. 44; Operations Research Office. UEilization of Negro Manpower, pp' 2\5-224' Tloperations Research office, lliJizaEion of Negro Manpower, pp22, 376. T2Nichols, Break:hrough on the Color FronL, pp' 143-165; U.S. Commission on Civil Rghts, "The Negro in the Armed Forces," in Maccregor and NalLy, Bfacks itt the tJnited StaEes Armed Forces, Basic Docu)nents, Vo7. XII, p. 493i MacGregor, IntegraEion of Ehe Armed Forces, pp. 500, 540.
204, 208.
-r87matters such as promotion decisions and disciplinary actions. They occurred wiLh greater frequency in regard to off-duty recreation and social activities such as dances and meeEings of voluntary organizations. In Lhese activities, ,sElrong informal pressures for selfsegregation existecl among boLh blacks and whites, and tensions between the lwo groups became more evidenL.?r Many white service people reacted more strongly Eo the presence of blacks at. social events--which suggested that blacks were claiming ful1 socia eguality in all aspecls of fife--than they dicl to cooperation with bfacks in the performance of military duties. overt expressions of racial hostil-ity were stj.lI more likely off base, when miliEary personnel interacted wibh each other and with civilians n communiLies that were noL under miliLary conErol. From the beginning of Wortcl War lI through the VieCnam era, off-base incidents of discrimination ancl violence--most frequentfy perpetrated by whites against blacks, but sometimes perpetrated ]:y blacks agTainst whites--in the UniEed States ancl around the worlcl created serious problems. The military made liEcle effort to address Lhese problems until the initiatives of he Kennecly Aclministration in the early L960s focused aEtention on Ehem. Even then, miliLary officials did not consistently impJ"ement their responsibilities to mon.iLor off-base activities. The long-term persi-stence of interracial tensions, which gained public attention when race roEs and oEher disLurkances erupted at some military bases in Ehe labe 1960s, suggesLed both the sources and the limitations of the military's abiliLy Lo manage conflicts between attitudes and expectec behavior., The need for cooperation on difficult and dangerous milital.y tasks, particularly under combaE conditj.ons (as in Korea), usually induced military personnel to avoid or at least tone down expressions of raci-al- animosity while on duty. Such a shared experienee may also have generatecl sufficient comradeship Eo reduce the l"filiLary cisclpline, which applied pressure to avoid animosiEy itself. career-jeopardizing inciclents, also af fected behavior.
?3operations Research of f ice, utilization of Negro Manpower, pp. 381-390; MacGregor, InteqraEon of the Arned Forces, p. 456; Moskos, Aneri.can Enl-isted Man, :p . 122-123, t25.
The
- 188 ye when the pressures of work and discipline were relaxed, or at leas! were perceived as being relaxed (as was Lhe case in many off-duty settings), hosUile aLtitudes became more likely Lo affect behavior' And alEhough shared experience could promote accePtance, it did not alvJays do so, Many whites anc bLacks retained the racj-al views Ehey had
Thus, L.he inLerracial misLrust that acquired in civilian life. characLerized funerican socieLy as a whole continued to be manifest wiEhin the military long after the military had changed ts officj-al policies and PracLices'
IIPI,TCTIONS FOR AI.LOWING ACKNOWT,EDGED HOMOSEXUIJS TO SERVE IN THE IfII.ITARY
TheexperienceofinLegratingthe,rmedForcessugges!sthat initial resisLance to change can e overcome, bue only through concerted civilian and military leadership, with sErong vigilance and oversight from civilian authorities. This was true for racial integration in bhe late 1940s and early 1950s--even in Ehe face of public and miliEary opinion EhaL may have been lnore sLrongly oPposed tshan it is now to allowing acknowleclgecl homosexuals to serve. It j.s also clear Lhat the relative success of rcrcial integration required particular efforts and elements thaE, as other chapcers suggest, would be required Eo formulate and implement the change regarding hQmosexual service: strong miJ"itary ancl civilan leadership that agrees on the goals of the PolicY, clear signals from all eaclership levels that. cornpliance with the policy i.s a command responsibility and that no resistance will be toleratecl, swift pr-rnishment for non-compliance, and a focus on changing behavir', not atLitudes.
The services, response Lo,racial integration also indicates that irnplemening a policy allowing acknowJ.edged homosexuals to serve may be
process involvingr severaL years of organizationaf adaptation' The forces of tradiLion ancl cuLi-ure and the natural inerLia of large orqanizations work against rapid arJapLation lo social change' A clear
1engEhy
- 189 from Eop J-eaclership will be reguired over a substantial period of time With such commiLmenE and strong eadership. racial integraEion did not ,destroy" unit cohesion and military effectiveness, as so many opponencs had argued it woulcl. Evidence from world war ri, Korea' and Vietnam indicates that unit cohesion and niltary effectiveness did not necessarily depend on sense of group iclentiEy arising from racial homogeneity. fn other wor:ds, people of differenL races did not have to like each other or change their attitudes about racial differences to get the job done. fntegrated units performed just as welL as all-white units. Purther, Ehere was no evidence thaE white soldiers refused to take orders from black officers or non-conmissioned officers--a fear often expressec concerning homosexual leaders. There were high leveLS of "task-orientecl" cohesion even ab Limes when Lhe very idea of inLerracial cooperaEion within military units was a novelty (as in the World War II experiments and in Korea) and when racial tension was high (as in Vietnam) . It i.s important to note, however, LhaL Ehe primary objective of implementation was maintaining cviIty in race relations, not transforming racia prejudices' Te aEEitudes themselves freguently resisLed change, but miliLary.personnel were generaJ.ly abJ-e to separate persona feelings from conduct. In some of Lhe military focus groups conducEed by RAND or this stucy, service personnel voiced sentiments which indicate that allowing homosexuals to serve mighE be handled in the same way: As long as homosexual service people did their jobs effectj.vely, and otherwise observed miliEary standards of conduct, mosL (See the chapter on heterosexuals woulcl treat Lhem rvith civj1ity.
commiLment
miliEary opinion. ) Although there is eviclence that rvorking well togeLher caused some improvement in interracial social cohesion, by and large, it has not strongly carriecl over into off-cuty, off-base reLations. Many whiLe service people reacted more negativeJ-y to the presence of bl-acks at social events than they clid c.o cooperaLing with blacks in performing military duies. OverE expressions of racial hostiliby were more like1y off base ancl out from under mililary control. Even in the absence of
190 -
hostiliLy, off-base and off-duty, blacks and whites still customarilY associate with members of their own race. It seems unlikely thaL this wouLd be differenL for relaEions between homosexual and heberosexual service people,
- 191 6.
RELEVANT PUBIJIC OPINfONI
TNTRODUCTTON
ssessing how any option for removing Lhe ban on homosexual service in the Armed Forces will fare depends critically on prevailing public and military opinion, Trends n public attiludes affec! the pace of and response to social policy changes. For example, efforts to racial.ly desegregate the military during the 1950s were, in partr a response co changing public attitudes and pressure from black leaders and civil rights organizations (,Jaynes and Wil1iams, 1989). Furtsher, desegregaLion in the military probably served !o acceLerate acceptance of desegregation in the broader society. The purpose of this chapter is to examine public opj.nion about issues relevant to removing the ban on homosexual service in he Armed Forces. In addition to opinion about removing the ban itseLf, we examine attitudes Loward homosexuals and homosexuality, the rights of homosexuafs. wheher homosexuals Should be aLlowed to serve in the military, and lhe attitsudes of youngr men demographically similar Eo those who enlisL in Lhe rmed Forces. MiliLary opinion s addressed in
the next chapter.

pproach
In this chapter, we examine these issues using a variety of public opinion poIIs and social surveys. Unless otherwise ndicated, all the survey results we present are derived from nabionally represenLative samples of Lhe American adlll-t popu]-ation. Most of the data are from genera] public opinion polls conducted by major poll-ing organizaions (Gallup. Roper, Yankelovich, CBS/Ne York Times, ABc,/cNN, and U9 foday). over Lhe past fifteen years, many public opinion polls have soughE to gauge attitudes loward homosexuality, and, more recently, Lhe possibility of removing the ban on military service for homosexuals. lthis.chapter was prepared by Peter E' Tiemeyer, who wlshes to acknowledge the considerable assistance iof Sandra Berry, Brent BoulLinghouse, and Samantba Ravich.
-r92often, mulbipJ.e polls have been conducted around Ehe same daEe us-ng roughly similar question wording. In reporting resuts, we have chosen polls that are consistent with the general body of polling results. hlere results diverge, we report Lhe range in which they generally fa11. rn addition to nationaL opinion po]1s. we also present results compiled from three major socj-aI surveysr the GeneraL Social Survey, conducted annually by the Natona1 Opinion Research Center; the 1988 National Survey of Adolescdnt Males, conducted by Ehe Urban Institute; and the L990 Monitoring the Future survey, an annual study of the lifestyles and values of youth conducLed I:y the InsbiLute for social Research a Ehe University of Michigan, Specific details of Lhe surveys and polls used j-n Ehis section are presented in Table F-l in Appendix F' This chapter 1s diviclecl into four sections. The first examines greneral aEEitudes of the public regardng homosexualiLy. In addition to discussing varj-ous dimensions of the views of Americans as a who1e. we examine differences in attitudes among various social and demographic groups. The second section examines general beliefs regarding the civil rights of homosexuals in scciety as a whofe. The third section turns to public views of whether homosexuals shoutd be allowed to serve in the miliary. FinaIy, the fourth section focuses on the attitudes of young adulLs to discern how those likely to enlist might view a removal of the ban on homosexuals in the mJ-Iitary. The tabl-es for Ehis chapber appear in Appendix F, All but Table F-1 show responses to a specific question or questions asked by par|icular polls. The mosL relevan! data from the abl-es are presented in the body of th texE (where we reference Lables for the reader's informat.ion) '
OVERIJI VIEWS BOUT HOMOSEXULITY
Measuring U,S. aEtitudes toward homosexuality is not a straightforward t.ask. As it does for other issues, response varies substantially depending on how question and response categories are worded and Ehe conLext in which the questions are asked, In the General
Social Survey (GSS). respondents are asked whether they believe homosexuality to be ',aIways rrrong, almost always wrong/ somet j.mes wrong, or not rvrong," The 1991 GSS finds Lhat 75 percenl of the aduft
'-
t_93 -
populaLion believe that same-sex sexual relaLions are ej.ther "always wrong" or 'almosL alwaYs wrong. " surveys using more narrowly worded or more qualifj.ed questions continue Lo show tha! a majorty of Americans hold negative attitudes toward homosexual-ity, but Ehe Level of non-acceptance is lower than with he css quest.ion, For example, recent polls show bhat 54 percent of respondents believe that "homosexual refaLionships between consenting adults [are] morally wrong, " and 50 to 57 percent believe that homosexuality should not ,,be considered an acceptable alternative 1ifestyle." However, 38 percenL of Ehe public belj-eve that homosexuality should be consj.clered acceptable and 39 percent say that homosexualiEy is not a moraf issue (Tables F-3 and F-4) ' Regardless of the quesEion used, LiLEle change has been detected over time in Ehe leve1 of accepLance of homosexuality, The proportion responding ,.always wrong" Eo the GSS quesbion has shown little variation over the past fifEeen years, generally ranging from ?0 to 75 percent (Tab1e F-2). A similar stability is seen in the proportion who believe that homosexuali-Ey ,,shoulcl be considered an acceptabLe alternative
LifestyLe" in surveys over the past ten years (Tab1e F-4) ' Several reasons may explain he variability found under different question wording in acceptance of homosexualiLy. The GSS question is Ehe most broadly sEated, allowing several differenL interpretaEions' Respondents might interpret Ehe question to mean "alivays \^trongf for me, " "always wrong for everyone, " or simply "wrong" by any standard the respondent chooses to app1y. FurEher, because the possibJ.e responses to the GSS question are alL worded in the negative (al.ways wrong, almost alrvays wrong, sometimes wrong. ancl not wrong), the more posiEive tone of the question "should homosexuality be considered an acceptable aternative lifestyle?" may eLicit more positive responses' Individuals may also be less wiltng Eo charactertze homosexuality by the more sLrident term of "morally vrrong"'rather than "always wrong./' Furbher, individuals may responcl more positiveJ-y to the question regarding the moratity of homosexuality becaue; in contrast Eo the other questions, iL s asked in the context of "consenting adults."
- 194 The sensitive nature of the issue of homosexuaLity makes the assessmenE of attitudes complicated, For highty charged issues, such as abortion, race, or homosexuali-ty, responses Eo survey quesLions may be
particularly sensitive to social norms (Dovidio and Fazio, L9921, Indivduals may state opinions, Lhey,believe to be socaLIy acceptable even when Eheir personal opinion is actually more accepting or less accepting. Measuring atEitudes on homosexualiuy may be further complicated if respondents fear that by expressing support for homosexualiLy, others will conclude thaL the respondent is homosexual' Thus, iE is difficult to state Lhe exact proportion who disapprove of homosexuality, as the level of disapproval varies according to the characEerization posecl by the survey question ancl the context in which Ehe survey is conducEed.
Demographlc and
Social Dlfferences in ttltude AEtitudes toward homosexuality vary greatly y demographic and social background of respondent.s (Tables F-5 and F-6) ' Despite the variation in overall accepEance of homosexuaLj-Ey observed using different guestions, the Ievels of acceptance between various social and demographic groups remain relatively constant, regardless of the question asked. Attitudes toward homosexuals are pspecially related to the respondent,s educatj-ona1 achievemenE, Among GSS respondents. the percentage who characterize homosexuality as "aLvrays wrong" j's 45 percent for those who have post-baccalaureate education, and B9 percenE for those who have less than a hgh schooL degree (Table F-5).2 mong college graduates, 52 percent consider homosexuality an acceptable lif est.yJ,e, whiJ-e 32 percent of those with only secondary educat j.on consider it. acceptable (Tabl-e F-6). A survey of aclolescen! males shows tU"1""" otherv,ise notecl, a1I group differences reported in the text in answers to questions from the General Social Survey, the NaEional Survey of Adolescent Mal-es, ancl Montoring the Future are staEisti-cal-J-y significant at Ehe .05 level. We do not have sufficient information Lo make similar judgments regarding the statj,stical significance of grouP differences shown in other public opinion poLls. Unless otherwise stated, alL tabulations from the GSS presented in this section are Eaken fron the 1988-1991 surveys'
- 195 a sim!lar relationship between educational aspirations and acceptance of homosexuality among adolescenc males (Table F-7). Among those who do not plan to go beyond high school, 28 percent agrree ("a lotlt or 'ta littte") wiEh the sEatemenE thaL they could be friends wiLh a "gay person",' among those plannirrg to complete graduaEe school, 49 percent
agree,
accepting of homosexuality than men. while only 34 percenE of males feel Lhats homosexualiEy should be considered an acceptable alLernative Iifestyle, 42 percenE of women are willing to accepE homosexuality as an alternaEive IifesLyle (Tab1e F-6) ' similarly, women are slightly J.ess like1y (74 percent) than men (78 percent) to consider homosexuality as "always wrongf/' (Tabte F-5) ' older j-ndividuals tencl to )re more negaLive toward homosexuaJ-iEy lhan younger individuals (Tairles F-5 and F-6). For example, a 3'gg2 GaJ_Iup polJ shows that 46 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds consider homosexuality an acceptable alternatve lifesEyl-e, compared with 25 percent of Lhose older than 65, However, it is impossible to say, using cross-sec!ional daLa such as opnion polls or the General Social Survey, whether the relaLionship between age and attitudes toward homosexuality reflects changes in attitude with age or changes in atLitude between
women
are
somewhaL more
birth cohorts.
Acceptance of homosexuality a1s varies by eLhnicj.try, A greater proportion of blacks (85 percent) characterze homosexuality as "alv,ays \^/rong" than do whites (75 percent ) (Ta]:le F-5) . However, non-white
eEhnic groups also appear less willing than whites to label homosexualj-ty as an unacceptable alternative lifestyle (Table F-6).
How
Aclitudes vary by Religon, Polttical lignmenE, and Region ALtitudes Eoward homosexual-ity also vary by religious affiliation' More than B0 percent. of Lhose vrho idenLi.fy themselves as Protesant consider homosexuality to be 'alwayq wrong," while 73 percent of CAtholics and 29 percent of Jews characterize homosexuality as "al-ways rnong the Protestant denominations, 66 to \,/rong,, (Tables F-5 and F-6) . BB percent of respondents bel-ieve thaL homosexuality is "always wrong, "
-L96Baptists lceing Lhe mosL negative.3 Eighty-nine percent of those who characterize themsel-ves as "funclamentalist" ancl 92 percent of Ehose who believe that the Bible s the "Iiteral word of God" believe homosexualitY to be "alwaYs wrong"' The diversity in atEiEucles towarcl homosexuafity observed among members of different denominations can also be seen in the positions taken by Ehe churches themselves, The range of positions is as broad as the range of denominations, but they can be generally categorized under three groupings: (1) those extending fu11 acceptance to homosexual members, which may inclucle performing or recognizing homosexual marriages, ordination of homosexuaL clergy, and inclusion of homosexual laity in other sacramental rights; (2) Ehose exLending compassion and inclusion to persons of homosexual orienLation, but maintaining moral prohibitions on homosexual practices, as chey fall outside the orthodox bounds of monogamous heterosexual marrage; and (3) lhose unable to find an acceptable accommoclaEion of homosexual persons within their relgious docLrines, ancl conclemnatory of homosexualacts or partnerships as a ,,1ife-sty1e." The majority of denominations fa11 into the second category (Me1uon, 1991) . Attitudes toward homosexuality.. als. vary by political ideology and parLy affiliatj.on (Tables F-5 and F-6). Those identifying bhemselves as conservatives or Repub).icans tend to have more negative attj-tudes toward homosexualiy; 86 and 82 percenE, respectively, believe that sexuaf relaLions between members of the same sex are "always 's,Irong'tr The figures are 78 percent for self-proclaimed moderaLes, 60 percent for liberals, 77 percent'for Democrats, and ?1 percent for independents' Regionally, peopLe in Che SouLh tend to have more negat've attitudes t,owarcl homosexuality, while people n New England express less negative atti.tudes than peopJ.e in oLher regions of the country (Tables F-5 and F-6).4
lThe differences between Lutherans ancl Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episcopalians, and Methodists ancl other ProtesLants in the proporLion believing homosexualtY to be "always wrong" are noL staLisbically significanL aL Lhe .05 leveL. 4Differences in Ehe proportion believing homosexuafity to be ,,always wrong./ are not statistically significan! at the .05 1eve1
- 1'9't AttiEudes vary by Perceived Natur of Homosexualitsy number of sLudies have shown a correlation beEween atLitudes loward a group and bel,efs about the group's distinguishing characterisbic: t.hat is, whether the attribute is vol'itional5 (Rodin, et a]' , l-989; Weiner, Perry, and Magnusson, 1988; WhitJ-ey' 1990) ' surveys bear this out: attitudes toward homosexuality vary mosL st.rikingly by whether inclividuals believe LhaL homosexualiLy is chosen or i-mmutable, According to a 1993 CBS/Nef4/ York ?imes poll, there is a roughly even split between those rvho believe homosexuality is chosen (44 percenc) and tshose who believe iL is something homosexual"s cannoc change (43 percent) (Table F-8). Among those who consider homosexuality to be "something Ipeople] cannot change, " 57 percent say Lhat homosexuaJ-ity ,,should be considered as an acceptable IifestYIe," while only 1'B percent of Ehose who lelieve homosexualrty is "something people choose" accept when asked if "homosexual homosexuafiLy as.an alterntive lifesLyle. relations between adults are morafIy wrong," the answer was "yes" for 30 percent of Lhose who see homosexuality as immutable and ?B percent for Lhose who see it as a choice (Table F-B). Respondents who believe homosexuality cannob be changed are also lwice as likely (29 percent) Eo knov, that a close friend or family member is homosexual than are Lhose who believe it to be a choice (16 percent). There may be some evidence to show that knowing a homosexual person positively affects an individual's attiLudes toward homosexuality.6 However, Lhere is no way to establish the direction of
between Lhe Middle AtlanEic, EasL:North cent.ral, wesL-North cenLraI, South Atlantic and MounEain regiond, between the nast-South Central and west-south central- regons, and betwee'n the North-East and Pacific
How
regions. AII other regional contrasLs are statisticalLy significant. sHammer, et aI. (1993) is the most recenE example of a line of research Lhat suggests a link between homosexuality and genetic or For a review of other work on Lhe origins biol.ogicaJ. characteristics. of sexua] orentation, see Byne and Parsons (1993) ' 6Evidence for this sLaEemenL can be founcl in a poll by Steve Teichner Ior the san F::ancjsco Examjner (Hatfield, 1989). Individuals stating that they knew someone who was homosexual were asked if knowing a homosexuaJ- person had affecEecl their view of homosexuality. NineEeen percent answerecl that it had made Eheir views more favorabl-e to homosexualiLy, and 10 percent sai-d less favorable' Few detaiLs are available on which to judge Lhe quality of this pol1, so we have chosen
_ 10q
causality. whether the formation of be]efs regarding the immuLability of homosexuality prececles or follows Ehe formation of atstiEudes regarding its accepEai:ility is indeterminate'
.ATTITUDES TOWRD THE
CIVIIJ RIGHBS OF HOMOSEXVI'S bhe majori-Ey have negatj-ve attitudes toward homosexuality, Although
Americans evidently separate these personal convictions from beliefs aboub the civil
rights of
homosexuals'.'
Betlefe bou rTob and Houeing Rlghte NearIy 80 percent agree with the sEaEemenL that homosexuals should have "equa rights in terms of job opporEunities" (Table F-9) ' But' when asked whether homosexuals should be hired for a range of specfic occupaEions, the level of aqreement varies. Peop-e are l-ess likely Eo be hired" for occupa!i-ons that think that homosexuals "shouLcl involve cLose, personal conEact wiLh others or that deal with children' For example, 82 percent woulcl be cOmfortable having homosexuals as sales persons, but.the percentage clropped !o 41 percent when the consideration Similarly, only onewas hirj.ng homosexuals as feacers (Table F-10). third of the public wouJd permit Eheir children to play at the home of a friend who lives with a homosexuaf parent (TabLe F-11) ' The more immedj-at.e Ehe potential contacL wiLh homosexuals, Ehe ]ess accepting Ehe general public is toward gay rights. Americans are less accepting of statemenEs affirming equal job and housint opporEunities for homosexuals Ehan of statemenf,s affirming only equal job opportunities. While ?9 percent agre wiEh the statement "homosexuals should have equal- righUs in terms of job opporEunities," only 66 percent agree with Lhe sLatement ,,homosexuals should be guaranteed equal treatmenE under the law in jobs and housing" (Table F-1-2). Further, only 45 percenL staLe that bhey "wouldn't mind" working around homosexuafs,2l percent would "prefer not to," and 25 percent would ,,strongly objecL,' (Table F-13). For contrast, only sIj.ghtly more
not to present the results n det.aj, l. whitely (1990) also finds a positive correlation between ceglee of acquaintance with a homosexual and acceptance of homosexulity in.a:convenience-based sample of Bal-1 Stabe Univeristy undergraduate. hef'erosexuals'
- 199 state Ehat they "woulcln't mincl" working around people who smoke cigaretEes (5L percenL) and considerably fewer state Lhat Lhey "woufdn't mind,, working around people who use foul language (27 percent) (Table
F-13 )
.
Bellefs bout Legal Sanctione and Legal Rightg public opj_nion generaJ-Iy stands in opposition to government involvemenE in issues regarding, sexual orienEation; Lhe observed 1evel of opposition varies with the wording of survey questions and the context j.n which they are asked. A 1986 Gallup poI1, Laken shorLly after the supreme court upheld a state law prohibLi.ng consensua] sodomy, found that only 18 percent of the respondenLs Lhought Lhat ,,staEes should have Lhe right Lo prohibiE parEicular sexual practices conducted in private between consen!ig aclult men and women, " while 34 percenL expressed supporE for Ehe right of scates Lo prohibit such practices between consenting adult homosexuals (Table F-18). A 1992 GaIlup poll found that rvhile 50 to 60 percent bel,ieve homosexualiLy to be "morally wrong" or "not an accepEairle lifestyle," a smalfer praportion, 44 percenE, believe that consensuaL homosexual relabions should be illegal (Table F-19). wh1e the 1992 po1 shows a higher l-evel of support for laws banning homosexual relaLions than t.he 1986 pol1, this should not be conscrued as a sign of increasing public supporL for such Iaws. The conLext in which the 1986 quesion rvas asked probably led Lo a low response in supporL of such larvs. The survey was taken immediately AfEer a Supreme CourE decision.and:he question regarding homosexual sexual acts folfowed a similar question regarding heterosexual sexual acts. The trend in response to simlarJ.y worded questions over the past L5 years shows a decrease in support for such Iaws since its peak in the
mid-1980s. The legislative trenc has foll.owed a similar paEtern. Before 1-961, aLl stales bannec non-Pl'ocreatj.ve sexual behavior. Snce Lhen, sodomy
, - 2!0 laws have been repealecl y sLate legis]atures or declared unconstitutional by the courEs in 26 states.T As for legal righLs of homosexuals, more individuals befieve that homosexuals should have equal housing and employment opporbunities than beLieve EhaE Ehe government shouLd be involved in enforcing such righEs.s while nearly 80 percent believe Ehat homosexuals should have equal job opport.unities, only 48 percen believe that the laws protectinq the civi] righcs of minoriEies should be extended to homosexuals (Table F-20), and only 37 percent believe that a federal law should be passed protectj.ng homosexual.s from discrimination (TabLe F-21) . The more direct the statement is in impJ.ying governmenL involvement in the enforcemenc of equal employment and housing opportunities, the fewer the number of individuals who agree wiEh Lhe
statement, Currently, eight sEates9 and I22 municipalities have executi-ve orders or laws prohj-biLing .dj-scriminaLion on the basis of sexual, orientaLion. Mirroring trends in public opinion many religious denominations also draw disLincLions bet.ween Eheir views on the acceptability of homosexuality anc civil rights probections for homosexuafs' Within the church bodies, debaEe over these ssues has invol-ved discussons of the decriminalization of homosexual practices between consenting adults, discrimination in housing and emPloyment, and incluson of homosexuals while most "main-line" denominations under haEe-crmes legislatlon. for homosexuals, a fev/, in have come out in favor of full civil"rights come out sErongl-y against parLicuJ-ar the Southern BapEsts, have measures that vou1cl ,,secure legaJ-, social- or rel j-gious acceptance for
TThe states that currently have no sodomy resEriction are: Alaska, california, coloraclo. connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, I1linois, Indiana, fowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, ohio, Oregon. Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont. Washj.ngton, West Virginia. ^lisconsin and Wyoming8A simlar pattern is seen in aEtitudes tovard racal equality; more individuafs sLtpport Lhe concept of racial eguality than support governmental efforts to fight dj.scrimination (Bobo, L992; Burstein,
states wiLh laws prohibiting discriminaLion on tlre basis of sexual orientation are Cafifornia, Connect.icut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nerv Jersey, VermonL and Wisconsin'
i.985 )
gThe
-20rhomosexuality, " or legiLimize homosexuafity as a normaf behavior (MelEon, 1991).
Beltefg bout "Famila1" Righte Most Americans clo not beleve Lhat ormal recognition should be extended Lo homosexual unions,, T\ro recenL polls by Yankelovich show that 65 percent believe that homosexual marriages shoufd not be legal and 63 percent believe Ehae homosexual couples shou-ld not be permitted to adopE children (Tables F-14 and F-15), However, 27 percent believe such marriages should le "recognized as 1egal," and 29 percenE chink homosexual couples shouJc herve legal acloption ri-ghts' According to a L}BT USA Today poll on fami.Ly ssues, 45 percent of the public are willing to apply the Lerm,,fami1y" to an unmarrjed heterosexuaT coupTe living together, buE only 33 percent. are willing Eo apply that term to raising chiJ-dren (Table F-16) ' DespiEe bhese attitudes, of the 83 percent who favor a national family feave Iaw,72 percentbelievethatitshouldapplytohomosexualscaringfora seriously i1I compatrion (TalIe F-17 ) '
homosexuaT coupLe
IN THE }'fIIJITARY overthepastyear,pollshavefoundthaL40to60percentof Americans support permiEEing homosexuafs Eo serve in the Armed Forces (BabLes F-10, F-22, and. F-23). As wiLh many of the issues discussed above, the proporLion supporLing the rights of homosexuals Lo serve depends somewhaL on the way Lhe question is phrased. when given a list of occupations and askecl in which homosexuals should be permitLed to be empfoyecl/ 57 percent staEe that homosexuals should be permitted to be employed in the Arned Forces. r'his is greater than the percentage who elieve that homosexuals shoulcl le allowed to be doctors (53 percenE)' cfergy (43 percent), hiqh schoof and elementary school- Leachers (47 and 41 percent), or members of the President's cabine[ (54 percent), but less than the percenEage who believe thaL homosexuals should be permitbecl to be sales persons (82 percenE) (Table F-10) ' A 1993 Gal-lup poll founc that 53 percenE answer positively to Lhe guestion, ,,shou1d homosexuals be able to serve in the rmed Forces?,, (Tabl-e -22). An ABC News/tr{ashinglton PosL poLl found a corresponding 53
PUBIIIC TTITUDES BOUT
HOMOSEXUIJS SERVING
-202percent believe that enlisEees Should not be asked about bheir sexual orient,a!ion (Table F-24) - However, supPort faIls to between 40 and 45 percent when individuals are asked if openly homosexual persons should be allowed to serve (TabLe F-25), sirnilarly, when asked if they ,,approve or disapprove of ending the ban on homosexuals serving in the mili.Eary," 43 percent of Lhe responden!s approved (Tab1e F-26) ' A Gallup poll taken in July 1993 found the publc evenly split over both a "don't ask, don't tell-" olicy and Lhe question of whether homosexuality is incompatible with military servj-ce. ForLy-nine percent agree and 48 percent clisagree with the statement "homosexuality is incompatible wich miliEary service (TaIe 6-1). At Ehe same Lime, 48 percent support ancl 49 percent oppose a policy under which individuals woul-d noL be askecl about Eheir sexual orienEaEon buE would continue to be removed from Lhe mj-Iitary if they disclose their homosexualj.ty' Those who relieve homosexuality to I:e incompaLible with military service are not. the same indj.vicluals as those who oppose the "don't ask, don'L tel" policy. Most of Ehose who believe homosexuality Lo be incompatible wiLh milrtary service supporE the "don'E ask, don't te11" policy (61- percent), whil-e most of those who reject Lhe incompatibility between homosexuality and military service also reject the "don't ask, don,t teIl,, poLicy (62 percent) (see Table 6-2). In a ,June 1993 WaTl .gEreeE Journaf /NBC News polI (of regisLered voters) 79 percent of respondenLs expressed support for allowing homosexuals to serve uncer some policy. Forty percent favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly, as long as they follow the same rules of conduct as other military personnel- while they are on base. n additional 38 percent favor allowing homosexuals to serve as long as they keep Lheir homosexualiEy private (and think the military shoul-d noE ask them about thej-r orienL,at-ion). Only 21 percenE are against allowing homosexuals to serve under clny condit j.ons (Table F-21 ) . Various church boclies and organizations associaLed wiLh religious groups, mosL notably Lhe Evangelicat Lutheran Church in merica and the merican Jewish Commi:tee, h.eve taken a stance in favor of removing the ban agains| mil_itary service by homosexuals ("News: church leaders on
203
Table 6-1 you agree or disagree vith the following "Do atsatemert:'Homosexualiy ie incompatible witb (GaLlu/ iluly 1993. N = 1002) service.'" military
Agree
Di s agree 482
49*
3U
No opinion
Table 6-2 ,/In ord.er to deal with Lhe issue of gaye in the mlI1tary, some people ave proposed a plan called,/DoD't sk, Don'E TII.', ccording to that p1an, the mllitary vrould no longer ask personnel whether or not they are homosexual. Bu if personnel reveal that hey are romosexual, hey IB that a plan you would Eupport would be dlecharged from the mflitary, or oppose?" (GaLlup, .Tuly 1993' N = L002)
No
TotaI Those who beLieve homosexualily is incompatible with mil-itary service Those who do not beLieve homosexuality is incompaEible v.ith mi I itary service
SupporL 48t
614 36
OPPose
oPinion
38
49?" 368
62*
38
2*
gay issue," 7gg3). Herbert Chilstrom, Bishop of Ehe Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) compared he issue to Ehe ordination of homosexuals, fn a recent letter to the President, ChilsLrom staLed that the ELCA does not ban homosexuals from becoming pastors. but instead relies on "a clear set of st.andards and expectations for all who are ordained. We judge them by thej-r behavior rather than on the basis on the oEher hand, Southern of sexual orientation" (Chil-strom, 1993) Baptists have come out firmly against removing Ehe ban' Consistent with their opposi-tion to extending civil rights to homosexuals, a recent statement by the Souhern Bapt.ist Chri-stian Life Commission expressed opposition to removing the ban out of a concern for iEs effects on Ehe military and because ,,lifting the ban vrill- give approval and support to an immoral, harmful lifesEyle" ("BaptisEs CaII for Keeping Military Ban
on cays ,' 1993')
.
-204As a final note, public opinion on mj.litary service by homosexuals shifts substant.ially when miJ-itary se-rvice is placed in the context of duty rather Lhan a righL. If a milicary draft were reinstated, ?8 percent believe that homosexuafs shoulcl noE be exempt' In contrast' only 50 percent feel thaL \{omen shoul-d be clrafted (Ta}}e F-28). Ths does not necessarily incicate support for the right of homosexuals to serve in Ehe miItary; raEher, the IiEtle supporL for exenrpLing
homosexuals from Lhe drafE may indicate a resistance to exemptingt homosexuals from the risk and responsib1ity of military service when
others are required Eo serve.

'
II'TITUDES OF YOUNG ADUIJTS REGRDTNG HOMOSEXUIJTTY }TD MII'TRY SERVICE
understanding the aEtitucles of young adul-cs is particularly imporLanL in evaluating the concern Lhat removing the ban wilI adversely affect recruiLment. Nearly 60 percent of aIl- new recruits in 199L were 1.9 or youngerr and 92 percent were under age 25 (OASD, t992zl9\ ' Examining the atiEudes of young aclults is also worbhwhile because nearly half of all service members (45.5 percent) in 1991 were under the age of 25 and more Lhan Lwc-thirds (68 percent) were under Ehe age of 30
(OSD, 1992 : 51 )
.
As stated previously, young adults tend to view homosexuality less negatively Ehan olcler adults do, A 1986 :JSA roday poII of college students found tbat 44 percenE bel,ieve homosexualiLy is mmora}. while a corresponding 1986 ABC News.zl'lashington Pos po1J. showed that 66 percent of alI aclults believe homosexuality to e immoral-.1 A large majoriEy of college students believe that. sexual preference is one's own business (79 percent) and feel that homosexuals are entiLled to the same proLection against discrimination as other minority groups (74 percent) I :i (Table 29). A sign thaL colfeqe sbucents are not supportive of Lhe ban on homosexuals in Ehe military is found j'n the actions of numerous colleges and universities in considering the elimination of ROTC programs from campuses un!i] the ban is removed. while few universities have
th{or" recentl-y, a 1992 Yankelovich poll found thaL 54 percent of the adulE population believes Ehat homosexuality is immoral (Tab1e F-3).
-205terminated ROTC programsr oppositon Lo the ban has Eaken the form of official statements by university representatives and studenE government organizabions; wiLhdrawa] of universiEy credits for ROTC courses and r/ithdrawal of facuLt.y status for ROTC instructors; bans against oncampus recrulEing activities by DeparL.ment of Defense personnel; and schedufed phase-outs of existing RoTC programs, barring changes in currenL policY. College studenEs are a selec group of young adulEs. We expecf co]lege students to be more accepting of homosexuality than non-college studenLs because of lhe strong relationship bet.ween educational aspirations/attainmenL anc more posiCive attiEudes toward homosexuality' Ninety-eight percent of the oficer accessions and 99 percent of activeduty officers in 1991 held ac feast a lf,achelor's degfree (oASD, 1992t69]., If the available cata on aEtitudes of college students are at all representative of recent offcer accessions, they woul,d suggest that young officers may be less condemnj.ng of homosexualiEy than ther enlisted counterparLs. As Ieaclers in'the Armed Forces, Ehe attitudes of young officers towarcl homosexuaLiLy wilL play a critical role in the success of any change in the pol-icy banning homosexuas from serving in However, while nearly 20 percenL of t.he total actve the military. force in 1991 helcl a! least a bachelor's degree (OASD, 1992), the prime recruiting pool for the miliLary s among high school graduates who are not in colLege, only 3 percent of enl-sted accessions j-n 1991 had college experience (OSD, 1992:20). A more represenLative picEure of the attitudes of young males can be developed using Lhe Nationdf Survey of Adolescent Males (NSAM) ' UnforLunately, Ehe NS4 does not contain questions on attitudes toward homosexuality, compara]trIe bo those available from nalional surveys of adults. The NSAM does, however, ask respondenLs their leve1 of agreement with the statement "f could be frends \dith a gay person'" Table F-30 presents the proportion agreeing with this sLatement by varying personal characteristics. overall-, 40 percent of adolescent males agreer!, "a lc)l" oti "a liLttr'e, " thaL they could be friends with a homosexual person. The same geea1 paLterns seen in the adult population of acceptance of homosexuaLs among dfferent social and
-206demographic groups also hold for adolescent males, Agreement that one could be friends with a homosexual Person was lower among blacks (30 percent), BaptisLs (32 percent), peoPle from Ehe South (35 percent), peopfe from rural, areas (32 tr)ercent), and those having lower educaLional
aspiraEons (28 percent) (Tables F-30 and F-?) '11 No survey of young aduLts asks queslions on ltroth attiLudes Loward homosexuality and inLentions for military service. However, using data from the Moniboring the Future study, we can compare intentions to enlist among a sample of high school seniors with those background facors shown above to be associaLed with negatve at-Litudes Loward homosexuality. In Table F-31-, rve see thaL among high school seniors, intentions Eo enlist are positively correlated wiLh being black, male, from the South, and BaptisL. Those with intentions of enlisLing also have somewhat lower eclucational aspirations.12 Those who actually enlisE appear Eo also have somewhaE Iower socioeconomic backgrounds than their peers (OASD, 1992:45-46\ ' These characteristj'cs are all correl-ated with less to.Lerance toward homosexuality. On Lhe other hand, those with intentions to serve in the military are not disproportionaEely conservative or Republican, do not appear to be particularly more reJ-igious, and are representaLively dispersed between rural and urban areas, we must be cauLious in inferring Lhe atttudes of young aduLts who plan !o enlis! from the attiEudes of aduLLs in Ehose demographic groups More negative atLitudes overrepresenEed among Lhose plannl-ng to enlist. background Loward homosexuality among all adults sharing a characteristic does not necessar:ily mejln thaE those young adults who
11the clifferences between regions and reLigious backgrounds in the proportion who coulcl be friencls wirh a homosexuaf person observed in Lhe We report them here significant. NSl.f are generay not statisLically ecause they are consisLent wiLh differences observed i-n other surveys reported in this chapter. r2The relationship beLween propensity to enlist and educational aspirations is reversec among hi,gh school graduates not in college. Non-sEudent high school gracluates who expecE to receive more education are more li-kely to enlist than those who do not expecL Lo receive more education (Hosek, PeLerson, ancl Eden, 1986). OveralI, those who enlist have Jower educaLional aspirations tan hgh school seniors but higher educaEionat aspirations than non-student high schooL graduates.
- )^'7 -
share this backgrouncl characteristic and plan Eo enlist are also more negative. This exercise can only hint aL what the atEitudes mighL be among those inEending to enlist' Further, Ehose with j.ntentj,ons to enlist are not the same as those A substantiaf portion of those who enlist \^/ho actually enlisL. initialJ.y express negative j.ntentions to enl-ist (orvis, t982]. - Even among those expressing a silnilar intention to enlist, either negative or positive, differences exist in the probabiliry of actually enlisting. Among high school students expressing simifar inLentions of enlisting, those from lower socioeconomic groups, blacks, and Lhose not on a college track are more likeIy to carry through wiLh their intentions (orvis and GaharL, 1985). These characteristics are also correated wiLh lower acceptance of homosexualiEy. Accepting Ehese caveaLs vJe expect Lhose with intentions Lo enlisl and those who do enlist to be somewhat more negative toward homosexuality. The primary differences between those who enlists or intend to enlisE ancl t.heir peers are race, gender, and educational aspirations. Differences in educational aspirations are particularly imporLanL as they prov-ce the most substanEial variaLion in atbitudes toward homosexuaJs. .However, with regard to many other characteristics observed Lo be associated with substantiaf variaEion in attitudes on homosexuality among the aclult population, those who pJ-an to enlist appear remarkably similar to their peers '
GENERIJ CONCLUSIONS ON PUBLIC OPINION
draw three conclusions from this review of the available public opinion data: 1, The majority of Americans disapprove of homosexuality, It is difficult. Eo sLate the exact proportion who disapprove of homosexualiEy, as the leveI of cisapproval varies accorcing to the characterization posed by the survey question. An ovewhelming proPortion believe sexual reLationships between two aclults of the same sex are "always wrong, " but only a narrow majority J:elieve homosexualit.y is mmoral and that it
We
should not be consderecl an acceptable alternaEive lifestyle.
-2082. Many individuals separate their personal convictions about homosexualily from Lheir l:eliefs about the civil rights of homosexuaLs' A clear majority of mericans believe that, in the abstract, homosexuals should have equal- rights in terms of job and housing opporlunities; but support for equal employmen righEs weakens slightty for positions in which an individual might have close, personal interaction. 3. public attitucles on whether homosexuals should be permitted to serve in the military are generall-y consistent with public attitudes about the civil rights of homosexuals. The general public is more accepting of having homosexuaLs employed as sales persons than having homosexuals serve in the Armecl Forces, but }ess accepting of having homosexuafs employed as clocfors, clergy, teachers, or members of the PresiclenE's cabinet. Roughly half of Lhe populaLion lelieve that enlisLees shoul-cl not be askecl alouE their sexuaL orientation and that homosexuals should be allowecl Lo serve in the miliLary; but. similar to the social di.sLance from homosexuaLs thaL some wish Lo maintain in the larger socj.ety, a portion of Lhose believing homosexuals shoufd be all_owed to serve also appear uncomfortalle with having openLy homosexual service members. However, roughly the same proportj-on support allowing openly homosexual persons to serve as support a "don'E ask, don't telI" polcy, just as many of those who rejecL the argument that homosexuality is incompatible wiLh milj.tary. service also rejecE the "don'E ask, don'
re11" policy.
'2097.
REI,EVANT MU,TTRY OPINION1
INTRODUCTION
The popular press and recent Senate hearings have provided a window into the military perspective on maintainng or removing Ehe ban on They have led to the same impression--"the homosexuals in t.he military. mi1iEary,,, from top brass to new recruiLs, is overwhelninqly opposed to
allowing homosexuals to serve. While many do feel this way' opposition is not universal.. some military members have advocated removing Lhe ban, others have expressed wJ.Iingness Lo go along with whaEever is decided, hrhile others are strongly opposed to making any change at all ' some have predicted the demise of Lhe military if Lhe ban is removed, while others have expressecl the belief that the miJ,itary wouLd adjust to this change, as it has adjusted to changes in the past' In this chapter we discuss findings about the vews of military members on removi-ng the ban, based on two sources of information: opinion surveys carried out by the os Angeles ?jmes and by sociologsts charles Moskos and Laura Miller of Northvrestern universily and the results of group discussions with miliLary members carried out by RND sEaff in the United StaEes and in Germany. It is irnportant. to note thaE Ehese sources do not provide a statistically representative view of the opinions and concerns of mililary members abou[ removing the ban: The surveys we cite here are the only ones we found Lhat asked members of Ehe miJ-iLary their opinions on the subjecE.2 However, these surveys are 1mited in scope, use lThis chapter was prepared by Sandra H, Berry, Jennifer A' HawesP. Kahan, wj-th the assistance of NeL Fulcher, Larry Hanser, Joanna Zorn Heilbrunn, Peter Jacobson, Raynard Kington, PaUl Koegel, Janet Lever, Samantha Ravich, Peter Tiemeyer, and GaiI Ze1lman. The authors also wish to acknowledge the considerable assistance of the revie\^rers of this chapter, Deborah HensIer, susan Hosek, and Tora
Dawson, and James
Bikson.
2Because of restricti-ons on access to military members and Lhe need Eo use information provided by Ehe services or the DeparEmenE of Defense for sampling, very few surveys of military members are carried out we contacLed the in-house without the cooperation of Lhe military. research groups at each of the military services and at Lhe survey
-210sampling Eo selecl respondenLsr and, j.n some cases, include questions that are poorly worded and unclear. Thus, Ehe results may be biased in important ways. RND's group discussions inc]uded only a small number of people and participanEs were not randomly selected- Therefore, it is not appropriate o use the survey or focus group results Eo guantify mlitary opinion in any rigorous way. Rather, the results should be vievred as indicating the general directions and range of opinions and attitudes of mititary personnel. The remainder of this chapter discusses results from both data sources. first the survey resul!s and then the focus grouP results.
IOS ANCEIJES
convenience sampl-ing meChods rather than probability
IES SURVEY The Los AngeTes ?imes surveyed 2,346 enlisted men and women (E-1 through E-9) durinq February 11-16, 1993.3 These respondents were obtained ouside 38 military facilities in Ehe continental U.S" including U,S, Army, Nawy, Marine Corps, and ir Force bases' The sampling method can be characterized as a variatj-on on the "mal1 intercept" approach.4 Potential respondents were approached by interviewers at off-base commercial and residential sites and asked to fil-1" ou! an anonymous and confidenLial survey. (The specific topic of the survey r^ras noL menlioned by the interviewer,) Quota methods were used o ensure selection of appropria|e numbers of males and females; blacks, whites, and Latinos; and age groups. ResuLts were subseguently
of Defense and verified that they had not conducted any surveys on the topic of removing the ban on homosexuals in the military, in part, due to a ban on such research by the Department of Defense. We al-so conducted This ban on research has been recently lifted. computerized searches of the socaI science Iiterature to identify any publi.shed studies not carried ou! under the auspices of the miliLary and found none, 3A more detailed descripeion of the methodology for this survey and the list of guestions asked are included as Appendix G. aThis is a common market research technigue Ehat invoLves interviewers approaching potent.ial respondents in a public place, such as a shopping mall, and inviting them to participaEe in an interview. There is a sErong self-selection bias inherent in Ehis meEhod--people wiEh a srong inEeresE in stating their views, especially about very controversial topics are most likey to respond posiLively to the
epartmenE
invitation,
-zttweighted to reflecE distributions by branch of service, gender, race, age, educat.ion, and marital sEatus, as reported by the Department of Defense. The actual sample included 728 personne] from the Army, 591from Ehe Navy, 488 from tshe Marine corps, and 539 from the Air Force' No daEa on sEatisLical significance were provided'
Limitatlons As the ?imes notes, this kind of poI} has certain limitations: only persons who were present at bhe off-base interviewing sites could be interviewed and t.he opinions of those who were not asked or who declined to participate may differ from those who were inEervewed. There is no way bo evaluaEe the magnitude or direction of bias Lhat may have been introduced by the use of these methods, Response rates would be difficult to interpreL in the context of he mall intercept method and were not Provided bY the ?jtes. Nevertheless, the strength of Ehese results is the fact that bhey include an appreciabLe numler of enlisted personne] obtaned at a varj.ety of locations. Further, while the questionnare is a structured way of gathering informaEion ancl the quality of results is debermined. in par, by bhe qualiLy of the questions, a self-administered survey does al1ow respondents a measure of privacy in expressi'ng their views Lhat is not present in other forums for expressing opinion'
Findlnge Background of Participants. Most respondents indicated that they were reJ.igious (64 percenE) (IEem G-2'71,5 secure in their fnances (67
percent) (Item G-26), and midclle-of-Lhe-road in poJ'iEicaI matters (52 percent). bout 25 percent rated Lhemselves as politically conservative and 21 percent ratecl themselves as liberal (Item G-29) '6
iThu it.*= notecl in parentheses in this chapter are identified by the letter of Lhe appendix in which they are l-isted. The letbers G and H do not appear on the actuaL entries in Appendixes G and H' 6ln th. 1991 National Opinion Research Center Genera] SociaI Survey of U.S. adults, 93 percent of responclents expressed a religious preference ancl 52 percent indicated they had a strong or somewhaE sErong religious preference. T\nJe:lty-nine percent of respondents characterized themselves as liberal, 40 percent as moderaEe, and 32 percenf as
conservab ive
,
-2t2-
overall,T4percentratedthemsel-vesassatisfiedwithlifeinthe miliEarytoday(IEemG-7)ancl6lpercentfelLthemj.]itaryhadfulfilled percenE here he commiEments it made to Lhem (Item G-12) ' But 65 proposals for downsizing the concerned bhat current AdministraEion (Item G-10) and military were ,going Eoo far in a stiIl dangerous world" LhemseLves and 60 percent were worried a]ou! the effect of downsizing on their careers (Item G-11) ' OnIy 43 percent raLed as adequate the programsandservicesforhelPinguvictimsofdownsizing,,geLgoingin get civilian life (It.em G-13), and 47 percent were confident they could if they a secure, welt-paying civilian job in a relatively short Eime lefL. the service in the next few months (IEem G-14) ' percenL overall On other issues concerning the miliLary' 58 percent of males and approved of women taking combat roles' including 55 Tgpercentoffemales(IEemG-15).Forty-fivepercentfeltEhaEsexual harassmentwasanimportanLissueinthemi]-it'ary(44percenEofma].es and 55 percenL of females) (Item G-25) ' Viewe on Removing the Ban. overall. only 1-8 percent expressed Forces (4 approval- of removing Ehe ban on homosexuaLs in Ehe Armed percent approved strongly and L4 percent approved somewhat) while 74 percent disapproved (59 percent strongJ'y and 15 Percent somewhat) ' Eightpercentsaid"clon'tknow"'Thisisinsharpcontrasttothe40-50 percentofEhepublicwho}relievedEhebanshouldberemoved(fEemG17) , (See Ehe chapEer on public opinion' ) MoremalesdisapprovedofremovingthebanLhanfemales(76vs.55 percent),morecombatpersonneldisapprovedthannoncombatpersonnel(80 vs.6gpercent),andmorewhit'esandLatj.nosdisapprovedLhanb].acks(78 percent, 76 percent, and 64 percent, respectively) ' The services '74 percent for bhe differed somewhat in their level of cisapproval; 74 Army, 69 percenE for the Navy, 86 percent for the Marines' and percenL for the Air Force. were Reasons for Opinions bout Removing he Ban' Respondents ban asked Eo check off two reasons for thei-r view about removing Ehe fromalistofpossib}ereasonsprintedontheqttestionnair:e.Different lists of reasons were suppliecl for Ehose who did and did not support percent cited removing the ban. of the 18 percent who approved,58
-2r3discriminatlon as one of Lhe Ewo main reasons' 23 percenL said it was not important to Ehem that homosexual-s be banned, 19 percent said tromosexuafsv'erenodifferentthanheterosexuals,and2percentsaid therewerealreadyhomosexua}sinthemilitary(ItsemG-18)' Of bhe ?4 percenE who disapproved, 63 percent opposed sharing quarters and facilities with homosexuals, 40 percenb said homosexualit,y and 21 was immoral, 28 percent ciEed contribuEion Lo the spread of IDs' percent said it was againsb their religious views. Fifbeen percenE feIE that homosexuals were less reliable in a combaE situation. and a total of 9 percent of respondents chose all other reasons' such as morale' EhreaLs of violence, and wanEing causing conflicE, cosL of facilities, egual- rights as marriecl persons (Item G-L9) ' ban were BoLh those who favored and those who oPposed removing the of asked how concerned Ehey were personally abouE the possible impact Most indicated they permitEing homosexuals to serve in Lhe military. worried' were worried--36 percent very worrieci' and 32 percent somewhaL vorried and ]-0 percent However, 18 percent inc]icated Lhey were noE Eoo were not worrj.ed aE a1L. overall, males were more l-ikely to express worrythanfemales(T0percentveryorSomewhatworriedformalesvs.5l percenEforfemales)(ItemG-20)'Marinesweremorelikel-ycoexpress percent worry than the other services--?? percent for the Marines vs. 67 forEheArmy,65percentfortheNavy,and?0percentforEheirForce' woul-d They were also asked how likely it would be thaL homosexuals besubjectedtovolenceifallowedLoserve'Mose(Blpercent)said violence would be likety, Fifty-five percenL said it would be very likely and 26 percent somewhat i'ikely (IEem G-22) ' Respondents in the MarineCorpsWeremostlikelytopredictviolence;gl"percenLindicated t was very or somewhat -ikely, compared with 78 percent for the Army' (The issue 84 percent for the Nav\, and ?B percent for the Aj.r Force' of violence reLated to removing Lhe ban is discussed in Appendix J') overa]1, 19 percent said they were currently serving with someone Eheybelievedwasahomosexual(lSpercentofmenand2gpercentof of service: 16 womer) (Itenr G-24). This figure differed by branch percent for the percent for the rmy, 28 percenr for the Nawy' 1-0 Marines, and 18 percent for the Air Force'
-2t4poEential Effec on Reenllstment. TabIe ?-1 shows bhe potential effects on predicEecl enlistmenE decisions of removing the ban on homosexuals. WheEher or noL the ban is in place, only 28 percent report definiEely ruling out reenlisEment. with the ban in p1ace, of Lhe'12 percent who remain, 29 percenL say they clefin-tely wjJl reenList, 34 may reenlist., and 9 percent don't know. If the ban is removed' another 10 percent indicate that they will clefinitely not reenlis!, and, of the 62 percent who remain, 44 percent. say they wJ.11 st1I consider reenlisting and 18 percent say they don't know (Items G-16 and G-21) '7
Table 7-1 Mitltary Reenlistment IntenEions With and Wl-thout Ban on Homoeexuals
(Percentages
)
If Ban
Remains
If Ban Is Removed
WiII
ReIÎi
Not
Definitely Will Reen1st 31 Army 24 Navy 18 Mar ines Air 35 Force
MaY
Reenlst 35 3l31 37
Don't
Know
1l-
I
13
Wi 11 11 Consider Not ReReenenlist Iisting 11 46 L0 37 15 30

54
enlist
No
Don'b
Know
20
MatEer
What
23
5t J
16
7'l
l8
20
aa
18 44 9 34 29 TotaI Los ngeJes Times PoI1, SCudy #307--united stat.es Military source: Survey, March 1, 1993'
MOSKOS
/MILIJER rulry
SURVEYS
Between February 1992 ancl December 1992, Charles Moskos and Laura Mi11er, sociologists from Northwestern universiEy, surveyed a total of 2,804 enlisted personnel and officers from six Army bases in Ehe con!inentat United States and one overseas base (Somatia) Lo collecE survey daEa on the attitucles of Army personnel about \ômen in combat and
TReenIisLment intenLions have been found to be strongly related Eo actual behavior, although noL perfecbly predicEive of it. The resulLs described here are discussed as part of a broader view of recruiLment and retention in rhe chaPter on that subjecL '
-2r5race relations. As part of this survey respondenEs vere asked a guestion about homosexuals in Lhe military.E The sample was stratified bo ensure selection of appropriate numbers of combat and noncombab personnel from a varieLy of miliary uniEs and occupational specialties' of males and QuoEa meLhods were used to selecE appropriate numbers females, enlistecl and officers, and blacks, whiLes, and oEher races. l^lomen were oversampled so Ehat the survey sample would yield roughly equal numbers of females ancl males. Efforts were also made to sample rnilieary members who had Persian Gulf experience as weLl as those who did not, The actual sample includecl 1,420 ma].es and i",384 females. to interpreE in this Response or refusal rates would be difficult context and were not Provided. Potential survey responclents were selected by Army personnel at eachsiteandi.nvitecltoatEendagroupsurveysession,whichwas typically held in a large auclitorium or testing room. Each participanL was asked to complete an anonymous self-adrninisLered survey and to return iE direcEly Eo Laura Miller, who conducted each survey session' The survey, conclucted in December 1-992, with 4?1 males and 470 femaLes at t!,/o posts, used the single attitudinal iEem plus an expanded series of questions about homosexuals in the miliary.9 We report results from these surveys relow. No clata on statistical signiiicance were provided'
Li:niEations There are several limitaEions to Lhe Moskos/Mill-er Army survey data. First, like the Los .Ange-les Times survey, the Moskos,/Miller Army surveys relied on convenience sampling meLhocls, raLher Lhan sErict probability sampling to select respondent,s and did not weighL bhe
results, Therefore. it is not possble to generalize thej.r findings to theentireArmymilitarypopulabion.Second.bhesurveys\'ereconducted aE a smalf numiler of Army sites, so there is very limited geographical represenLation in L.he survey sample. Third, the sample did noL include was, "How do You feel about the proposal Chat gays ehould be allowed to enter ancl remain in tshe militarY?" and lesbians Response categories were Strongly gree, Agree, Disagree, SEronglY isaqree, and Not sure. gThe wording of these iEems is contained in Appendix H'
SThe quesEion
-216' senior officers,' only grades 0-3 ancl below were inviEed Eo participate in Ehe survey, Despite these limitations, the Army survey data provide useful insights concerning Ehe opinions and concerns of Lhe survey parEicj.panLs aboub lifting Lhe ban. As the authors note/ the Army surveys (as well as the Los AngeTes ?jmes survey) "wiII be usefuL not so much for percentages per se, but to ascertain how [the views of] various
subqroups wiIl affect tr>olicy impLementation" (Memo from Charles Moskos to Bernard Rostker, "Discussion Points on DOD Policy OpEions Regarding Gays and Lesbians," dated May 7, 1993) '
Flndings and Conclueions Viewe on Removfng the Ban. As shown in Table 7-2,76 percent of mafes and 43 percent of femaLes disagreed with the proposal that homosexuals should be allowed to enter and remain in Ehe military' while 1? percent of males and 44 percent of females agreed with Lhat proposal. proporEions were similar across surveyed bases (Item H-1lb). These results are generally consistent with the results in the Los AngeTes ?imes survey, except Ehe women in Che Moskos survey were more positive about homosexuals in the mj.l-iLary Lhan were those in the Los AngeTes 'limes survey. Table 7-2 prcentage DigtrlbuElons for Agreement or Dieagreement with proposal That Homoeexuals Be llowed Uo Enler and Reman in
the Mllitary
Ma]es Agree StrongIY

Aqree Not Sure
6
Females
t7
aa
11
7
T2
Disagree Disagree SErongl.Y

ToEaI
I2
64
t4
29 100
r00
I3B4 r420 in sampJ.e Source: MiIler, MaY 1993' NoLe: Recalculations of overall percenEages based indiviclual percentages and sanple sizes reported by military post. T\pographical error in the published tables in Miller (May 1993) corrected per telephone conversaion wiEh Laura Miller-
Number
on
-2r1
rn their December 1992 survey, Moskos and Miller asked more detailed questions of a group of 941 officers and enli.sted personnel' Whencompared'withtheArmyasawhole,therespondenEslargely reflectedthemakeupoftheArmyintermsofgenderandrace,but slightly overrepresenEed lower rank enlisLed personnel and underrepresented officers (01-03). In this por!ion of the group' 18 percent of women and 9 percent of men indicated EhaE Ehey personally knew a male in Eheir company who was homosexual (IEem H-32) and 14 percent of men and, 2't percent of women indicaEed they knew a woman in their company who was lesbian (Item H-33). Those who thought they knew someone in their unit was homosexual were more favorabfe toward a]Iowing homosexuals to serve in the military than Lhose who did not. mong men, 22 percenL who knew someone in their unit was homosexual were favorable, unit compared rith 16 percenc of those who did not know someone in heir percent who was homosexual. For females, Ehe comparable figures were 52 vs. 40 percent (Tab1e 13 in MiIler, 1993) ' Miller reports that 6 percent of men and 17 percenL of women indicated that they felt that a solder of the same sex hac macle a sexual advance toward them; however, he question she asked cloes noE specify whether this advance \^ras welcome or noE welcome to the recipient, nor does it specify the nature of Ehe advance, rvhich could range from a joke to a physical- assault (Item
H-34).io
of loThe eroblems with Lhis iEem point Co Lhe difficulties Ehe exEenE Eo which any sexual harassmene, IeL alone samemeasuring
gender sexual harassmenE, occurs in Lhe military context. However, two studies based on large stratified random samples of military personnel have reported informabion on same-gender sexual harassment. The first, a 1988 survey of over 20,OO0 active duty members from all four services and the Coast Guard focused on sexuaL harasssment at work and was reporbed by Melanie Martinclale (1990), The second, a 1989 survey of over 5,600 active duty Navy personnel Ehat focused on sexual harassment while on duty and while off duty bu on base or ship, was reported by Amy Culbertson, et. al ' (1992) MarLindal-e reportecl that 17 percent of males and 64 percent of females experienced sexual harassment (described in the survey not as ,,sexua} harassment,, per se but as "uninviLecl and unwanted sexual atEenEion received at work") from someone (male or femaLe) in the year prior Eo Ehe survey; L7 percent of femaLes and 3 percent of males indicated they hacl experiencecl harassment that was of a "serious" form,
-
i.e',pressureforsexualfavorsorattempEedoractualrapeorsexual
- 218 viewe on Homoaexuale ae Fel.low sOldlers ' When presented with a job forced choice between being in a foxhole or working on their normal soldier (as v,j-Lh either an opposite-sex soldier or a same-sex homosexual a shown in Table 7-3) most males inclicated they would prefer Lo be with
femaleEhanahomosexualmalefe]Iowsoldier,whetherinanormalwork situaLion or in combat. fn contrast, a majority of females indicated no preference, and a large minority would prefer to have maLes as feIlow soldiers. A very small proporEj'on would prefer to be with a same sex volunteered a homosexuaL soldier, a smaller proportion than those who preference for being alone, given Lhe oEher alternatives presented' ceneral Views on Homosexuals in he Military. Mi'l-Ier (May, 1-993) reports the resufts of a series of agree/disagree items on attitudes toward homosexuality anc homosexuals in fhe military (IEem H-37a-1) ' Table 7-4 summarizes Lhe results, showing Lhe proportion of males and females who inclicaLed they agreed or strongly agreed with each with sEatemenE. The results clearJ.y indicate high leve1s of discomfort assault. Other ess serious harassing behaviors included a range from whistsles,ca}Is,jokes/etc.,totouchingandcorneringthevictj.m' of Gender of the perpetrator was asked only for the single insEance duting Ehe previous year tat ad affected the sexual, harassmenc respondent the most 16 percent of females and B percent of maLes reported that a serious form of harassment was part of this instance of harassment.UnfortunaEely,theonlydataprovidedbytheauthorsonthe genderofLheperpetratorbygenderofthevictiminc].udetheentire of females t.tg. of behaviors from most to least serious: One percentperpeErated and 30 percent of males inclicated that Lhis harassment was by one or more persons of the same gfencer as che victim of the harassmenE,buEMarindalecauEionsthat,t.heseincidentsdonotno data on necessarily refer to homosexuaf events' The survey col-Iected the sexual orlentation of perpetrators' ,Iheconc].usion,basec]onMartindale,Scross-servicedata,Lhat while females are much more likely to be the victims of sexual harassmentEhanmales,female-to_femaleharassmenLismuchlesscommon than male-to-male harassment, is also supported by Ehe culberbson' et aI, reporE on Nawy personnel. although Lhis report uses a more restrictive definition of sexual harassmenc and finds correspondingly lower rates of reporEecl experiences of sexual harassment ' Same-gendersexualharassmentfitsthesamepaeEerninthecvifian workplace' over 20,000 federal employees were surveyed in 1'980 by the U.s.MeritsystemsProt'ectionBoard.onty3percenEofwomenreportedof male they had been harassecl by olher women, in contrasL Lo 22 percenE victims reporting harassment by one or more men' Gender of perpetrator was not included as a quesLion on the MSPB's 1987 survey'
-2r9the prospec of working or living wiLh homosexuals and that. in this population of soldiers, males were much less accepting than females of homosexuaLs, along most climensions. However, an overwhelrning majority
Table 7-3 of Mafee ard Femalos Preferring Proporton FlIow Soldier In a FoxhoLe
Work
e
Each Tpe of
On Cq1!--lfob
Prefer To With: Oppos i te

Doesn't
Men
q1
2'7
5
Women
42 56
2
Men
69
21,
2
Women
39
5'.l
t?
matter
Same sex
o 1 1,7 be alone with 4?1 males and 470 femafes NOTE: Based on inLervews reported bY Laura Mi11er, MaY 1993 '
homosexual Prefer to
ofsoldiers(,.-2percenEofmalesandsTpercentoffemales)agreedthaE he private behavior of others was not their concern, while fewer, 38 percent of males and 29 percenc of females. indicated that they expecEed homosexualsodierstoatbempttoseduceothersoldiers.Abouca guarter of the males ancl half Ehe females felt thac sensitivity classes would be useful to promoEe acceptance of homosexuals in the military'
CONCI,USIONS FROM BOTH SURVEYS
The surveys we reviewed found that the opi-nions of a arge majority of enlisted mi1Eary personnel are against aJ-lowing homosexuals Eo serve. Women hold less unfavorabl-e views abouE it' than males' unfavorable opinions appear to be mainly related both to fears about having direct. contact with homosexuals in facilities and quarters and to
disapprovaf of homosoxuals on moral "rncl religious grounds' A minority in the Los Anqe}es ?jtles Survey expressed concern with Lhe process of removing Ehe ban, such as conflict, violence, and financia]- cost, alEhough most predictecl Ehat violence against homosexuals would occur' only 15 percen!. 0f respondents Lo the Los AngeJes Times survey expressed
-220direct concern about the job performance of homosexuals, indicaEing concerns that they are not as reliable in comab situations. The Moskos/Miller survey of Arny personnel indicaEed thab while homosexuals were noE generally considered Eo be desirable unit members, most survey fable 7-4 proportion of Mateg and Femaleg Indlcating They strongly or gree wlth Each StaLement
Males
gree
Females
a. I wouLd feel uncomfortable if there were some homosexuals in my unit. b. I would feel uncomforLable having to share mY room with a
homosexual
.
76* 908 752
35*
622
c. Homosexual males make me more uncomfortable Lhan lesbians . d. What peoPle do in their Private sex I i-ves is no bus iness of mine, e. Allov/ing oPenlY homosexual soldiers in the ArmY would cause
some
9*
8'72
722
338 752 132
problems, but
r'Je coul"d
manage.
538
f. Allowing openIY homosexual soldiers in the ArmY would be very disruptive of cliscipline' g. Homosexual.itY is abnormal and perverted. h. It is all right for homosexuals o be in the ArmY as long as I don't know who LheY are. i. openly homosexual soldiers wilf try to seduce stragh! soldiers
'
49?,
432
252 38
262 242
32* 29*
39*
4BZ
j, AJ-lowing homosexuals in the rmy wilI increase sol-diers' acceptance of gays ancl lesbans ' k . I.Je neecl sens ir ivity courses on accePLingr hornosexuals in Lhe
1, In the evenE of a drafE, homosexuals shoud be drafted Lhe same as heEerosexual" men'
Army.
658 4OZ TalIes B and 9 in Mi1ler, 1993' Note: Comp!lecl from
-22!-
IespondenEsfeltthatprivaEesexua]-}:ehaviorVJasnoneoftheirbusiness felL that nd less Ehan 40 percent of males and 30 Percent of females other heterosexuars wourd be subject bo sexuar aclvances by homosexuals' survey results inclicaLe Lhat num)er would probably be much lower' on However, in the Los AngeTes ?jmes survey findings, Ehe ban homosexualswasnoEtheonlyconcernofmilitarymeml]ers.Whenaskedto any indicate the Lwo rop probrems facing Lhe u.s. military today' before specifictopicswerediscussedinc]etail,52percentpickedtroopcuts ban on homosexuals and downsizing vs. 48 percent who picked lifLing the (ItemG-8).WhenaskecltovJarc]theendofthequestionnaireiftheissue it of permitting homosexuaLs in the military was "geELj-ng the atEenEion deservecl,'only23percentfelEiEwas'while66percentfelEitwas ,,drainingatEentionfromoEhermoreimportantissuesfacinqthe miliEarY" (Item G-23) '
FOCUS GROUPS CONUCTED BY RI{D
AspartofouraEEempLtoundersEandthebelj.efsandaEtitudesof and service members, we conducted 1g focus groups in Lhe united staLes Force' and Marine Germany. Focus groups were carriecl out with Army' Air participantsatthreeCaliforniainstallaLionsandwiLhArmyandAir distance of Force participants from several installations v,ibhin driving Frankfurt, GermanY. 11
Method
Separate groups were conclucLecl for officers'12 non-commissioned extent possibJ-e each of f j.cers (Ncos) , i3 ancl enlistecl personne.14 To the group was variecl with respecE to gender' race and service occupation'
ttlth"ugh no focus groups were conducEed with N-a-vy p.ersonnel' projectstaftvisiEednavalbasesandEalkedinformallywithpersonnel there, 12A1most aII were Second LieuLenants, First LieutenanEs, Captarns
and Majors.
l3Included sergeants through Sergeant Maiors in the Marine Corps the ArmY and Staff Sergeants lhrough Chief Master SergeanEs in bhe and ALr Force, 14Incl-uded PrivaLes through Lance CorporaJ-s in Ehe Marine Corps, Privates Lhrough Privates FirsL Class in the rmY, and irman Basic through Airman FirsE CLass in the Air Force.
-)))7 ancl 11 participants; mosL grouPs had 9 or 10. The meEhod of choosing parLicipants varied conslderably depending on the particular instal-Iation visited. At one site, vo-unteers were solicited by Ehe tocal miltary commancl Eo Lell the researchers how they felt abouE allowj.ng homosexuals to serve. t another siLe, participants were selecEed randomly from a computer file of unit personnel' For most sites, the ofiicer in charge chose several work groups and asked them to provide two or Ehree people each, Thus, we can make no claim for the representativeness of Ehe focus group participanLs ' Although we requestecl ghat prospective parEicipants not be Lol-d in advance that the focus groups were abouL allowing homosexuals to serve, virEually all participants appeared Eo know the topic of conversaeion' A few parEj.cipanLs (from the installaEion that solicited volunteers) brought wriLten statements of their positions; others mentioned aL the end of the session Ehat Lhey had cliscussed the matter with Eheir Peers lefore attending. However, very few participants mentioned homosexuals or the restrict.ions before the project staff introduced lhe Eopic. AIl focus groups rvere conducted in a meeting room on post' with only project staff (usuaJ.ly incLuding males and females) and partcipans in aEEendance. Permission was obtained from participants Bo take deEailecl notes of the sessions on condition thaE no statements would be identifi.able,wi-th the individuaf or units in attendance' other than these noEes, the groups were noE recorded in any way' Focus group leaders (usua11y two leaclers in each group and orte note-taker) used a written proEoco to guide Ehe discussion, although the parLicipants often departed from the prococol in bringing up and discussing issues that concerned Lhem. Each session lasted about an hour and a half' The proLocol was cesigned Lo Lead gracual1y into the topic of homosexuals in the military, in orcler to understand that issue in the
Each group had between
largercontexcofmi]-iEaryJ-ife.Thereforewebeganbyasking participants L.o cornmenE on Ehe!r living and working conditions, focusing on rules and expectatons for behavior, how we1 people got along' reasons for conflicts that arose, and how conflicts were resoLved. Focus group leaders probed for the roles leaders (both NCos and officers) played in resolving conflicts, They then turned Lo a
_)t1-
consideraion of what fac|ors led to effective performance in work groupsandhowcohesionwasfosleredinworkgroups,probingtoexplore how imporEanL i.L was to Like and socialize with co-workers' During these context-seErng cliscussions (which took half to three-quarEers of the session), we askecl questions to see whether and how differences in raceandgenderanc]othercharacteristicscouldcauseproblemsandhow these Problems were resolved' Thetopicofhomosexualsinthemj.IitarywasintroducedwiEh reference to the proposed removal of the ban' and reaction was elicited in tight of the previous bopics of living conditons' working conditions,andthecausesandreso}uLionsofconflicL.Weaskedan inLroductoryquestionabouE'wheEherparLicipantspersonallyknewany homosexualswhowerecurrenElyservingattheirinstallations.For those who dicl know any such servj.ce members, the focus group leader was widely asked whether the sexual 0rientaLion of Ehese individuals known,anclhowtheseincividualswerebreaLec]tvitshintheunit.Thisled to a discussion abouE the parEicipants' beliefs and atLitudes regarding of homosexuals, their service in Lhe military' and the appropriaLeness the lran' FinaI}y, we asked what advice participanEs would give military leaders in the evenE thac homosexuals were allowed to serve' wepresentourfinc]ingsasmuchaspossibleinLhewordsofthe to remove focus group parLi-cipants. However, we have ediEed these words of any identificaLion of participants by gender' rank' or branch service, unless such iclenEification is critical Lo understanding the context of Lhe opinion. Since we are dealing with a small' the views nonrepresenEaEve sample of service members' we consider expressed as descriptive of the range of opinion among service members of and of how Lhey formulate the issues of Lhe milLary experience everyday Life, working groups, racia] and gender differences' and homosexuals,' we clo not atLempt to quantify responses' It is also importanc !o realize Lhat people sometmes have reasons for Laking positionsingroupsthatmaynoLcompJ.etelyreflecLtheirindividual people views or strengths of opinion about the issue. For example, some v,iEh other may be more concerned \.rith mai-ntaining socal solidariby than they do mem]f,ers of the group who feel more sLrongly about the i-ssue
-224(A1lporE, 1958) or theY may simply need to express their own selfconcept bY exaggerating their posiLion (Herek, 198?) '
the ParticiPants ToId Us Livlng and Working Conditsiona, NoL surprisingly, participants had a range of comptaints about their living and working conditions' Comp}ainEsaboutlivingconditionsj'ncludedpoorqualityofphysica} etc., as facilities in terms of heaEing, Iighting, noise, maintenance, welIas].ackofprivacy.Lackofprivacyinbarrackshousingincluded being subjected to inspecLions and unit rules as wel"l as having privacy in married roonates and lack of choice in roommaLes ' Lack of
What
housingncludec]theneedEosharecommonspaceswithothercouplesand Iiving in families as weII as noise ancl cleanliness' Many parLicipants lived off barracks expressed a desire to Live off post' while others post and resenEed the post only because of a shortage of housing on and roomed expense involved. In units where people both worked together,participantsexpressedasenseoffeelingLrappedandunable toescapefromnormalsEressesoflifeinthemilitary;Ehiswas especiaJ-IytrueaEremoteposts.ForexampIeoneso1diercommented: get away from Iinscal]"ationl every chance I geE' I don't ]ke my roommate;he'sas1o:"'Wehavenothingincommon'don'tlikethesame I'm a kind of music, don't have Lhe same opinions' he's a Democral' Republican."Whenaskediftheyworkecltogetheraswell'hecommented further;"Yes,weworktogeLher'Myattitudeis"rvorkiswork'"butI Another don't want to deal with the miliEary when I'm off work'" like a soldier comrlenEecl: "cont.rary Eo what they te}l you' it's noL you' You can't go civilian jo: because or b.he restrictions Ehey puE on job people clon't come in and beyond 75 miles from base; in a civilian check Your home every nighL ' " ontheotherhand,theyrecognizedthat]ivingandworkingtogether madesenseintermsofhavj.ngEhesamedailyschedulesandfeelingfsome trusL that belongings vJere secure in Ehe barracks ' FirsE parEicipanE: You try anc keep a platoon together' Nine Lhe rooming out of ten who work together get along' soyou put in a cook situaLion is fne,..prblems can arise i who has to get up at three or four in the morning '
225 -
people who work Second participanl: -t-.=on In acldition to roomngtogether is also for keeping the grouP together, or," security of personal items' There's less likely to be theft of Personal belongings ' were seE Rules in living quarters appeared to be guite varied and and according to the branch of service' Lhe particuLar installaion' sometimestheplaoonoruniEcustoms.Thus,somemilitarymemberswere not ' Some were allowed to have iquor in their rooms and others were the visiEors al]owed Eo have opposite sex visiEors in private' whether
wereconslant]yescortedornoE;otherscouldhavethemonlyifvisitors or only on special were consEantly escorLed; and others noE at aI1
occasions. most Rules about music and decorations also varied' alEhough
indicaEeclthaEunc]erstooc]slandardsclidexistinLheirunitsandwere enforced bY unit commanders ' group went as followsr One exchange beEween participants in an NCO
conservative Leadert What haPPens if one roomrnate has very on the waII? anoLher wanEs to hang sofE-core Porn values and
boEhers First ParticiPanE: If Lhey are loth roommates, if it has to take it down. one Lhen the other Regulations aIlow Second parEicipan|: I take another route' regulaEions all'ow i!' then Ehe two soft-core porn. so, if Lo remove must work ouE an agreement' I can't ask someone by regulations' something allowecl but you Pirsl participanc: You have to go by Ehe regulations' People have different Ieadership have latitucle within Ehem' goes' sLyJ-es, buc whatever the commander says'
cuL' Third pareicipanE: Regulations are clear you' but 'leadership' You can use the the cliscreLin thaE is given to is using you're earning your Pay by using the discretion wuong, but discret ion .
long hours and' to ComplainLs aout working conclitions cenLered on mitiEary and some degree, inequities in work assignmenus between as lack of civilian staff and between males and females' as well
appropriaEerecognition'ManycommentedonlheariLrarygualityof
-226workassignments,withtheirworkscheclulesdependentonthedesirefor advancementoftheofficerinchargeandonhisorherwillingnessto makedecisions.Forexample:,,Theworksj-tuaLionain,tthatbad,but youdon'tgetoffuntilT(PM)whenyou'refinishedlwithyourworklat 4:30(PM). The chain of commancl i's scared Eo make decisions'" In contrast, most commenLed positively on the atmosphere of teamworkinworkgroupsandtheprofessional,goal-orientedqualityof your work' miliEary Easks, "When you're at work' you're talking about Youdon'tLalkaboucyourpersonallife"'Theyfeltthatworking others' togeEher buiLt mutual respecL and appreciation for each and get jobs strengths and weaknesses as werr as an abiriLy to cooperaLe done:"YougeEproficientatwhaEyou'redoingandyougetintoa done' The rhythm and become close, tight knit' ancl you get iE a uniE wiEh pride and [military] is always tesLing you' but you become camaraderie in Your unit ' " in living Conflict in Living and Work Groups' Sources of conffict people' quarters and work assignments included clean vs' messy religious,racial,andpoli-ticaldifferences'alcoholuseandabuse'and tastesinmusicandleisureactiviEies'Theseconflictsrvereexpressed While most in a variety of ways ancl sometimes resulEed in violence' indicatedtheywereencouragedtoworkconflictsouEamongEheparties directlyinvoJ-ved,theyalsocitedinstancesofinEerventionbyunit conflicts, especially if commanders and oLher officers to resolve such violencewasinvoJved'Asoneparticipantdescribedit,"There'sall (military police) sorEs of process over only a few punches. MPs involved,Thenyourtme,money,andabilityEoqetawayistaken away." The same soldier related this sLoryl with two black T came in ancl hung "r Confeclerate flag in a room roornates'IwasLo].ciitrvasracistbyanofficer,butl stuff my viewed it as ]eing Lhe same as Ehe bl'ack image fought taking roommates had hun, African flags and stuff" 'I My ic down. It wen! really far up in the chain of cornmand' sas' were not the ones mainly objecting, Ehe of f iceil roommaL.es
the options for dealing with such confl,icts ncfuded both putting assi'gnmenEs people nvolved LogeLher in their quarters and on Lheir work
geE
-227-
inanefforEtoforcethemtocometotermswitheachother,aswellas changingroomandworkassignmensEoaccomrnodateirreconcilab}e differences. RepeaEecl involvement in such conflicts was considered groundsforquestoningfitnessformi].iraryservice.,It.youcan,tget your job done, you']1 le in troubl'e' lf you can'L work with people' you'II be j-n trouble." En].istedpersonneJindicatec]Lhatsuchconflictswerecommonplace, and thought on and officers indicated Ehat chey spent considerable Eime surprised or such problems. Hovrever, neicher group seemed particularly it in heterogeneous concerned about such ccnflict, seemingly expecting groupslikethemilitary'Onecommented:"Theproblemsinthemilitary arenodfferentthanintheresLofsoc'ely'it'sjustthatthere's moredailycontactbetweendiversepersons'vhichcausesmoreconflict'" Infact'manymentioneclexposuretodifferentkj-ndsofpeopleasa positive feature of milita::y service' "I come from a small- Eown in had to oklahoma. Everyone is the same: white Baptist. They,Ve never (miIit'ary) has changed my deal vJith b]acks, Mexicans, Chinese' '.The years ago I would conception of these people"' Anolher commented' "Ten wiLh iL"' never have worked for a black person' now I've got no problem Racialconflic!.MosEparticipanLsacknowledgedtheexistenceof racialLensioninthemiliLarywhi}eexpressingabe}iefinzero "rn living together a sordier !orerance for expressing such conflict. is"'Several NcOs can complain about what anoLher does' buE not who he commentedinresponseEoEheleader,squestionabouthowEheyhandled "You change the attitude, don't accommodaEe' make raciaL conflcts: it and he attitude adjustments."You make it plain you wi1 not tolerate or other kinds needs to live wiEh it ancl acljust to it. " Racial counents is sLop of discrimination were not regarded as accepLable. "!'lhae you do it. DirecLly LelI them to stoP ancl it is unacceptable'" Living ancl working Logether were regarded as helpful to the from not knowing development of better relabions: " lot of it stems wha!theotherguyisallabout'conLactbreaksthaLdown,.'and."It,s that aL] about. respect - when you develop a team, they develop a respect teamwork' transcencls race' Team members l-ook beyoncl race' Utopia is garrison when Once you get out of Lhat, it breaks down back aE the
-228-
Lhey,renotatwork.,,Whilepart'icipantsexpressedfewproblemsworking withpeopleofdifferentraces(unlesstherewasafanguagedifference)' people of oEher races many indicated Ehat they did not socialize wiEh afterworkj.nghours'onemaninamixed-racemarriagecornmentedEhathe although had experienced no pro}rlems because of this in the miliEary,
had in civilian
he
settings' Theimportanceofleadershipindealingwithconflictwasstrongly emphasized."LeaclershipEeJ'lsyouwhatisblackandwhatiswhite'so the line'" you know what the line is ancl so you know when you cross and if it is viofated it urhey have to know that the sEandard is there wi}].beenforcedandthatLhepersonwi].Inotberetali-atedagainstfor reportingvio}ationsoEEhaLstandard.,,LeadershiptrainingwasciLed asamajorfactorinEheabi}iEytofosterteamworkandcohesion,"We prepleadersexEensivelybeforeEheyassumeconcrolofindividuals.All get training for tsechnical management' and communcation skiIls"' ,,plus you make mistakes and rearn from misEakes, discuss the siEuaton ancl wilf share with you"' wiLh your peers; someone has gone through it Genderconflicu.Whilemostparticipantsfeltcomforta}lewiththe gender. whire an issue of race in Lhe military, this was noL true of NcogroupfirstassertedLhat:,,Wetr-eatthemfikeanothersoldier,if and women at various levels Lhey don't do the job they're out"' both men and Ehe need Lo prove descri_bed differences Ln clegree of acceptance to do their work, and Ehemselves, difficulLies in perceivec ability i'nequitiesnworkassgnmenEs'onewomancommented:"Womenoutinthe fieldaretheonestryingEoprovethemselves,eitherLheyfee]like to prove they've got to prove something or they are being forced not carry their something." Wh]e some men conunentecl thaL v''Jomen could oLhers observed thab weghb and got easier cassignments as a resul-t' they could be LrusEed to v,Jere more depencabre ancl mature and that
women
completse assignments
wibh less supervj-sj-on' One male NCO commenLed: ,There are some [who c.rn cto the jo}] , but in general women cannot However' anot'her male Nco olserved' "Females handLe ic physically'" l-earn quicker' are more mabure quicker, they ask smarCer questons'
coordinated,andlisEenmore"'somecommentedthatday-Eo-day relationshipsweremorec]ifficultwithwomencomparedwithmen,,,Ihave
-2)q-
noproblem\orkingwithwomenuntiltheystarLcryingonthejob"'and ,You get cryba}ry men aS much as a \]oman, but you can always yeII aE a of guy. Your hands are tiecl in dealing with women because of Lhe Ehreat if necessary' but not harassment ' Men can be puI1ec1 from the desk women. Women get cushier jobs'" arose in combat Some officers colrurented Ehat difficulties buE situations when women were technicalJ.y eligibte for assignments, due to senior officers were not wirling to give Lhem such assignmenLs This causes serious the possibility of Eheir being kil1ed or capEured' commander involved' one probJ.ems for the men, the women' and the unit
male NCO related this exPerience: rn In Saudj- rabia, mixing sexes caused severe problems were Male soldiers moLivation, and discipline' Leamwork, in Lhe company' In compeLing for the attent'j'on of females you were limited in crew' situations with Ewo females in a and you could deploy the Eeam' Given two female drivers where Lo send a team nEo a hosEile tvlo male drivers t''a t missi'on view of the situaEion, you had to sencl Ehe males' because the not to put women in a dangerous situation' andItthe leadership is the siLuation causes problems wiLh how males then view wants (women) could have handled iE' but no top leader women.. ' comlat casualty on his hands' to have the first female
Inaddition,therewasdiscussionofLhedisruptioninuniEscaused or not their feelings by the men being aLtracted to the women wheEher and women iE they were returned, and by relationships between men too dangerous for developed \rrit.hin a work group' One commented: "It's you go to war and a woman rips her women to be ou. on the r"ine. say on his job pants. The man next to her is not going Lo be concentraEing becauseheisgoingtoJreconcentraEingon}ookingthroughtheho}ein they had handling her panEs." Women commentec on Ehe difficulties of homosexuarity advances ancl Lhe experience of being accused
unwanted
ifcheyrefusec]amaleadvance.onema}esergeantsurnrneduphisviews aboutwomeninthemiliLary:"Whenallissaidanddone'Eheycosfmore things--headaches Lhan they're worLh. The clivj-siveness' sexualiLy come wLh it. "
thaE
- )11,
Dlgcueeion of Homosexualg in lhe Mi11ary
RaisingtheissueofhomosexualsinchemiliEary}rroughtavariety ofreactions.Insomegroups,itProvokedaverystrongreaction In oLher ("Hiroshima" one group called it) and a heated discussion' in intensi'ty' groups, the discussion clid not increase markedly condemnaEi'on of Participants in a few groups wer unanimous in their homosexualsinthemiliLary,whileparEicipanEsinmosEgroupsvariedin the direction ancl intensity of their views' PersonalExperiencewitshHomogexualgintheMilltary.Inalmost to relate stories about every group/ one or more participants were able they had encountered in the known or strongly suspected homosexuals deaths from AIDS miJ.itary. Although some concerned Eragedies' such as personaf discomforL or lovers'quarrels Ehat ended in violence' or the theparticipantfeltrvhenthehomosexualwasaround'othersconcerned homosexuals who were viewecl as good soldiers ' BellefeAboutPerEona}cortgaeEwltbHomoggxuals.Greatdiscomfort wasexpressedaboutsharingquartersandfacilitieswitshacknowledged toLerant of homosexuals in homosexuals, even by some people who were their sexuaf general. Many vewed homosexuaLs as unable to control who would and would not urges and unable to distinguish between those ,,rt.s oK working with them before Lhey wer.come an advance. For exampre, !o be in the showers wiLh them come out or are caught, but I'm afraid afterwards,rfeltlikerrvasbeingstareclaEinCheshowerl:ysomeone Lo be in a foxhole with a gay who had come out'" Or, "I'cl Ie afraid I looked Ehe other person. I clon'r' trust chem' T'd be afraid that if when l'm hoLding up a way, he'd do someching" ancl "I'm worried tshat me'" Some felt it piece of armamenE, someone mighE come over ancl grab wouldbeaproblemon}yinextremesiLuations,,,Whathappensif\'eare Sexual urges will- cause dep-oyed for an exceptionally long time? have bo be problems at the worsL possible time' A soldier shouldn't sLill oLhers menEioned the watching his ack for more than a ]ulIeL'" got drunk and fondled effecLs of alcohol, "T knew a case where a person on a case where a kid was someone at a parEy" ancl "I took a report thrownoffthechirdceckanddidn,t\^'anttoreporLwhy.Hesaidhe partner'" He hacl golten drunk and made a pass aL his Lrippecl ancl fell'
-23rOEhers expressed concern about
Eheir own ability
to deal with
exposureEohomosexualsexualityinwaysthatareconsideredacceptable for heeerosexuality, for example, "I went into a room Iin Ehe barracks] walked and found a guy wiEh a girl- ' I told them they had an hour and and it was a man away. It would screw up my mind if I vrenL nto a room wih anoEher man.,, stiIl 0thers mentioned their beliefs thaE homosexual promiscuity would increase the rsk of disease' 'Homosexualiey is promiscuous by definiLion, so Iit] increases the problem of disease"' In contrasts, others were more relaxed' For example' "Homosexuals gay don'L Ery Eo converE you or rape you" and "A gay person knows a person. They're noL going to hit on non-gays'" Another reported thaE heandhisfianceeengagedinrecreablonalactivitj-eswithahomosexual militarycouple'AthirdstaLed,"Icouldworkwithahomosexual--no problem. IE's his behavior T have pr-oblems with' I'd have problems good with eiLher a heEero or homosexual roommate having 'maLes' over' soldj-er,NCO,orworker,whodoesn'ttrytoinfl-uencepeople'basedon once Lived Lhat behavior, I have no problem." Ancl a third parEicipanr withhisfamilyoffpostwhere"theapartmentllivedinhadBorl0 ga{s. I seem to have learned Ehat gays are oK' Before having fived ,.,iEh them I would have been rea} upse, but now I be].ieve differenEly.,, I don't vant Another commented, 'I don't mind gays in the military' but to live wiEh them. NoE n the same room, but next door is oK"' mpact of Homosexuals on Performance of the MiLitar] Miael'on' TherewasadiversityofopinionabouLhovhomosexualswouldaffect miJ.taryperformance'WhilesomemadestLemenLsIike,,Readinesswill go to shit in a few years," oEher participants mentioned homosexuals they knev,r who had beerr excellenE soldiers' t{hen faced with a "forced choice,,ofwhethertheywouldchooseahomosexua}oradrugaddictto perform a critical task wiEh, virtually a1 chose the homosexual' reasoning Ehat they cottld rely on thaE person for consistent performance' However, knorvlecge of a homosexuaf's sexualorientation homosexuals would was widely Ehought to be clisruptive; i.n general, known not enjoy bhe trust and respecL of their ellow soldiers and wouLd' therefore, be unable co function effective]y: 'You could know someone who,sagreatworkeranclyoufinc]outtheyaregayandyoulosea}otf
-232respecL for Lhe person. You have Eo respect someone to geE a-ong on the job," or "As long as people clon't know about [a l:erson's homosexualityl. performance is the issue, If it's known, performance isn'E the issue" and "IIt] affects my job because I couldn'E trust gays...I'd be watching him rather Lhan my job..'I'11 kiIl him-" part of the problem apparently lies in the unwillngness t.o follow orders given by known homosexuals: "r worked with a homosexual and no! one man would do what he said. It's different in the civiLian world, but i_n the military, given the way we live and have to rely on people lhe way we do, this is not the place for iE"5 and "Where are ou! rights? I can'E quit [and] I can't be loya] if he's my SergeanE Major." However, another Look excepEion Eo Ehe often heard statement thaE "There j.s no way an officer can i:e gooc and gay." Sill another noted that in
Desert Sheld, there was a specialist "who spoke seven Languages. Everybody thought he was a gay, but he had Ehe respect of his peers." Another commented on service members suspecEed to be homosexual, "vI don,t pick on Ehem. They are soLdiers. I don't Ehink iE will change much if they do their jo):s "' specific concerns were mentioned abouE combat effectiveness, including concerns abouE the safety of homosexuals: "If we go to combaE and I,m in a position with a known gay who is wounded. I will nob put my hands on his blood--he will die"; and abouL their own safety: "If the person nexE to you gfets shot., you don'E want to worry about whether they have IDS." Favoritism, an issue LhaE arises wth heterosexual reLationships ancl non-sexual relationshi.ps as we11, was concern: "The problem is having severa] homosexual.s on a team and they're looking out for each olher ancl favoring each other. This adds a new concern about cross-rank relationships" and "Look a! the lname of ship]. on this ship there are homosexuals ancl leslcians to Ehe extent that Lhey have their own Little groups. There is a major problem there r'/iLh safety, efficiency, low moraLe, and reverse discrimination. Don't taLk Lo seni.or offi.cers or sen.ior enlisted. Talk with junior salors rvho have
15This is a probJ-em experienced l:y women as well: "Female soldiers Imagine what have trouble getting male soldiers to fol1ow Lheir orders. would happen if a soldier wcas gay."
-233to live and work in this environment. It's a bad situaeion," At the extreme was the fear, ,,I,m concerned that Ewo guys will be in a Bradley [troop carrier] during a Lull in a battl,e. when you need to count on lhem, t.hey' 11 be having sex ' " Religlon, Morallty, and the Image of the Ml11tary' one of the areas Ehat generated very emoEional discussion among some participants was Lhe importance of mititary image and Eradition, "The minuEe they sEep off the bus, they are handecl a value system EhaL they must adopt while they are part of the team. If you can't hang wiLh Ehat system' time to get back on the bus, GoE people lin Ehe military] who have lived with thaL sysEem,,, The miliEary image is both macho, "we're the ones who go in and kick ass,,,and morally upright, "The miliLary is one of the mosE respected institutions in the counbry because of Ehe morality of the service." Many people say they selected he military as a career for exactly that reason, "[I] came ino the mi),itary because I didn't like how the corporaEe rvorld worked' tIl want Eo be i.n d socieEy with integrity to raise chilclren" ancl "we work for high ideals. If we didn'8, wecl get out. ancl f ind a good-payi'ng job"' Some participans articulatecl their strong religious objections to homosexuality as a Eroull-ing feature of Iiftng Uhe ban: 'IHomosexuality] is not humanly accepLable, it's unnatural, iL's againsL the BibLe," or ,,God made man and God macle woman. Homosexual accivity is immoral," and Iif estyle; being a rr'?oman or a black is not a lif estyle ' You can't LeIl me to accept a gay because Ehat's a moral issue'" partj:cipants were concerned fhat Lhe image of the military would change if homosexuals were openLy adm|tted, "People want Lheir children to join the mili.tary because of what it stands for. If the mililary now becomes the social test for homosexualj-Ly, parenEs will be l-ess willing to leL their chilclren join Iand] the proportion of homosexuals in the force wiII increase cisproportionately. IThe milEary] will be viewed as a safe haven Ifor homosexuaLs]." Another participanc observed, ,,I have a hard time thinking abouE the image of a military where two gay guys can be out sunbathing. what am I gotnq Eo tell my son if he sees Ehis ancl asks if j.t is oK?" and "No one wil"l want to join Mora]e wifl go down. we join because of the image, Ehe [miItary].
- 234 because we do Ehe job righL, are macho'" Even those who may not feel" as sErongly bhemsel-ves urged us not to discounb the importance of these
views: "The hyper-religious make up a significant par of the military Eoday and Ehey don't supporE homosexuality." Other participanE.s commented Lhat miliEary 1j"fe was a reflection of the real world already, "Kids are already exposed to gays, " and " [My kids ask abouc thel single parent Living with a lve-in nexc door." Others reiEerated the theme brought up in discussions about race: In Lhe military, one experiences Ij.fe beyond one's narrower upbringing. A different minority of partcipants scrongly favored lifting the ban because they founcl nofhing morally objecEionable to homosexual behavior. One responcenL chose not to report two homosexuals observed in becl together "because I dj-dn't Lhink it should be anybody else's business," AnoLher saicl, "If they're being discreet and they're doing the job, then I don't do anYthing." A variaEion on the rel"igious/morality Eheme was bhats of the ilIegaJ.it,y of homosexua] )ehavior, Many parbicipants agreed with such statements as ,,There is no pl_ace in the military for homosexuals"; "Homosexualicy is sexual misconduct"; and "Hort can you let them in when iL's illegal?" OLhers, bhough. noted wiLh rony Ehat "It's all right for a male soldier Eo commit adultery. Homosexual sexuality is similarly i11ega1, buc supervisors don't treat it the same"' Some advocates of the ban beli-eved bhat L.he issue was not that homosexuals were interested in mil-iEary service, but bhab removing the ban was part of a broader homosexual poli.tical agenda: "This is a gay rights movement, they want to put ic in your face. They want to come in so they can say they can come in," and "We're pawns, they wanE the miJ-itary to accept iL so they can get the rest of t.he country to accept it.,, These participants belj.eved that the military was being forced to undertake something that civilians were unwilling to do, "we're the experimenLal testing ground," and "This is about symbolism. The population will lisEen to us; Ehey will say Ehis is not right." Choice vs. Determinism of sexua] orienaclon. Participants were divided as Lo whether Lhey belJ.eved that sexual orientatj.on vras a choice or determined. On the one hand was /'Gays have a choice and they choose
-235!o be gay. It's a discipline thing." Another conEinued this line of If you cannot exercise thoughe, 'lE' s a maELer of self-discpline' how can you exercise uniE discipJ-ine?" On the other self-discipline, hand was the belief, "If you're born Eo be gay/ you're going to be gay" or the participant who recal-led a service member who, upon being dismissed, sEated Ehat if he coulcl change his orienEation, he wou1d. Whether one believed that homosexuals were homosexual by choice appeared to be only partialJ'y related Eo advocacy of Ehe ban' While some participants stated that if homosexuality were shown Lo be biologically delermined, their opposition to allowing homosexuals to serve would soften; others thought it would make no difference 1n how they fe1t. But a number clid not see choice vs, determinism as a relevanL issue: ,.The Imilitary] discriminates on a number of characteristics, like drug use or being overweight. Discrimination on this basis is al]owed, so the military should be aLtowed to discriminate on sexual orientation." EffecE of llowing Homosexual.s to serv6. There was a lot of confuson anc cisagreenent about how much change vJould occur and what removing Lhe ban woulcl entaiL Mcln! part.icipants feared the esEabli.shmen of homosexuals as a protecLed class wibhin bhe miliEary' with minimum quotas for promotions and command slots and enlistment preferences or protectecl occupations: "what about promotions? Then we will have quotas for gaysl" A variation on Ehis theme was resenlment of the potential financial costs of lifting the ban, including "How much money [wi11 be spent] investigating deaths of homosexuals killed by friendly fire?" ancl other issues, "medica1, processing complaints, sensitivity Lraining . . . clL what added vaLue? They add no value to the miliLary. " On a different leveI, some parLicipants were Eroubled by the logical inconsistency between allowing homosexuals to be in the military, buE not alJ-owlng them to be honest about it even though it would cause problems, "I don't understand how you can accepL gays without accepting their behavior. When a soldier is accepting an award, he should be able bo bring his significanE oEher, but it wouLd shock the room.,, AnoEher remarked, ,,At Ehe age ab which Lhe Isoldiers] are here,
-236will act on their sexual impulses. saying it's oK Eo be gay but not act on it is absurd"' Most bel-ievecl Lhat allowing homosexuals to serve rvoufd bring aboub a period of disruption and turmoil; there was consj-derable variation in predicEion of Ehe exEent. and cluraEion. At one extreme, "we will do it, but iE wil-l desLroy us. Our morale is already low now"' Others believed that Ehe military would solve this problem as iE has solved others. Drawing a specific analogy between anEi-homosexual feeling and racism, one participant said, ',Racists are sEill in bhe service. We just find ways to deal with them. As long as people have prejudi.ces, [BuL] it's a melng pot; Ehe servj-ce then you,1l- have victimization. Another participant said, "There wiII overcomes most prejuclj-ces well.' be lots of untenaJf,Ie situations, but we'11 drive on"' AnoEher stated that "This will be a naLural evoLution." Many cited the likelihoocl of violence against homosexual-s. "IE wiII be healthier for gays if they don't say anyEhing. It will jusE be pain ancl heartache for g.rys," anc "It's hulting them more lhan helping thern by removng the ban, because Lhey're going to get hurt' Personally, if they leave me alone it's oK. But it's already happening Lhat when they come out Lhey get beaEen uP." As one participant put it, ,,No sane gay person wouLd come out--he would get. slipped overboard"' And in its extreme form, "Just give them a 'blanket party'16 over and over uni] Ehey }eave. The clrill insEructor rvill not tell you Lo do iL-but you will clean up your own. I!',s not what should happen, but it
Ehey
w
j.11 happen
Many
."
17
participants felt that allowing homosexuals to serve would not resuLt in a f]oocl of homosexuals declaring Eheir or|enlatj-on. Fear of violence, noLed above, \47as one reason, But others offered up opinions that homosexuals would wai.t ancl assess the climate before venturing forth, and that many woulcl not cleclare Lhemsel,ves for fear of disrupEing their career advancemenE, even if Lhere were no officia sanctions:
i6A llanket party is a form of collecEive violence unclerLaken by a group of service memlrers co teach an individual to conform. A blanket is Ehrown over the individuat and he is beaten or worse' ]?See ppendix .I for a discussion of violence related to removing
the ban.
-237'
that are gay anct have scrved have accepted Imilitary] values. They know that if they come out iE wouLd cause problems," and "It's noE going to be a mass of people coming out of the cfoset. IL's not qoing to happen," Many said that they would be able Eo cope with the change f homosexuality were noL fl-aunted and if they dj-d not have to change their basic views. "Just don't parade it; I don't parade my heEerosexualiEy," and "I will take action to keep law and discipline but I will noL become a rarty to sancLioning that. behavior"' Some prticipants fearecl that all-owi.ng homosexuals t.o serve woufd introduce a number of minor but inconvenienE changes in miliEary Iife' A number mentioned chaE having honosexuals around would inEroduce restricLions on conversationa.I treedom Lhat Ehey already experienced from having women in their groups: "You'11 have to v/atch what you say"; ,,I,d be worried about being drarvn up for calling someone a fag at work"; ,,FemaLes change Ehe interaction and so wil.f homosexuals. Before, we are a band of brothers, It will be clifferent." others wondered about he inequity of having male partners allowed in barracks when female partners r^rere not , A minority of responcenEs lelieved Ehat allowing homosexuaLs Eo serve would significantiy affect r-ecruiLment and retention. 'If. I had known, it woulcl have.rffected my choice. LeEting someone in who molests farm animals is nex!.,, tnlhen asked how he rvould handle the removal of the ban, one participant stated, "I can't. You'11 get my resignation papers." AnoLher predicEed mass resignaEions ut said he would stay, ,,we will a]l vote with our feet. Tt is a breach of our contracL. I will stay, but we should be given the opportunity to leave." Just as in [he Los ilge7es Tjmes po11, many respondents believed that the ban on homosexu.rl-s was less important an issue to the military t.han the drawclovn in force or reducEions in beneiEs. But for many, Lhe homosexual issue mu.l-LipJ.ed the inLensity of f eeling ' "we've had Congress is perceived as drawdowns before, bub Lhis is differenL' Force, the Presdent has made it clear we're third hostile to the Armed class citizens, and now Lhey're aLtacking basic support systems that kept bhe miJ-itary sol- j-cl--retirement, health, commissary systems ' Now miliEary people are saying loyalty only goes so far." or, "The military
,,Those
- 238 feels tike they've gotten no respect from Clintoni

some
respect would be
appreciated, " Many acknowledged EhaE Ehe adjustment process had already begun; they were already grappling with their own feelings about homosexuals in one descrbed his views' "I'm a southern Bapt.ist and the the military. Bible says people can't be gay. If you can prove these people are just people, maybe I can accept them, maybe I can't- I'm noE saying 'don't put gays in the miliEary,' just don't make it so big a bhing'" Another
cited awareness of how homosexuals function in other arenas: 'Analogies can be drawn co baEtlefielcl siLuations in police and emergency sguads r,ith blood ancl alL . IE boils down Eo a moral issue. And it will af f ecE the cohesion of the unit. Personally, fairness is Ehe issue for me, but personal feelings asicle, I believe cohesion wil"l- be hurt., I believe the military wiIl adjust; it has an incredible ability Lo adapt." others just Look a wait-and-see atticude while urging cauEion: "I can't say whether I,11 have a probJ.em with gays in Ehe military until iE happens' It,s like learning Lo jump out of a plane. woul-dn't you rather take your firsE jumps at lower heights and build Lrp Eo big heights?" dvice on Implementing a Policy that AllowE Homosexuale Co Servs. A substantial proporLon of Lhe parLicipants believed thaE the milibary would accomplish the missi-on if asked Eo accomPlîsh the President's directive, They urged that iE be done in a direcE way: "If they're going to bring them in. go a1I Ehe way' Don'tr put limiEs on their or, "TreaL everybody as deploymenb and we'IJ. grin and bear it." humans." Others counsel-ed minimizing the importance of the change: "Tread softly, don't make it a big issue ... Don't do it like, 'Here, bam: ,,/ others acknowledged Lhat the presence of homosexuals who were already serving woul-cl make it easier to accepL the change: "There have always been gays in the military; Lhey're just like others' Some work ouE, some don't. If he performs, no one cares. cross bhe line and he
has Lo go. " ParLicipanLs saw the need for strong Ieadership to achieve the change. This inclucled training the trainers and clarifying harassment regLations, the paricipanLs who were equa opporuniy officers saw
-239an increase in their workload and strongly felt the need for guidance
from above. A number of participants mentioned Lhe need for loopholes to assist the adjuslment process. These ranged from ability to choose roomrnates to an escape clause allowing people v,ho are uncomforbable wiLh the change to leave the servce. Conclueions from the Focus Groups While Ehere was a lot of diversity in opinions, some conmon elements emerged. FirsC, the military members we talked with felL that they had dealL successfully rvith racial integraEion in the military and They seemed to feel that racial integration had were proud of it. sLrengthened the military's ailiEy to perform its mission. They also
to cleal weII with Ehe low-leveI interpersonal conflict Ehat happens in the barracks clncl on the job. Soldiers viewed it phlosophica11y as the price for dj-versEy, which they seemed to valueOfficers viewed dealing wifr it as part of the job Ehey were trained to do and an area Ehat provided considerable chalJ-enqe' Most acknowlecged that the inEegration of women into the military was still causing problems, in par! lecause it was incompleEe' Males were uncerEain about wha! could ancl should be expected of nilitary women and reluctant to give Chem a fuLl measure of respecL, The inLerpersonal problems relaEing to vromen n the military were viewed as more complicated and cifficulE than Ehose relating soJ-ely to conflicts among mal-e soldiers, Female soJdiers felE Ehey had problems being accepbed. especially if their MOSiE strayed from more Eraditional femal-e roles. sEill, most group participants viewed women as there to stay and were confident that problems would event.ually be worked ouL to a tolerable
seemed
degree.
the issue Lurned Lo homosexuals in the miLitary, our group parEicipant.s' IeveI of confidence in their ability Eo cope dropped sharply. t4hile some could view Lhe change with equanimity, many had diffJ.culty imagining Ehe conseguences and viewed the problem in stark lerms (e,g,, "Hiroshima"). They apparently could not see how he
When
lsMilitary occupation specialcY
-240skiLls they had Learned in response to oEher problems would apply to this new siluation (alEhough Lhis was in direct opposiion to the "can do" attitude they had articulated earlier in the group sessions), and Lhere was widespread agreement that violence againsE homosexuals in the military was occurring already and would increase if the restrict.j.on were lifLed. fn addition, while Lhey had (for Ehe mosE part) incorporated the presence of minorities and women j.nto their mage of the miliEary, they had much more difficulty seeingt how homosexuals could fit in without changing the military beyond recognition ancl compromisj.ng its ability to carry out an effective confLicb
management
national defense. They also saw aLlowing homosexuals to serve in the conLext of Lhe larger problem of post-colct war downsizing of the military and Lhe reductions in career opporLuniLies and benefiLs 1t enEails' They viewed themselves as stressed and under-appreciated, wj.th this change as one more piece of evidence that the civilian world neither undersEood nor respecEed bheir imPortance.
Conclusons .bout Mllitary opinlon A1] the eviclence inclicates chaE a substantial majoriLy of males in the military are very much opposed to IetLing homosexuals serve. Females in the military appear to be less opposed, although there are many who are also strongly opposed, While some of those who are opposed are merely unconfortable about Ehe prospecE of being around people they others are know are homosexuaf, especially in quar!ers and facilities. say that they expect military openly hostile bowarc homosexuals. Many effectiveness to cleleriorate in the short term due to the incfusion of known homosexuals j.n work groups and over the longer term due Eo changes
in tradiEional patterns of eni.istment and reenlistment in the military' concerns aboub removing Ehe ban cenLer around fears of special treat,ment of homosexuals, fears Lhat homosexuals will band bogether and dj.scriminaLe against heterosexuals, fears of being subjected Lo unwelcome sexuaL aclvances, ancl fears about ther families and themselves being confronLecl with eviclence of a 1j-festyle they regard as immoral'
-24Lpredict that viol.ence againsE homosexuals will occur if they are alLowed to serve, The concerns expressed by both soldiers and officers are particuLarly strong against a backdrop of change in the mlitary, includj.ng downsizing ancl cutbacks in miliEary benefits. Many perceive their own opportunities Lo be shrinkng ancl resent what they see as extending rights and benefiEs to an unwortshy group that is using bhe military for poLitical and socia] advantage. These concerns would have to be dealt vith as parE of a policy that ended discriminaEion based on sexual orienLaEion. Based on the experiences cliscussecl in the context of racial and gender inbegraEion in the military/ this could best be done through strong leadership, equigable Ereatment, arrd cl-earIy articulated expectations for behavior, combined wiCh liLEle tolerance for deviaEion from expected behavior. ReinforcemenE of the mililary's ability to adapt co change and to perform even in aclverse circumstances would also be useful-'
Many
8.
242
ISSUES OF CONCERN: EFFECr OF IJIJOWING HOMOSEXUJS TO SER\IE IN THE MII,ITARY ON THE PREVAIJENCE OF HIV/AIDSI
Focus groups wich accive-duEy personne (see the chapter on military opinion). surveys of military personnel, testimony at Congressional hearings, and media reporbs have raised the concern Ehat allowing known homosexuals to serve in the military would increase the preval-ence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in the military and this compromise Lhe miliEary blood supply. To assess this possibility, hapEer addresses Ehe foll.owing questions relevant to HIV/AIDS in he rnilitary and Lhe likely effects of allowing homosexuals Lo serve:
what is the epj.clemiology of HIV,zAIDS in civilian

popuLat ions
a
2 ?
and military
4.
What is the Department of Defense's (Do's) HIV,/AIDS policy? WouId there be an increase of HIV infection in the miliLary? Would acbive-duty personnel become infecEed from contact wiEh HIV-infected blood?
THE EPIDEI{IOIJOCY oF HIV/IDS
HIV infection is difficuLE Eo conLract, The virus must pass from the blood, semen, or other bodily fluid of an infecLed person inbo the body of another. Even Ehen, it wilt not necessarily cause an infectlon.2 In the United Scates, Ehe disease has been mosE frequently diagnosed in men who have had sex wiEh men and in injecEion drug users who are exposed to blood when sharing needles and syringes. Hfv has
also spread by transfusion of blood producEs, especially to hemophiliacs. Sj.nce Ehe micl-I980s, however, blood has been screened for HrV, and so transfusion has become an atypical mode of transmission' Mothers can pass iE to their newlorns, either before birEh or during breas!feeding. The virus is al.so transmitEed Ehrough heterosexual lThis chapter was preparecl by Mark A. Schuster and David E. Kanouse' actually refers to a family of viruses, of which the two major are HIV-I and HIV-2. HIV-2 is rare in the UniEed States' In sErains this chapLer, we use the term.HIV Eo refer to HIV-L'
2HfV
-243sexuaf activity, which is Lhe major route of transmission worldwide. It Appears to paSS more easily from a man !o a woman than Vice versa, and the presence of other sexually LransmiEted diseases (STDs) may increase the likelihood of transmission (Ward and Drotman LggZ) .3 people are typically noL diagnosed with AIDS until years after they become infecled wih HIV; Ehe median incuba!ion period (he point at which 50 percent have developed AIDS) is bet.ween eight and 11 years afer initial infecLion (Warc and DroEman, 1,9921. Therefore, shifts in trends for new HIV infections will not be reflected in AIDS diagnoses for aE least several years, if not a decade or more. unfortunateLy, it s diffcult to track new infections because many peopLe do not geE tesLed for HIV, and most sLates do not report posiLive HIV tests to the Centers for Disease ConErol and Prevention (cDC).4
HIV/IDS in the U.S. PoPulatlon
over a quarter of a million people in the united states have been diagnosed wit.h AfDS,5 and probably over a million are infected wit.h HTV (inctuding those who have not yet deweloped IDS). AIDS has been much more prevalen| among men Lhan women, and among blacks and Hispanics Lhan whites. The 30- lo 39-year-o1d age group has had Ehe largest number of peopfe diagnosed with IDS (cDc, 1993). In L990, AIDS was the second leading cause of death among men aged 25 to 44 years old, and the sixth among women in the same age group (Selik et a1., 1993), The percenLage
3Despibe some continuing concern over infection through casual contact with an HIV-infected person, the virus is not transmiEted in his way. An Army study (Chesney et af. ' L992) showed that many personnel were uninformed or misinformed abouL activites Lhat have no or very low risk, such as shaki-ng hands or being coughed on' This pattern of knowl-eclge is consistent wiEh sEudies of Ehe cj.vilian population and, among milibary personnel, continues despj-te high 1evels of general knowledge about HIV, including the ways it is most j"ikely to be transmitted, the meaning of a negative Eest, and the facE that someone who is HIV-positive can look healEhy' aA comparison of HfV tests to AIDS diagnoses in states that reporL both to tshe cDc reinforces the trends already seen in AIDS data: heterosexual sexual activiLy is accounting for a growing percenEage of new infections and an increasing percenLage of new infections are among rromen and blacks (Fleming et al., 1993. ) 5sight million people are beLieved Eo have AIDS worLdwide'
244 -
of cases diagnosed in the UniEed states each year is growj'ng among women, blacks, and Hispanics. We do not know the prevalence in Ehe United SbaEes of AIDS among people in each of Ehe major exposure-risk groups, the mosb important of which currenLly are men who have had sex wiEh men (including homosexual men6) and injection drug users. We know that homosexual men account for many lDS diagnoses, but we do not know what percentage of homosexual men have AIDS, because we do not know how many homosexual men there are in the United SEates, Nor do we know how many injecion drug users there are in the United States. WhaE we do know is the fraction of people with AIDS who belong to each of these risk groups. TabLe B-L shows the distribuLion of AIDS cases reported during bhe year ending March 31, 1993, by risk group. A comparison or these data with similar data for clendar year 1986 indicates Ehat Lhe demographics of Ehe HIV-infected and AIDS populations are changing, Over this period, the percentage of annual AJDS diagnoses made in men who have had sex with men declined from 65 percent to 49 percent,T while the percentage who contracted it from heterosexual sex rose from I.5 percent to 9 percent.S Among people aged 20 Eo 24, many of whom probably became infected as teenagers, the fraction in L992-1993 whose exposure was lhrough heterosexuaL sex was even higher--16 percent. In this group, 45 percent of dj.agnoses were in men who have had sex with
men.
HIV./IDS
ln bhe Military Populatlon the end of L992, data from the Office of Ehe AssisEant Secretary By of Defense for Health Af fairs (OASD/HA) sho\^, that a tota of. 8,62L acLive-duty personnel had tested positive for HIV (Tab]e 8-2). When DoD firsE iegan its testing program, acLive*duEy personnel had never been
6See the chapter on sexua orientation and behavior for a of Ehe dfference between homosexual orienEation and conduct 7n additional 5 percent of AIDS diagnoses were made during the year ending March 31, 1993 in men who have had sex wiEh aen and have
discussion
been
81986
injecEion drug users. data supplied by
CDC, and
cDc (1993)
245
Table 8-1 U.S. IDS Diagnoees Reported During bhe Year Ending March 31, L993
A1I Ages (7L,196)

Men who have sex with men Jnjection drug use Men who have sex with men
499"
20-24 Yrs (2,428) 45t

1-5t
24*
5?
and inject drugs Hemophilia/coag disorder Heterosexual contact Blood transfusion Child r"tho has mother wiEr/aE risk for HIV
6t
4Z
t
98
16t
1g
1t
18
other/undetermined Source: CDC, 1993.
9E
B-2
722
Table
Hrv ositlve Tests
{mong
ctive-duty Pereonnela
Martne
Co
1)
Na
Air Force
31 300
45r_
1985 (Oct-Dec) t986

1987
aoc
138
345
I,
L27
t,269
6 L
r57
66
2,853
1, 989 1. 058 7L9 652
550
/ trtr
851
1988 1989
t_990 19 91
375
291 280 220
448
tt 3
6t
45 51 42
168 134
77 "t4
244
L4
Total Source:
t992
r31 3.451
OASD/HA.
2l.6
472
70
1,305
8.62L
aReporLed as
of FebruarY 8,
1993.
tesled before, so peopl-e who EesEed positive ncluded bhose who had ever seroconverted,9 whether before or after entering bhe service' Therefore, the number of personneL founcl to be HIV-positive during the first few years was much higher than n subsequent years. reflecting the exbended period of exposure before Eesting. After several years, however. virtually all personnel had been tested at Least once, either upon accession or whiLe on active duty, so the annual incidence oE HIV9seroconvert means that the person is infected with HIV and that the bLood contains an!ibodies to HIV LhaE can be deEected bY the standard HIV tesE.
-246' positive tests now indicates peopl,e who have seroconverted relatively recently. The number of people who tsest posj-tive for HIV has been decreasing in all servies, and EoLaled only 455 in 1992. The Army makes available Ehe mosE comprehensive HIV data of he services. To facilitate a more accurate comparison of annual data, it reporls HfV seroconversion rates for people with a prior negative test, and it reports these raEes in terms of person-years.10 The Army finds a pattern generalLy simifar to that of the milit.ary as a whole. Rates dropped significantly from 1985-198? to 1987-L988, and have leveled off since (Table 8-3). Though the Navy has a higher rate of HIV per personyear, iE has aJso reported a simiJar clecline (Garland et aL.' 1992) '
Table 8-3
Rat.es of HfV Posltivity
Anong People Who Had Prlor Negative Tes!, ArmY
87 88 89 90 91 a
Occ 92 Source: Renzullo et al. ,
Nov 85 Nov 87 Nov 88 Nov 89 Nov 90 Nov 91 -
Oct oct Oct Oct Oct
,43l1000 person-years .29 /1-000 person-Years .23 /7000 person-Years .24/t000 person-Years .27 /1-000 person-Years .2511000 person*vears
1993 '
As of ugusL 1989, of 6,269 personnel who had been on active duLy when they tested HIV-positive in lhe miliLary screening program' 2,069 remained on active duty. The rest had retired, separated, or died. As of ocEober 22, 7gg2, there were 1,'722 people in the military who had
tested positive for HfV.11 Thus, the size of the HIV-infected activeduty populaEion is declinj.ng, inclicating thac the number of HIV-infected
lOThe Army estimaLes the actual daLe of seroconversion as the midpoint date beLveen the most recent negaLive est and the posiEj-ve est. person-years is a reporting technique Ehac takes into account the amount of Eirne beeween two EesLs. Thus someone who has a posj.tj-ve test two years after a negative test contributes Ewo person-years; a positive t,est. six months after a negative LesL contrj.utes half a person-year. This rnethod controls for the variation in lhe frequency with which people are Lested (McNeil eE aL, 1991). 11DaLa provided bY OASD/HA.
24'l
leave the milj.tary each year is larger than Lhe annual number who tesL HIV-posiLive. DoD does not routinely collect t.he behavioral risk factor data on HIV-positive personnel needed to compare risk facors in Lhe military and civilian populations. In one Army study, interviews were conducted vrith 127 men who had seroconverted and 123 uninfected control subjects (Levin eL a1., 1992). All participants were asked about behaviors during the six months prior to Ehe EesE. Among the seroconverters, 13 percenL said they had had sex with men on1y, 30 percent with men and vlomen, 55 percent wiLh women only, and 2 percent were injection drug users who had had sex with women only. The controls had aI] had sex with women only; 3 percent also had injected drugs. That study should be interpreted with caution because it is a small sampJ-e and people may underreport behaviors tha[ the military bans (even when Lhe dala do no idencify the individuals studied) . Since the controLs were maLched for age, race, rank, lengLh of service, and exposure interval, they do not represent the whole populaEion of uninfected Army personne. InterpreLing these fincJings is difficult ' If the prevalence of homosexuality and bisexuality in the miliLary i.s in Lhe range of estimates for the cj.vilian population, the results imply that HIV prevalence in the military is higher among homosexual and bisexual men lhan among heterosexual men--Ehough the clifference may be smaller in the mi.litary, Therefore, the resuLts also poj.nt Lo Lhe possibility that oEher risk factors, including heterosexual sex, may account for a relaEively larger proportion of HIV in lhe military than they do in the
service
members who
civil j.an populat ion. The only data available on HIV*infected personnel describe basic demographics, ancl the rmy aqain provides the most detailed daEa. Over the seven years of tesLing Lhrough 1992, new seroconversions wiEhin Ehe Army \rere significantly associaLed with gender, racelethnicity, age, and marital staC.us. As in the civilian population, males had a hlgher rat.e than females, though Lhe difference in Lhe Army was less pronounced. While rates among mal,e socliers declined over Ehe seven years, raLes for female soldiers have remained stable. Rates among )rlacks have been hree to five times higher than among whites, Ehough all raciaL
248 -
categories have experienced declines over time (Renzu11o eE a1., 1993). Data from the Nawy and Air Force also show higher l.aLes among blacks than whites (Garland e! a}', 1992; Lucey et al., 1991) ' While HIV rates declj-ned in the 20-34 year old age group, they did not decline among people under age 20 r over age 34. Black personnel under aqe 20 have been experiencing increasi.ng rates each year; during 1992, the seroconverson rate for black Eeenagers was seven times the rate for white Leenagers. PersonneL who were unmarried were more like-y to seroconverb than those who were married (Renzullo et al,, 1993). Finally, occupaEionaL daEa Ehrough 1989 show that personnel in adminisbrative and medical fields had the highesL rates' while the fields wth the lowest. rates were combat arms, aviation, inLelligence, military police, and mechanical maintenance (Withers et af', 1992).
THE MIITITRY's HIV/IDS POLICY
The DoD relies on its LesLing program to prevent the entry of HIVinfecEed personnel, identify those who become infecEed whiLe serving, and screen personnel for deployment . HIV testing, which is highly accurate, alfows DoD Eo effectively limit. the spread of HIV.
Who
Ig Tested? DoD.s policies for HIV E.est.ing are summarized in Table 8-4. 11 civilian appLicants are Eesfed before accession at a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) or other initiat poinL of entry to military service. Applicants for the delayed enlistment- program are retesLed if 180 days have elapsecl between Lhe initial test and arrival at the entry point. candidates for commissioning as officers are screened during their preappointmenL and/or precontracting physical examination and aqain as part of the commissioning physical- examination. PeopJ-e who are HIV-positive are denied enLry. HTV infection among civilian applicants to the military has declinecl annually since the inception of the screen-ng program in 1985, (see Table when l.58-1.60 out of 1,000 applicancs tested Hlv-positive. B-5.) In 1992, the raee hacl fallen to 0'4411000. This decline may partly reffecL self-selection on bhe part of applicanLs' Those who know
-249or suspecL they are HIV-posibive have an ncentive not tso apply. or, if they have noL been Eeseed, bo seek anonymous or private tesLing firsL,
SabLe 8-
DeparEmeDt of Defenee's HIV l[eeElng Policy
T1pe of Personne l
Civilian Active
duy
Testinq PoIicv . I1 are LesLed before accession' . RouEine tesEing--Every 1-5 years, depending on service, age, occupation (usually with routine physical- exams) . . Deploynrent--Must have negacive Eest wiEhin 6 months. In practice, many are reLested shortly before leaving Ehe countrY ' . Targeted testing--For personnel seekng care at prenatal and STD cfinics, and drug and alcoholprograms, and for health care workers. . Tested vith routine physical examinations, which vary in frequency depending on service, age, and
t t-on
.
appl icant
Reserves
source: Department of Defense (f991) and information supplied by the Office of the Surgeon General in the Ar Force, rmy. Nawy, and OASD,/HA/ .April and MaY, t993 '
Table 8-5 HLV-Postsive Race Among Clv11lan Applfcante
Rate per 1,000 Appl icants
oct 1985 Jan 1986 Jan 1987 Jan 1988 Jan 1989 Jan l-990 Jan 1991 Jan l-992 Source:
l.58 Dec 1985 1-60 Dec 1986 1.41, Dec 1987 1.11 Dec 1"988 1.04 Dec 1989 0 .80 Dec 1990 0.73 Dec 1991 0 .44 Dec 1992 of ResearchWaIter Reed Army Institute
(under 20 years ol.d) tested beLween October 1985 of testing HlV-positive if they and March 1989 had a higher probability lived in a densely populated counEy and in a metropoliEan area wiLh a
Teenage applicants
-250high incidence of AIDS. Rates were sjmilar for male (0.35/1000) and female (0.32l1000) teen.rge applicnts and higher for blacks (1.00/1000) Lhan for Hispanics (0.29l1000) and whites (0.L'7/ 1000). The infecbion rate among appJ.icants may be increasj.ng in some teenage groups, such as black females, and declining in olhers, such as white males (Burke et aI., 1990; Withers et aI., 1992) ' The DoD also periodically tests all personnel- once they are on acLive duy, usuaJ.ly wit.h physica examinations. The interval between routine tesEs varies from one to five years, depending on service' age, and occupatj-on. The average time between tests for a soldier on active duby in the rmy is about 16 months (Renzuflo et aJ-., 1993)' and anaLysis of those who have had long intervals beeween tests does not reveal a greater ikelihood of a positive test (withers et aI., !992), fn addition, all personnel must have a documented negative test within the six monEhs prior to ceployment. or change i.n overseas assignment, Units about Eo deploy someLimes reEest everyone rather than track down the date of each individual's Ist Lest. Some selecL military populaLions uncergo adclitional Eestng, including patients at sTD cfinics, entranLs Lo clrug ancl alcohol- rehabilitaLion programs, paLients at prenaLal clinics, and healt.h care workers' Applicants for Reserve components are screened during regular entry physical examnations or n officer preappointment programs. Those who musE be appointed to enlist or must meet accession physica] fitness sE.andards Lo enlist are noE eligible if HV-posiCive. Testing is also done in the Reserves with routine physical examinations. Department of Defense civilian employees are tested as necessary to comply with hostnaEon screening requiremenLs '
.Accuracy of H]::estfng Blood is first DoD uses a stanclarcl procedure for HIV testing. lested with an EfA,12 which if posiLive, is repeated up to two more Eimes (to decrease the chance of a false posiEive test, discussed betow). It one of these repeaE Eesbs is positive, anoLher test, the
12The ErA is an enzyme immunoassay. an enzyme-linked immunosorben! assay.
IL is also known as an ELSA,
-25tIÎestern BJ.ot,13 is performed, and if t is positive as we1I, Lhe person is said to be HIV-positive (infected wj.th HIV). If the wesEern BIot is
indetermnate, supplementa] tests are conducEed. When a person's Lood is found Lo be HlV-posiEj.ve, the enEire sequence is repeated on a new blood sample. The military servces conLract most of Lheir HfV !esting with ouEside laboratories, which undergo semiannual quality assurance
inspec!ons , 14 TesEing for HIV is exceptionaJ-Iy accuraLe' The percentage of HIVpositive tesEs in people who are truly infected with HIV and the percenEage or Hlv-negative tests in people who are truly not infected with HIV are both greater than 99.8 percenE for Lhe EfA and 99'6 percent for Ehe western BloE. The rates of false positives (posibive tesL results on people who are not infected) and false negaLives (negative
test results on people who are infected) are correspondingly low. In a populaLion in vhich one person in 1000 is infecbed rviLh HIV, there will be 32 false positives per million tests (George and schochetman, 1992). Burke eE aI. (1989) folLncl even fewer faJ-se positives--abouL seven per million--in a stucly of a subpopulation of civilian applicants to Ehe Armed Forces wiLh a very low preva]-ence of HIV (i'e., a grouP more like.y than most to have a high faJ-se positive rate) ' The percentage of false posiEives is particuJ.arly low in Ehe miJ-iEary. not only because of Lhe accuracy of the tests and the seguenLial tesEing procedure, but afso because of tight quaJ.iLy conErol, verification of posiEive test results with a second blood sample, and the use of conserva|ive criterla for interpreti-ng WesLern BloLs ' False negatives are also low. These can occur for Eechnical reasons (e.g., the laboratory performed the Lest incorrectly) or for
13The Wescern BIot is an immunoelectrophoress test. The sequence of EIA and Western Blot tests s also referred to in the singular as bhe 'HIV test. " laCurrenEIy, Damon Cl-inical Laloratories conducLs HIV testing for Lhe Army, Army Reserve, and the Accessions (MEPS) HIV screening programs. IL uses Genetic sysEems HIV-1 EIA for j.nitj-al screening, an Organon-Technika EIA for repeaL testing of blood reactive on the initial best, and a cambridge BioEech \JesEern Blot (information supplied by the Office of the Army Surgeon General-); the ir Porce and Navy use Abbott EIA. (Information suppliec by the office of the surgeon General in the Army, Air Force, and NaW. )
-252bioJ-ogic reasons (e.g., an infecLed person is noL producing antbody to the virus). The former is rare: In a population in which one person in LO00 is infected with HIV, Ehere wilL be eighL false negatives per mi11on due to technical error (ceorge and Schocheman, 1992).t5 False negatives due to biologic reasons are most 1ike1y Eo occur because of the "window" period (Perj.od A in Fig' 8-1): When a person becomes infeced with Hrv, he or she is noL immediaLely infectious (able to spread the disease to another person) and wiII noL yet test positive on standard HIV Eests. After a Eime, Lhe person does become infectious buL wil] still noE test positive. subseguently, the EIA wiLl detect that the person is HIV-infected, ancl that person will- be said to have seroconvertsed.l6 The CDC esE.imates thaE abouE 50 percent. of people seroconvert (Period A) wiEhin 2.1 months of becoming infecled, and 95 percenE seroconvert by 5.8 months (Horsburgh et al,, L989; Longini and Horsburgh, 1989); the J-ength of the wi.ndow may be shorter now due to
more refined testing meEhods. while the lengbh of the window period (Period A) is perEinenc to screening out infecEed applicants, blood banks are concerned wiEh the time between becoming inrectious ancl L.esting posiLive (Period B), the
period during which blood could Lransmit the disease but vrould not test positive. The cDC estimaEes that this periocl averages eight days for the current version of Lhe EIA, which was released lasL year17 (Petersen et al. , l-993 )
.
1sThe proportions of false positives and negati-ves depend on the proportion of people in a population who are truly infecEed' s a disease becomes more and more rare in a populaton, the false posibives increase and the false negaLives clecrease, As we wiII discuss below, mj.litary applicants have an HIV infection rate of 0.44 per 1-000, which is Lower than Ehe one per 1000 used to calcufate false posi[ives and negaEives here. Therefore, the expected proporEion of false negaEives woufd actually be fewer Lhan eighL per million, and the expected proportion of false positives would be somewhat higher than the calculated proportion, Neverthel-ess, as described in the text, the military,s false positve rate was found Eo be even lower than calculated. l6Technically, seroconversion means the blood has produced anbibodies to HIV, which the EI can deLect ' l?The current EIA is the Ehird generation of the Eest. Period B was estimated to average 28 clays for the firsl generation EIA and 22 days for Ehe second generation. The third generafion thus provides a
-253-
lnfected
lnfectious
HIV Test is
Positive
Period B
Period A (Window Period)
Figrure 8-]--Window Perlod for HIV TeEEing

PerBoel Who Test HIv-PoelElvelS HIV-positive active-duty personnel receive an extensive initial medical evaluation and follow-up exams at least once a year. The military conducts contac tracing for bcnefici-aries of rnili.tary realLh Procedureg for ullltary
care and investigates blood donations to the military blood program' IE also coordinates tracing with civilian public health authorities and blood banks, as allowed bY law' HIV-posiLive personnel concinue to serve until- they are no longer physicalJ-y fj-L to do so, at which Lime they are retired or separated. They may be reassigned Lo prot-ect the health arrd safeLy of themselves or oLhers, and they can be transferred to nondeployable units or positions, because :hey cannoL serve overseas. They may also be separated at their
own
request, subject to aPProval-
signifj-cant drop j.n the already }ow risk of infecLious blood noL being detected at a blood banklslnformation on procedures supplied by OASD/HA and Office of Lhe Army Surgeon General (AFEB) , and abs:racEed from DeparLment of Defense
(1991)
.
254 -
PersonneL in Lhe Reserves (not on extended acEive duty) who are HlV-positive must obLain a medical evaluation from a civilian physician. They are not eligible for extended active duty (duLy for more Ehan 30
days), with limited exceptions. Poli.cy for retirement or separation is the same as for active-duEy personneJ-. An HIV-posLive tesE resul-E may not be used as an independent basis for any adverse administrative or disciplinary action, including punitive actions, under the unform code of Military ,Justice, However, it may be used for acLions based on certain Eypes of claims (e,9., when the infected person has dsregarded preventive medicine counseling or orders, and in a criminal prosecution against an HIV-positj.ve person who commitbed a rape after being informed of Ehe HMesE result)' Epidemiologic i-nformation collected from HIV-positive people (e'9.. sexual behavior, drug use) cannoE be officiaJ.ly used against them. rF
HOMOSEXULS WERE LLOWED TO SERVE, WOUIJD
HMNFECTION INCRESE IN
THE MILITRY?
Given bhe currenE policy of tesEing aIl military applicants and the accuracy of the tesE, allowing homosexuals to serve would not Jead to an increase in the number of HIV-infeced military accessions. only recently infected people who were sEiLL in Ehe window period (during which Ehe HIV Lest is negative) woul-d not be screened out. The absoLute number of applicants who would be missed would be smaff compared to the total number of people annually found Eo be HIV-posibive among active-
duty personne1.19 lte do noL have Lhe information needed for a precise estimte of of HIV-infecEed applicants who would noL be identified by the test, A rough calculation suggests Lhat even a doubling in the number of appli_cants who are tesbed during Ehe window period would have a modest impact on the t.otal number of HIv-infected people in the Armed Forces. In 1,992, 154 applicants LesEed HIV-posi-Live, Assume thaL for HIV-posiive applicanEs the average }ength of time from infection to application for military service is 18 months, and that one-sixLh of them are j.n the wj-ndow period during which Lhe infecbion wouLd not be detected. In this case, 31 HIV-posiEive applicants would be undetected by the test, since 455 actLve duty personnel tested positive for HrV in 1992, a doubling of HIV-infected applicanLs in the window period would increase Lheir estimaEecl percentage of ths total from about 7 percenL to 14 percenE.
he number
-255oD's major concern s Eherefore to minimize the number of rE is not personnel who become infecbed once bhey are i.n the rnilitary, possible to accurately estimate the 1.ke1y effecLs on HIV infection rtes among military personnel of allowing homosexuals to serve, The availabLe evidence is Eoo meager to conclude whether there would be a chanqe. and if so, how subsEanEial it would )e. However, Lhere are some generalizations Ehat can be made from looking at sexual behavior in the
civilian population, as well as from what is known abou sexual behavior in t,he military,
Eetimating Transmission RaEea The rate aE which HIV infecti-on viLI spread Lhrough sexual contact in a population depends boEh on biological- facCors such as infectiousness (i.e., the probability of transmission when there is Sexual conLact of a specifiecl type between an infected person and an uninfected person) and on several facLors. that typcally vary over time and across populaLions' Among the most imporLant of these are:
The proporEion of persons in Ehe population who are infected and patterns of sexual conduct between uninfected and infected
ndividuals; . . .
Rates of sexual contact and new parEner acqusition,' Specific behaviors engaged in (high risk versus low risk);
Use
of
condoms,
Modes of the inciclence of HIV transmission over time as a function of these factors show that uncertainty abouL the population parameters for even one factor can introduce greaC uncertai.nty about predicted
incidence, even if good informaLion is available about the other fac[ors. More specifically, Lo predicL Lhe change in HIV Lransmission in the military if the policy regarding service by homosexuals changes requires informaLion on: (1) horv many more homosexual men and women woulcl enter the miliLary wibh a change in policy; (2) how they would behave n terms of the factors listed above; and (3) how many who would
-256have joined anyway (or who are already in) would chanqe their sexual behavior if the ban were removed, and in what ways. UnfortunateJ-y, liLtle information is avaiLable on bhe number of homosexual men or women in current miliEary populations, or on their sexual behavior,20 ExErapolaCion from daEa on civilian popuJ"ations is problematic for several reasons, j.ncluding large variability in resulLs from one region bo anoLher and the absence of any basis for assuming that homosexuals who choose to enter military service are similar Eo those who choose to participaEe in civilian sEudies, which are thought not to be representaEive even of the entire civilian homosexual populat ion.
Riek Factorg for Hlv Exposure in the civflian Population The civilian studies referenced below do support some general observations that may be relevan here. First, homosexual women in the civilian populaEion are at much lower risk of becoming infecEed wiEh HIV han are heEerosexual v,romen and men and homosexual men, and Ehere is no reason to think homosexual women in the miJ.iEary would have any higher risk, Therefore, any increase in the proporEion of homosexual women would be expected to reduce, rat.her than increase, Ehe incidence of HIV infecEion in the miLitary. Second, it appears bhat, on average, homosexual men in the civilian population have a higher risk than heterosexual men of becoming infecLed with HIV as a result of their greater risk on Lhree of the facEors lisEed above, moderated somewhat by their lower risk on a fourth fact.or. There are three facLors placng them at higher risk within the civilian population: (1) they are more likeIy to encounter infected partners; (2) they are more 1ikely to transmit HIV (receptive engage in sexual activities t.hat efficiently anal inLercourse versus inserEive vaginal ntercourse); and (3) they appear o be more likely than heterosexual- men to have more partn"rs'21 The factor reclucing Eheir risk is that Lhey are more likely than
2OThe only data avaj. l-able describe lj.feLime behavior of ex-mil-itary personnel. 2lAnother shortcoming of Ehe sEudes is Lhe lack of a definiEion for lhe word "partner," vrhich leads to ambiguity in he interpretation of the resulLs.
251 -
helerosexual men (and women) to use condoms, We discuss what is known abouts hese facEors in the civilian populaEion, in turn. Nrunber of Parners. The selected populations of homosexual men LhaL have been studied have more parLners on average Lhan heterosexuaL men have, both in the short term and over a lifet.ime. RAND',S anonymous telephone inEerview of a probabiliEy sample of homosexual and bisexual men in selectecl areas of Los ngeles County (Kanouse eE aL, 199La) eliciEed information about Ehe number of recent partners (in the last four weeks) for all respondenEs who indicated at least some sexua] activiEy jn Lhe past year, A similar question was asked in a study conducLed concurrently of the general adult population throughout Los Angeles County (Kanouse e! al, 1991b)r except that in the latter survey he question was askecl of all responcents who had been sexual-Iy active
in the pas| five Years,

TabLe 8-6
Nunber of Recent sex ParEnerg, HomosexuaL/Bisexual Men and tsh General Population, Los Age1es Countsy, 1989-90
Percentage Distribution
bv Number of ParL.ner
I/
Number of Recent
Sex Partners in
None
One
TWo
Homos exua ta
?
Last 4 weeks
Bisexual Men
47
1)
General. Adult Population

a1
n
.'l
1
63 .3
Three or more
Tob.a
L
1.3
100.0
2.0 1.3
100.0
Sources: Kanouse eL af. (1991a. 199lb)

s Table 8-6 shows, homosexuaL and bisexual men are much more likely than oLhers j.n E.he general- aclult population t.o report having Ewo or more recenL part.ners (20 percent versus 3.3 percent). The table shows that homosexuaf and bisexual men in Los Angeles County were about as likely as other aduIEs Lo rePorc having no recenL ParEners and almost
had been monogamous during the pasL four weeks' These daLa are especaIly useful because they are derj.ved from probability samples from a well-clefinecl area, he daLa were coffecled
half of
Lhem
-258recenEly enough to reflect any behavioral changes resulting from the AIDS epidemic, and the paratleJ. surveys make possible a comparison of the same behavior in homosexuaf and bisexual men and Lhe generaL population |n Lhe same metropolitan area at the same time. Limita!ions of these data include the limited geographic scope and the short window period in which partner counts were obtained. The data do not control for differences oLher than sexual orienlation thaL. may be related to number of partners, and as we discussed above, we do not know how respondents defined "sex partner." Obbaining good cata on the di.slribuEion of the number of sex for several partners over extended periods of Lime is more difficult. reasons. First, the ability of respondents to report accurate counts for longer periods of time is more guestionable. second, data from shorter periods canno[ t>e extrapolated at the indvidual level into longer-term distributions Jrecause raEes of partner acquisition cannot be assumed to be constanE. Third, the cumulative dstribuEion of lifetime nLrmber of parlners has clearly changed as a resulE of Ehe IDS epidemic, especially in homosexual men (Turner, MiIIer, and Moses, 1989, pp' 134136), and there may be oEher period and/or cohort effects as weIl. For that reason, the cumulated number or parEners of those whose sexually acLive carers began before IDS offers a dubious basis for projecting the cumulative number of partners that. will be atEained by men in more
recent cohorts. Sudj-es of sexually active homosexual men conducted in the last few years have shown a suistantial decrease in high-risk sexual behavior since early in Ehe AIDS epidemic. For exampler an epidemiological study of HIV among homosexual and bisexual, men in Pittsburgh (Lhe Pittsburgh Men's Study) found that the l:ehavior of men who joined Ehe study from 1"988 to 1992 differed subsLantially from thaL of men who had joined in 1984 through 1985. In the youngest age category of men under the age of 22, the proportion who reported more than 25 partners in Ehe Iast six months declined from 9.9 percent in 1"984-1985 to 2.2 petcent in 1988lgg2.22 The proporEion of men in this age group who engaged in muEual
22rnformation supplied by Anthony silvestre, June L'
1993
-259masturbaEon (an act.ivj-ty with no risk of HIV Eransmission) with at least half of their partners increased from 42 percenb in 1984 Eo B0 percent in 19BB-1992, while the proporLon who engaged in anal receptive intercourse (the sex acivity with the highest risk of HIV Lransmission) with at leas half their partners declined from 45 percent in 1984 Eo 29 percent i.n 1988-1992 (SilvesEre eE al,. 1993), The proporLion who reporLed more than 1000 LifeEime partners declined from 1'6 percent to 0 percent for men under age 22 and from 6.7 percent to 3.1- percent among men aged 22 or older.23 OEher stuclies have shown substantial reductions in numbers of sex partners of homosexual men in chicago (Joseph et al" 1"98?), New York (Martin, 198'7), and San Francisco (winkelsLein et aI., 1987) during the mid-1980s'24 Condom Use, A seconc dimension of sexual behavior affecting the risk that sexual aclivily wiII resulL in Lransmission of HIV is the use of condoms. StaII eL aI. (1988) review 12 published and unpublished sEudies of behavj.oral risk recluction among homosexual and bisexual men i-n Ehe united slates cluring the perioc 1978 Ehrough 1987r some showing dramaic changes in sexual behavior. For example, the cDc (1987)' reporLing on a prospective cohort (group) of homosexual clienbs of sTD clinics in san Francisco, found Ehat the rate of engaging in recepbive
anal intercourse with nonsteacly partners withou condoms declined by factor of 27 beLween 19?8 and 1985. Martin (1987) found thaL the
2Srnformation supplied by Anthony silvestre, June 1, 1993' 24The numbers reporeecl here are lower than the numbers reported in congressional tesbimony on March 29, 1"993, which were drawn from BeIl and InJeinberg (1978). Dr. Veinberg, in a LeEter to SenaEor Nunn, staEes Ehat: ,'our work was clrawn from a sLudy in san Francisco in the late 1960's and early 1970's, where Ehere was an "underground" in which a great deal of sexual experimenLation and freedom -- straight and gay -was the norm. The plural in the tiLle HomasexuaTjties, and the subtitle, sludy of Diversity Among Men and ,lomen, mirror our aim: to show that homosexual.s are as cliverse in their social, psychological, and sexual profiles as heLerosexuals are. We purposely tried to find the of necessity, then, the mosE extreme sexual- patt.erns rve coulcl lind. study group was not :road-I:ased either geographicaly or demographicaJ-Iy; it was a snapshoe of a parEicular study group, and coul-d noE purporE to portray all homosexuals, then or now' As we staEed in the preface to our look, a represenEaLive sample was 'not our interesE' ancl'We cannot sEress too much hat ours is not a representaEve samPle. / "
-260percentage of episodes of receptive anal intercourse Lhat were protected by condom use amongf a sample of homosexual men in New York increased trom 2 percent in 1980-19BL Co 19 percent in 1984-1985; subsequenE follow-up showed further increases to 60 percenE j.n L986. and TL percent in 1987 (Martin et a1., 1989). Lesser changes were found in the Multicenter AS Cohor Study, a large nonrepresentaive (convenience)
sample of self-idenLified homosexual men in Pittsburgh, chicagTo, Baltimore, and Los Anteles (Fox et al, L9B7) ' DespiLe these reductions in risky behavior, some studies have found
that many homosexuaf men conEinue to practice unsafe sex. Anal intercourse withou! condoms appears Eo be more prevalenL among younqer homosexual men. SEall eL aI. (1992) report thaE amongl 401 homosexual men interviewed by Eelephone in San Francisco in 1989. 44 percent of those 18 to 29 years olc1 reporLed having had anal- intercourse wiLhout condoms in the past year, compared with 18 percent of Ehose age 30 years and older. A similar age difference has been found in che Pittsburgh Ib is not cl-ear whether Ehe more risky Men's St.udy, descrikred earlier. behavior of younger men reflects maturational differences (an age effect) or an increase in risky behavior among those coming of age rnore recently (a cohort effectr). EsbimaEing rates of condom use has proved to be a more difficuLt research task than estimating the incidence of vaginal or anal intercourse, because condom use tencls to vary acrosS situations and over Eime. PeopJ_e are more likeJ.y to use a condom when they engage in sex with a non-steady parEner rather than wich a regular partner, In comparing Ehe frequencies of condom use by homosexual men and heterosexual men, it is useful to lake Ehis inLo account' Unfortunately, stuclies thac measure condom use report resulEs in various some report only on ways, making comparison acro.ss studies difficult.. the proporEion of lhe stucly sample who always or never use condoms, 'srlthout attempting to quantify t*he behavior of the (often much I'arger) subgroup LhaE uses concloms inconsistently,' others comline condom use wilh other,,safer sex" iehaviors, or report only on the incidence of use or nonuse withouE siving both'
267
the few studies thae estimate actual frequency of condom use and Ehat provice somewhat comparable measures for homosexuaL/bisexual men and for heLerosexuaf men ancl women are RAND',s parallel surveys of homosexual and bisexual men and Ehe general adulL population in Los Angeles County, described above (Kanouse et al', 1991a, 1991b). Table B-? shows Lhe average frequencies of vaginal inLercourse (for
Among
Table 8-7 Intercourse mong Heerosexuals and of Mean FrequeDcies of vaglnal nal Intercourse mong Homoeexual and Bisexual Men in loe rgIE county, 1989-90 by le of Parlner and Condom Uee
Percent Mean No. With of Times No. of rllye of Partner Condom Respondents (4 weeks) Heterosexual Men and Vomen (Vaginal Sex): tr? 13 520 Married
PercenE
WiLhout
Condom
B7
In oEher primarY relab ionship Exc lus ive Not exclusive Neither married nor in
imarv relations
Homosexua-l
186
55
7.0
o1
24 4b
76
54
48
and Bisexuaf Men (Anaj Sex)

34
Married or n primarY reLaEionship with a

woman
0.9 6.3
45
55
"Married" to a man fn other primary relationship witl'i a

man
13
50
50
exclusive Neither married nor in primary relationship

NoE
Exclus ive
49
4.6 5.5
5L
40
49 60
19 81 0.5 134 Sources: Kanouse et a1. (1991a, 1991b). Notse: FrequencJ-es are for a four-week period before tshe interview' Means and percentages in the EoP panel are caLculated for all heterosexual men ancl women who reported having been sexually active 1n the past five years ancl who indicated Lhe freguency of vaginal intercourse bo[h with and wit.hout condoms during the four-week period; means and percentages in the bottom panel are calculated for aLl homosexual/bisexuaL men who reporLed having been sexually aclive in the pasE year (botLom panel).
-262heterosexuals) ancl anal intercourse (for homosexual and bisexual men) reported by responclents or the four-week window period immediately before Ehe survey, accordng Lo type of partner and whether a condom was used. Heterosexuals who we.re unmarried but in an exclusive prmary relaEionship reporEed using condoms for vaginal inEercourse 24 percent of the time, whereas homosexual and lisexuaL men in such relationships reported doing so 51- percent of the time' Similarly, heterosexuals who were not married or in primary reLationships reported using condoms 48 percent of the E.ime, comparecl wiEh B1 percent for homosexual or bisexual
men.
Trocki and Leigh (1991-) report on a maiL survey conducted in 1987 of 844 randomly selected aclulEs aged 18 to 76 who responded Eo a survey mailed to 3,600 households clrawn from a directory of Ehe city and counLy of san Francisco. Parb of their analysis focused on Ehe practice of "safe sex, " defined as condom use in vaginal 0r anal intercourse or engaging in sex tha cloes noL involve penetration--in encounLers with on a nev or occasional parEners. AIEogether, 241 respondenEs reported by toLa of 336 events in such encounters. In 93 events reported heterosexual men, safe sex was practiced 29 percent of the time; in 132 eventsreportedbyhomosexual/lisexualmen,safesexwaspracticedS0 percent of the time. Results were the same when analyzed by respondenb ratherthanbyevent''TheinvesLigaLorsddnotreportonwhat proportion of the events were classifed as "safe sex" by virtue of condomuseasopposedLolackofpenetration,buLthedifferencesby sexual orienEaEion are nonetheless stri'king' In the PiLtsburgh Men,s study clescribecl earlier, 32 percent of homosexual men younger Ehan age 22 and 31 percenE of men aged 22 and older who engaged in anal intercourse reporLed that between L9BB and 1992 they usecl concloms "all Ehe time" when cloing so.25 Data reported by catania et aL (itgg2) permit us tso compare these percentages with Ehe percentages of sexually active heterosexual adul-ts wiEhin Ehe highest risk groups rvho reported using condoms all the time for vagina intercourse. of 803 responclenEs wiEh multiple parEners, 17 percenE said
Z5Informa!ion suppfiecl by ' J' SilvesLre, June 16,
1993
-263they used condoms aII Lhe time; of 229 respondents wit.h a risky parEner,26 13 percent said they used condoms all the time. This comparison is especially pertinent because it involves sexually active people in boch groups who may have reason Eo be concerned about HfV
t.ransmiss ion
. 27
As the above sampling of studies indicates, condom use j-s far from universal in any group including homosexual and bisexual men. Howewer, it seems clear from Ehe literature Ehat in the current post-AIDS era, homosexual and bisexual men--or at least. those who perceive themsefves as such--are more J.ikeIy to use condoms in high-risk sexual acLiviby than are heterosexuals, tîe now turn Lo v,haL is known about sexual risk
behaviors for HIV exposure among military personneJ-'

Sexual Rfek Behaviore for HIv-ExPoaur Among Military Personnel There is no eviclence on the extent to whj-ch the generalizations from civilian studies of selecE samples of homosexuaL men hold for bhe sexual behavior of all honrosexual men or of homosexual men in Lhe
26ResponclenLs vrith a risky parLner were those with a primary sexual partner, definecl as the person the respondent had sex with mosE frequently in Lhe pas[ year, who had at least one of Ehe following risk factors: posit.ive for HIV infeceion, intravenous drug use in the past five years, nonmonogamous, transfusion recipient, or hemophiliac. 2?seibt and coLleagues (1.991) report results of a study indi.cating haL sexual idenEity may have an i.mportanE influence on condom use by men \rho have sex wiEh other men. These researchers gave a selfadministered guestionnaire Eo 229 men visiting DaJ.las County Health Department clinics for anonymous HIV testing and counseling beLween January and June 1991 who reported ever havj.ng had anal sex with a man. Of 25 men vJho iclentified Ehemselves as sEraight, 64 percent said they never used a conclon, compared with onJ.y 16 percent of the 204 men who identified themselves as homosexuaf or bisexual-. Mean scores on a fivepoint scale for frequency of condom use also differed dramatically (0.9 for those who iclenEified themselves as straight, 2.7 for Ehose who idenLified themseLves as homosexual or bisexual, where 0 = "never", 1 = ,,almos! never," 2 = "someEimes," 3 = "amost alwaysu 4 = "always"). Although this sample j.s smaII and hardly representative, t.hese resul-ts offer an important reminder that those who perceive themselves to be homosexual may have much different patterns of behavior from those who engage in same-gender sexual acLiviEy buE perceive themseLves as straight. Since the forme are undoubtedly more heavily represented than Ehe latter in stucies of gay and }isexual men, cauLion is needed in generalizing from these siudies to Ehe entire population of men who engage in sex wj.th oLher nlen.
-264It is possible Ehat miIilaIy contexts impose constraints on miltary. choices of sexual partners or types of sexual actlvity that have substantial effects on HIV transmission risk (e.g., an increase in Eendency to choose partners from the screened active-duEy force, which would tend Eo recluce risk by reducing Ehe likeLihood of encountering an infecLed parEner). ]Jowing homosexuals to serve could also lead Eo a change in other behaviors Ehat influence HIV transmission (e'g', transmission coulcl increase if homosexual men engaged in more risky sex if it no longer carriecl a risk of separagion from military servicer or transmission coul-d clecrease cue to a greater wiJ"lingness to ackno\"ledge homosexuality to health care providers and counselors, who coul-d advise on ways Eo reduce risk) . To place the risk from changing the policy toward homosexuals in conEexL., we revievecl the eviclence regarding sexual behavior and risk of military personnel. There are very few sources of data on the sexua] behavior of milj.tary personnel. By far the besL is the 1-991- Army-lÎide HIV/AIDS Survey. This sEucly usecl a two-sEage random probability sample of over 1B,0OO active-cluLy personnel- at 31 instal'Iations n the United sbtes and Europe who compJ.eted anonymous, self-administered questionnaires.lE The preliminary findj-ngs Lhat have been made public are not weighEed ancl are thus not necessarily representaEive of the enEire active-dutY force. The stucly focused on sexual activiEies thaL serve as major rouLes of HIV transmission ancl on reLated risk factors, such as number of partners, likelihood of HfV-infection in partnel.s, and history of STDs.29 During the year prior Co the survey, 7'6 percenE of respondents reported 10 or more sexual parEners (Temoshok eE aL. , L992) , The
28The survey hac a 95 percent response rate among Army personnel present for duty, which equaLecl ?4 percenL of personneJ- assigned to the sampfing units. 2gsurvey respondents, in general, tend Eo underreporL information that coulcl have negatve social or professiona] consequences' so significant effort was made to assure respondenbs thaL their answers would remain anonymous. IEems at Lhe end oE the survey asked respondents how much faith they had in Lhe guarantee of anonymity and how honestly Ehey answred the questions. OnIy 7.5 percent strongly disbelieved the survey was anonymous; about 90 percent said lhey answered sensiEive questions honesLly.
-265average number of sexual partners was four per person over the prior year and 28 per person over one's Iifetime (ca1cuaLed from data provided in Rundell ec al., L992). The average number of lifetime
partners was hj.gher Ehan that found n replesentaLive naLional samples of the civil-ian adult popuJ.at j.on, SmLh (1991) , f or example. f ound that the average number of parEners reporEed since age 18 is 12 for men and 3 for women. The Army and civilian studies have two significant differences, which act in opposite direcEions. The Army has a younger popula!ion tha! has hacl fewer years Eo accumulate parlners, whereas the SmiEh sEudy excluded partners before age 18. AlLhough the mean number of partners reportecl by Army personnel may exceed the civilian mean, Ehe Nationa] Survey of Men (Bil-Ly et al,, 1993) showecl that a sizable subgroup of men j.n the civi-Iian population also had many parLners (20 or more Ii[etime partners for vaginal intercourse) ; this subgroup ranged from 16 percent of. 20- to 24-year-old men to 2? percent of 35- to 39-year-old men. Number of partners is not Ehe only factor influencing one's risk' The probabiliEy thaL those parbners are j-nfecEed and the likelihood that particular sexual- acts will transm! HIV are also important. Unweighted daEa from the 1991 Army-Wide HIV/AIDS Survey showed that during the prior year 34 percent reported having one or more'one-nght stands" (40 percent of them never usecl condoms with these partners), 6 percen! had sex vith one or more prostitutes (25 percent never used condoms with them), and ? percent had sex with "anonymous" partners (24 percent never used condoms with them) (Temoshok eE a1', L992\, We founcl no claLa on sexual behavior for the Air Force. The limi.Led data for the Marines show a higher level of sexual acEiviEy with prostituEes curing cleployments to Korea and Thaland. In a survey of four units depJ-oyecl j-n the western Pacif ic (westPac), 43, 48, 69, and 84 percent reporEed contact with prostitutes.30 In one deployment, 66 percent agreec or strongly agreed t.haL "having sex with 'bar gj'rIs' IprosLitutes] is a normal- part of the westPac exPerience" (Hanson, 1991
30The 69 percent fgure is from a deploymenL that included Army personnel along wiEh Marines. Clarification of published daLa provided in personal communicalion by auEhor'
-266and 1992). These survey findings cannot be generalized to behavior
outside of a WestPac deployment. STD rates provicle a more Eangible indication of sexuaf rj.sk. Many STDs are Eransmictec through Lhe same routes as HfV, and infecLion with some STDS (e.g,, chancroid) makes it easier to become infecEed with HIV' Accurate rates of STDs among active-duty personnel are noE readily available. sTDs treated by the milit.ary medical- system are not always reported, ether lecause of non-uniform reporting procedures or because of an efforE to procect paEients'privacy. Those STDs Ehat are reporEed do no include STDs thaE are treated off-base' Overseas data suffer Less from this bias than domesLic data because there are fewer opportunj.Lies Lo seek health care off-base. Despite the underrepor-ting, available STD sLaEistics are stilI informative. In the rmy in 1987 (the most recen! year for which every month,s reports were provided), there were 15,785 new cases of gonorrhea (1?.9 cases/1000 personnel) and 36,247 netr cases of all STDs (42.5
cases/1000 personnel)
.
l1
These rates are well above the naLional average (3,2/1000 in 1987 (cDc, Igg2)), )ut iL is importanL Lo keep in mind that the demographic
mix of Ehe Armed Forces is clifferent from that of the general civilian population, Many military personnel are in their Late teens and early lwenties, ancl Ehis age group has the highest STD rates in Lhe United SLates (e.g., the highest naLionaf gonorrhea rates are for ages 20 Eo 24: 15,6/LOOO for males and 12.0/1000 for femal-es in 1987) ' Blacks also have much higher STD raLes than oLher raci.al groups (e.9., for gonorrhea, 20.0/r000 vs. 0.9/1000 for whites and 2.3/1000 for Hispanics in 1987),32 but it is not knolvn wheEher blacks in the rmed Forces contribute disproportionately to the military's high STD rates. To assess the poEentia importance of the differences in demographic mix
3loffice of the Army Surgeon Generaf. These raLes consist of the of reported cases of disease in the year divided by the number of personnel in the Army, Therefore, if Ehe same person conLracts gonorrhea three times in one year, he or she will contribute three cases to Lhe rate. 32Data on L987 gonorrhea rates by demographic group supplied by
number
CDC,
-261between the Ewo populations, we adjusted the civilian gonorrhea rates Lo refLect Ehe age, race. anc gender mix of Lhe Army. The adjusted cvilian rate, 15.4/1000 was comparable to the mj.liary ra.e.33 some individual bases have studied sTDs among their personnel. sTDs were tracked at Fc. Bragg over seven years. Gonorrhea and non-
gonococcal ureLhritis raEes have decl-ined while syphilis rates have i-ncreased, producing an overal-L decrease in sTD rates. (This trend matches national civilian trencls,) However, the downward trend for gonorrhea was reporeed as either no! seen or not susLained for young married persons (I'].-21 years old) and young black males. syphilis increased n black males ancl females and white males, with the authors reporting a pattern suggesEive of heterosexllal transmission in both
races (Magruder et aL. ,
1992)
milibary data on sTDs come from selfreports, because these cover aJ.l sTDs, regardless of site of Ereatment. unweighEed data from Ehe l99l Army-wide HV/AIDS survey show Ehat 14'5 percent reportecl aC leasE one STD in the prior two years ' The likelihood was greater in younger, black. female, unmarried and enlisted (versus officer) responclen[s. Factors associated with having an STD (over Ehe pasE year) includecl Lhe absence of a regular sexua.l' partner; higher mean number of toEaI sexual partners, one*night stands, prosLituLes, anonymous parLners, and new sexua] partners; ferver condoms purchased or receivecl; number of drugs used; and (over the past two years) sexual partners in U.S, ciEies or in counEries wiEh high AIDS prevalence. Mean number of I'ifefime sexual partners was also higher in the group with STDs (Runclell ec aL ' , 1992) .34
The mosb comprehensive
33We calculated the adjusted rate with L990 gonorrhea data, which was the latest year available in cross-tabuLa!ed form by age, race, and gender. National gonorrhea raLes have ]een dropping annua1ly, which is importanE to keep in mincl when comparing Ehe 1987 Army and 1990 civilian rates. From 1987 to 1990, the nationaJ rate fell 14 pelcenE (calculated from daba in CDC, T992) . 34Because survey respondents in general Lend co underreport embarrassing infornration such as STDs, the data probably provide a ]ower bound estimate of the Erue percentage of people who have STDs in the Army. peop.e also unclerreport when t,hey clo noE know that their disease is sexually Eransmitbecl (e.f,, men who have non-gonococcal urethritis
268
rates are noE available in as much deail for the oEher services. For Marine and Navy WestPac deployments, STD rates ab bimes exceed 10 percenL, and, as recently as 1990, some larger units have had rates as high as 40 percent for a six-month deployment. wit.h afgrressive condom dj-sLribution and health education, some units' STD rates have come down to less than 2 percent during a one-monEh deployment. For example, despj.te the high rat-es of contact wiLh prostitutes in the four WestPac units discussed above, the majority of personnel reported condom use wiEh each conEact, ancl STD raEes were refatively l-ow,35 Nevertheless, because of the reporEedly high rates of HfV among prostitutes in Asian countres, such as ThaiLand (Weniger et al., 1,991), the stat.istics on prostiLut,ion, the fact that not all personnel used condoms, ancl the high sTD raEes for other depJoyments raise particular concern about spread of HIV to deployed personnel. The military population's current behavioral risk profile as well as the daEa on STDs j.ndicate Ehat many are engaging in sexual behaviors that could transmit HIV if their partners were infected' So far, HIV rates may not l:e higher because HIV is not as endemic in Ehe populations in which active-duty personnel are having sex. However, if the virus spreads further, military personnel wj-Il be at grealer risk of conEracLing HIV unless Ehey use condoms or change their sexual practices. Regardless of whether the policy of excluding homosexuals from miliLary service is continued, DoD's educaEional and Eesting programs are Ehe most certain meEhods for preventing high-risk sexua] behavior. monitoring HIV prevalence, and identifying Hlv-positlve personnel in future years.
STD
TNFECTION FROM CONTCT WTTH HIV-TNFECTED BLOOD
The military blood supply is well protected againsL HIV. All blood undergoes complete HIV screening and i-s discarded even if"iL has only one positive EI test. As discussed earlier a person is diagnosed with HIV onty after two positive EfAs and one positive rtesEern Blot. Thus,
somet i"mes seek
understand
medical care for pain, get treatment, and do not they contracted it). 35Hanson ( I990, 1991) and informaLion supplied by author.
how
-269by reguiring only one positive EIA, the blood program discards many unts of uninfected blood Eo guarantee thaE it eliminates as much infectecl blood as possible. About 0.4 percent of blood donations in 1991 tested positive on the firsE EIA and were Eherefore discarded. only 2 percenL of these, or 0.008 percenE of all the donated blood turned ou! to be ac[uaJly positive afEer complete EIA and llestern Blot testing.36 This raLe is comparable Lo the 1990 raLe of 0.005 percent aE merican Red cross blood banks (cDc, 1991), About 85 percen! of the more than 2?5,000 Eotal uniEs collectecl in 1991 were donated by acEiveduty personnel, Bloocl.donation is voLuntary, and potential donors are told not to clonate if they meet any of a list of exclusion criteria (e.g., people who have hcrd hepaliEis , B, or C, who have colds' as well as men who have sex with men). Donors who consequently refrain do not have to t.eII which of the exclusion criteria they have met. If someone who meets an exclusion criterion donates blood anyway (e.g., due to social pressure) , he or she has the opportunity Eo check off a confidential form that says not to use Ehe donated blood for Eransfusion purposes.Whileitmayneverbepossibletoelimtnatealsocia]. pressure to hide an exclusion criterion, permitting homosexuals Lo serve in the military shouLd only make men who have had sex with men more Iikely to defer or at least check off the confidential form. In addition, bloocl is screened for oLher cliseases, such as syphilis and hepatitis A, B, and c, Al-I Eesbing ncl handli.ng procedures follow sEandards set iry the Arerican Association of Blood Banks and the regulations of Lhe Food and Drug Aclministra!ion'37 oneofthemostfrequentlyexpressedconcernsabouEallowing homosexua]s to serve has Jeen Lhe risk of exposure to HIV-infected blood Ehrough battlefield transfusion. BatEleield blood collections are rare since the mllitary is alle to bring adequaLe supplies of properly screened ancl createcl bloocl or bloocl subsLituEes from the united states to baLLlefj.elcl siLes. However, when necessary, batlefield collections ,rof Ehe 2II,25B units Ehat. vrere Eested in-house by the Armed Services Blood Program Offj-ce (SBPO), 1-7 were positive' 3Tlnformation abouE the miliLary blood supply and batLlefield collecEions was provictec by the Director of the AsBPo/ pril 26 and
a1 100?
May
270 -
are taken onLy f1.om voLunteers among active-duty personnel, and lhe same exclusion criLerj-a apply s for regular blood donations. since a1l deployed personnel have had a negative HIV-tesL in the six monEhs prior to deploymenE, Ehe probability of a baLtlefieLd donation from an infected person is very J-ow. Moreover. Lransfusion of ]aLEIefield colfecions is done only in emergfency sitsuations, generally when transfusion is necessary to save a person,s Iife. RecipienEs of baEtLefield collecE.ions are E.herefore much more likely Eo die from the ill-ness or injury than from any dj-sease acquired as a resulb of the Lransfusion. During DeserE storm, abouE 2000 toLaI unlEs h'ere transfused3S and reports indicate five people received blood from battlefield collections' Blood from such coflections is sent ack to Ehe Unted States for tesbinqr whenever possible. None has been HlV-posicive' Another concern is exposure Eo blood from wounded service members' Especially if the peri-ocl of combat is of short duration, predeployment esEing wll_ make the risk of this exposure ]ow. However, ir the unlikely event LhaL a service member is exposed Eo blood from someone who is wounded ancl HIV-infected, his or her risk of contracting HIV infecbion woulcl clepencl on the Lype of exposure' Blood on an area of the uninfected service member's skin that had no or only superficial cuts would not usually Eransmi.t the virus. Getting some bLood in Lhe eye would present a larger risk. A medic going from one wounded service member to the next with i.rfecEed blood on his or her hands could also spread HIV. IL is not possible Lo estimate Ehis risk with much precison,. however, to reiterate, the screening program should prevent HIV-infected people from deploying. While tesLing minimizes initiat infecEion rates in Ehe forces that are deployed, it does not prevent infection with HIV once overseas-especiaJ.ly on long deployments. Evidence of potentially high-risk sexual. behavj-or among crll military personnel, discussed earl-ier, raises concerns abouL the risk of transmission among personnel deployed to parts of Ehe world where HIV is comlon.
lSThe exacc numlf,er of units Lranslused is noL known because records are incompleEe for Operations Desert ShieId,/Storm.
CONCLUSToNS
2'7r
DoD's HIV Lesting program almosc entirely prevent.s t,he entry of Therefore. the only way a HIV-infected persons into che military, change in policy permitting homosexuals Lo serve could signficantly affect HIV infection rates in Lhe miliLary is by increasing Lhe number of service members who are infected while servng. It is noE possible to predict whetsher there would be an increase, much less estj-mate is magniEude. If an increase in HM.nfection rates were to occur/ there
would be little influence on military effectiveness. 11 military personnel whose health is seriously affected by HIV are discharged. Given the accuracy of HIV tesLing, very few HIV-infected personneJ. woud ever deploy or serve j.n combaL, and Lhe military bLood supply wouLd remain safe. Regardless of whether homosexuals are permitted to serve, the military could experience higher HIV infecEion rates in the future. Available evidence on sexual- risk behavj-or and rates of sexually transmitted diseases among aII personnel suggests the potenLial for increased HIV transmission under conditions that pLace personnel in greater contacL with infected populatj.ons.
-272-
9.
ISSUES OF CONCERN: NTI-HOMOSEXITAIJ VIOIJENCE1
military personnel- have predicted anti-homosexual violence in the miltary if homosexuals are permitEed to serve. The Los AngeTes fimes survey of 2,346 enlisted personneL found Ehat over B0 percent believed that removing the resLriction would result in violence againsE homosexuals. In Lhe Marines, the percentage was 90 percent'2 In the focus groups conducted for Ehis reporE, violence was frequenIy mentioned as a possbJ-e conseguence. Perhaps the most dramatic statement about the risk of anti-homosexual violence was in the testimony of Marine Corps Colonel Frederick Peck before Ehe Senate Armed Services Committee on May 11, 1993, when he stated that one of the primary reasons he would not want his homosexual- son to join the Marines was the Lhreat of violence. According to Colonel Peck,
Many
I would be very fearful Lhat his life would be in jeopardy Fratricide is somethng Ehab from his own troops exists out here, and there are people who would puE my son's life aL risk in our own armed forces.
Furthermore, over the past six months, the media have exbensively covered speci.fic episodes of anti-homosexual violence in the military, and iLs occurrence has been cibed as evidence of Lhe exLent of antiThe most publicized recent case was homosexual bias in the military. he murder of Seaman Allen Schindler, who was beaten to deaEh by shipmaLes on october 2?, 1992, in Sasebo, Japan (Sterngold, 1993) ' lL now appears that this case was at least partly motivated by antihomosexual prejudice. This chapEer briefly reviews the Iierature on anti-homosexual violence as it relates to the likelihood of such violence if homosexuaLs are allowed to serve openly. The scientific evidence on anti-homosexual viofence j-s al-most exclusively restricEecl to iLs occurrence in the civilian population and is of LimiLed quality. However, there is
lThis chapLer was prepared by Raynard S' Kington' 2see the chapLer on military opinion.
- 273 sufficienb evidence to conclude that anti-homosexual- violence occurs with some regularity in the civilian community. It clearly occurs in the military under the currenL policy, although there are no data on the relaLive frequency of iEs occurrence. We conclude Ehat Lhe evidence does not alLor^' us to make any firrn predictions about the likelihood of increased anti-homosexual violence if homosexuals were allowed to serve. We cl-ose with a discussion of implementation issues as they relate to the potential for anti-homosexual vioLence,
OYERVIEW OF DT
over t.he last fifteen years, the homosexual communiEy, law enforcement agencies, ancl researchers have focused increasing attention on the problem of anti-homosexual violence (Herek, 1989; Reiss and Roth, 1993). Efforts t'o address such violence during the 1970s and 1980s resulted in the inclusion of anti-homosexuaL violence in the FederalHate Crime St.atistics AcE of 1990, which mandated t.he Federal Bureau of InvestigaLion to coll-ecL and publish annual sLatistics on crimes motivated by prejudice. In addition, over twenty states now have laws that rnandate monitoring or penalEies for bias crimes involving sexual orienbation (NGLTF, 1992) .
Data Sources and llmftatlone Numerous meLhodological problems limit the quality of Lhe data on the incidence and correlates of anti-homosexual violence. First, underreporting of such violence Eo official agencies is believed Eo be widespread, as is generally true for most violent crimes (U'S. Department of Justice, 1992) - Thus, the besL available data on incidence rates for anti-homosexual violence (excluding homicides) are from community surveys rather than from official agencies. Second, community surveys Lhat have incLuded quesLions on violence have used convenience samples accessed largely Ehrough homosexual organizations, publcaLions, and evenLs. Because homosexuals are not readily identifialle, t is impossibl-e to secure a non-seff-reported probability sample of this population for any purpose (Hrek, 1989). The
use of convenience samples raises questions about the generalizability the daLa to the homosexual community at-Large and to the miliLary'
of
an^
Third, Lhe wording of survey questions may affecb estimates of incidence rates. For example, many surveys asked the respondents to report volent crimes thaL occurred "because of sexual orientation" (e.g.. CornsEock, 1989; Gross, Aurand. Addessa, et a1., L992 "Results of a Poll," 1989). Idea}y, idenLifying a crime as being a bias crime requj.res an understanding of the motivations of the perpetrators. Criteria have been developed that improve the ability to identify violence that is likely to be related to sexual orienbation (e.9., Finn and McNeil, 1988; NGLTF, 1993), but these criteria are no explicitly stated in surveys. Therefore, Lhere may be variations across individuals and surveys in attribution of violence to anti-homosexual bias'
SUMM,RY
OF TJTTERTI'RE ON THE TNCIDENCE OF ANTI-HOMOSEXUIJ VIOI'ENCE
recent books have comprehensively reviewed the liEeraEure on such violence (ComsEock, 1991; Herek and BerriIl, ].992'),3 These books reviewecl over thirEy sLudies of varying quality that have included informaEion on anti-homosexual violence over the last twenty years.4 An j.deaI data set for undersEanding rates of violence againsL homosexual-s would incLude a geographically diverse probabiJ,ity sampJ.e of respondents; informaEion on the respondents' sexual orientation and all other important sociodemographic variables Lhac are rel-ated to violence risk; and accurate data on all interpersonal vioLence experienced by the The best respondent, No available daEa set meeLs all of these criteria. available data come from surveys of convenience samples of selfidentified homosexuals, which include informa!ion on interpersonal violence. The Philadetphia Gay and Lesbian Task Force has published several of the most widely citecl studies of incidence rates of violence against homosexuals. IEs mos! recent l99t-I992 survey of 2,652 homosexuals in
T\^Jo
3The chapters in Ehe Herek and Berrif book were based on articles from a special September 1990 issue o Lhe JournaL of Interpersonaf Viofence. 4Many of the studjes were not readily available for primary revievr {e,g,, many are in the form of unpublished manuscripts or reports by local homosexual organizations) . The most widely ciled and most recent reports and Lhose published in scholarly journals were reviewed for this report .
- 275 Pennsylvania found thab, in the Philadelphia sub-sample (N = 1,41-3), 3 percenE of the women and 9 percent of Lhe men reported at least one episode over a 12-month period of physical anti-homosexual violence, including being punchec, hit, or assaulted wibh a weapon (Gross, Aurand, and Addessa, et a1., 1993), In 1992, two other Local advocacy groups conducted surveys of homosexuals. The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services center surveyed 914 individuals who were participants in a gay and lesbian pride fesLival in Ehe Los Angeles metropolitan area. TVrenty-eight percent of Ehe respondents reported being assaulted or physically abused over the preceding twelve months because of their orientaion (nt.i-Violence Project, 1992). The Lesbian and Gay Community Association in ,JacksonvilIe, Florj-da, surveyed 507 homosexuals n 1992, and 38 percenE reporEed being the vicEim of "gay-bashing" over a 12month period (as reported in NGLTF, 1992],. In a national telephone survey o 400 male and female homosexual"s for the San Francisco Examiner in 1989, Teichner found thab 7 percent reported physical abuse or assaulL because of being homosexuaL, over a 12-month period (,,Results of a Pol1,' 1989). Comstock and Berrill reviewed a much larger number of stuclies of the general homosexuaL population, mosE of which reporLed lifetime rates of anti-homosexual violence (Comstock, 1991;
BerrilI, L990). In these reviews, Ehe majority of the lifetime rates for physical. violence were beLween 10 and 30 percenL. number of stuclies have been restricted to university populaLions. t YaIe, Pennsylvania SLaLe Unversity, and Rutgers, approximately 5 percent of homosexual stuclents reportecl anti-homosexual physical violence, including being punched, hit, kicked, or beaLen, in their college careers (D'AugeIli., 1989; Yale, as reporEed in Berril1, 1990; Rutgers as reportecl in Berrill, 1-990). A sLudy at the University of Massachusetts estimaEecl a rate of 2l- percenE of homosexual students suffering physica confrontaEion or assaul-t, compared with 5 percent for the total student body (YeskeJ., 1985) '
Arti-Homosexual Violence in Ehe Milltary We founcl no scientific literature (populaEion surveys or case series) specifically acldressing anLi-homosexual viofence in the
2'l
6-
mil-iLary. The only daEa are case reports from the media and mateial collected by various advocacy groups. The case repors of antj.homosexual violence in the miJ.iEary often involve miliLary personnel accused of attacking civilians (e.g., see "Military fncidents" n NGLTF, L993). During the miltary focus groups conducted for this report severaL examples of anLi-homosexual violence involving military personnel aEtacking other nriJ.itary personnel vere described (see the chapter on mlitary opinion). The case reports, including several cases that have received wide media coverage and cases reporEed Eo groups such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, are bhe best available information on the occurrence of ant-homosexual viol-ence now in the military, but there are no daba on ics relative raLe of occurrence'
Underreporting of Violence one consistent finding in che literature is that the vast majority of anti-homosexual aEEacks are not reporEed Eo law enforcement agencies. In the ComsEock study, ?3 percent of bhose experiencing anti-homosexual violence did noE report it (1989). In D'Augel1i, 94 percent did not reporE. cases to authoriLies (1989). fn the Pennsylvania study, 60 to 70 percent did not reporE cases (Gross, Aurand, and Addessa, et al' 19921' fn Anderson (1982), 90 percent of the assaul.t victims did noE reporL. In the general popuLation, 50 percenE of viol-ent personal crimes are not reported to the police (U.s. Deparlment of ,fustice, 1992) ' In its first year of reporting bj.as crimes, the F.B.I. reported only 422 anthomosexual or anti-lisexual crimes in 1991 (Sessions, 1991) ' while in the same year the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force reported 1.001 anti-homosexual episodes, in only five cities, tha! met F.B'I' crj-Leria
as bias crimes
(NGLTF, 1992).
The reasons for not reporting anti-homosexual violence often differ from Lhe reasons for not reporEing violen! crimes in the general population. For example, in the Comstock study, 67 percent did nob report because of previous anti-homosexual experience wiEh pol-ice or perceived police anL-homosexual atEitudes, and 40 percent because of
the risk of having sexual orientation made public (1989). In the general popufaLj-on, the most colnmon reason for failure to report crimes
-277
of violence involving a stranger was Lhat the offender was unsuccessful (U's.DepartmentofJustice,l-gg2).Thecurrentrestrictionon homosexua] service in the military creates significant costs for exposure of homosexuaL staEus. This may contribute to the dearth of data on the occurrence of anti-homosexual vioLence in the military as long as he ban remains. However, it should be noLed again that even n the civilian popuJ.aLion mosE victims of anLi-homosexual violence do not report the incidenLs Lo auEhorities.
Personal and Environmental correlats of Antf-Homoeexual viOlence AlEhough the best available data on anti-homosexual violence are
restrictedtothecivilianpopu}ation,theevidenceonEhepersonal characteristics ancl environmental factors associaLed with Ehe occurrence of such vj.olence provicles some insight inLo its possible occurrence in the military seting if homosexuals were allowed to serve' Most prominenEly, the surveys of homosexual"s almost uniformly demonstrate a higher raEe of physicaL victimi.zacion among males (see reviews in comsLock, 1991; BerrilI, 1990). The paEtern of higher rates for males is consistent with the general Literature on the risk of being a victim of violenE crime (except for forcibJ-e rapes anc partner assaults) (Reiss and Roth, 1993). The eviclence regarding other risk factors, such as racer is more difficulL to interpret' In predicting the Iikelihooci of anti-homosexuaf violence, of particular note are Ewo stuclies that have suggested other personal characterisEics of homosexual men Lhat may affect the likelihood of being a victim. In a survey of 1,556 homosexual men in the chicago area, Harry found Ehat those who iclenEified themselves as being effeminaLe were more IikeJ.y to have experienced violence (Harry, 1982) ' EffeminaEe men may be nrore easiJ.y idenLified as fitEing the stereotype for homosexuals. Harry also reported finding that those homosexuals who had mostly homosexual friencls and those who were more open about Eheir orientation were more likeLy Eo have experienced violence. Thirty-one percent of homosexual males who agreed or sLrongly agreed tha! "It is important to me to ,be out' to straighE peopJ-e I know" had experienced anti-homosexual violence versus 21 percent for oLher respondents (Harry,
- )'t9. -
L990), (These results are referred to in Harry t19901 as being described in an unpublished manuscript, which was not available for primary review, ) These resuLts suggest Ehat some forms of anti-homosexual violence may be l-ess likely in the military set.ting, given E.he st.rong cullure in Lhe military against effeminate behavior in men, and the likelihood that few individuals would announce thej,r homosexuaJ.ity, even if policy prohibiting Eheir service were changed. In Eerms of where violence occurs, it appears mosE frequent in ident,ifiably homosexual public gathering places (see summares in Comstock, 1991; Berrill, 1990). Presumabl-y, Ehe high rates refLect at least partly the ease in identifying homosexuals in these settj.ngs.
The Prpetrators of ni*Homosexual Vlolence There is on1-y sparse evidence abouc what kinds of peopl-e engage in anEi-homosexual violence. Most daEa come from descriptions of perpetrators in homosexual surveys. Reviews of avaiLable data by BerriJ.l (1990) and Comstock (1991) conclude that the perpetrators of anti-
violence tend to be young males, who often act in groups. In general, bias crimes are usually commitEed by persons not known to the victim. In the general- U.S. populaL. j.on, 58 percent of violent crimes involve strangers (U.S. DeparEment of Justice, 1992), while in one study of anti-homosexual vj-oLence more than 90 percenE of the crimes involved strangers (as reported in Bohn [1984], from anunpublished thesis).
homosexual
The Conaequencs of Anti-Homosexual Vlolence for he Vlctlme AJ.though there is a growing l-iterature on Lhe psychological consequences of bel-ng a vj.ctim of violence (e.g. , Sa1es, Baum, and
Shore, 1984), libble is known specifically about the consequences for vicElms of anti-homosexual viol"ence. Psychologj"sLs have speculated that the sense of wulnerability and self-b1ame that may normally follow victimization may be heghtened among vicEims of anti-homosexual viol-ence (Garnetss, Herek, and Levy, 1990). FurEhermore, homosexuals who are not "out" may face the prospecL of "double discl-osure"--that they are homosexual and thaL they have been victmized (GarneLs, Herek. and Levy, 1990), In response to the unique consequelrces faced by victims of
- )1 q -
anti-homosexuaL violence and the perception that Jaw enforcement and socia services agencies have been unresponsive to their needs, several homosexual viccim suppore programs have been developed across the nation, such as the New York CiLy Gay and Lesbian Anti-Viofence Project (wertheimer, 1990) and the Horizons AnLi-viol-ence Project in chicago
(NGLTF, 1993).
NTI-HOMOSEXUTJ VIOIJENCE ND THE FORMUI,TION OF POI,ICY REGRDING HO'OSEXULS IN THE MIIJITRY
The social science liLerature on anti-homosexua] violence addresses, almost exclusively, its occurrence in Ehe civifian
populat.ion, ancl generally the data are of Iimited qualiby. The available data are of IimiLecl usefuLness in predictj.ng Ehe rj.sk of violence as a result of changes in the mlitary's policies with regard to homosexuals, bu t.hey provide some important insights about the phenomenon. Although there are no population-l-evel data on the incidence of anti-homosexual violence in Ehe military, case reports suggest that it cloes occur in Lhe miJ-itary under the current policy' To the extent that changes in policy resul.t in changes in the number of homosexuaLs in the military or in the behavior of those who are already there (e.g., more openly homosexual soldiers, who are more readily iclentified targets for viol-ence), there is t,he potential for a Change in Ehe raEe of anLi-homosexual- violence. However. the evidence that homosexual sol.diers wilI conform Eo usual mj.J.iEary standards of behavior and thaC few will publicly acknowledge their homosexuality suggests chat the occurrence of anti-homosexual violence of the type usually encountered in the civilian communiEy (i.e., strangers atacking easily iclentified homosexuals) may be limited. However, it is possible that homosexuafs in the military would be attacked by other military personnel who are not str-cangers. This type of anEi-homosexual violence However, is even Iess rvell described in the social science Iiterature. Lhe miliEary setting, with its hierarchical cultrre and its broad conLrol_ of many aspects of soLdiers' Lives and behavior, may provide opporLunit.ies to prevent anti-homosexual. interpersonal vj-olence that are not as feasible in the civilian world.
280
The high rate of faifure to reporE incidents to official agencies is especially relevant to this policy discussion. AlLhough in the general population the repor!ing rate for crimes of violence "s low, the
reasons for non-reporing disEinguish anLi-homosexual crimes. Reasons frequently cited by homosexual- victms for failure to report are the fear that he or she will be victimized again by the officials, so-called secondary victimzation (Herek and BerrilL, 1990), fear of public disclosure, and the belief that nothing wiIl be done with the information once it. is reported (e.g', Comstock, 1989). In the military, the presence of a ban on homosexuals, with significant penalties for cliscovery, provicles a strong incentive not to report antihomosexuaf
If violence or pelsonal threats of violence Eo officiafs' the incidents are not reported, there wil be no opporlunity Eo identify and punish perpeErators ancl possibly prevent future incidents, Even those j-ncidenls of vioLence thab result n injuries severe enough to lead to contact wiLh a health care provider (e.g., a physician j-n an emergency room) are unlikely to be identified as the resulb of anLihomosexual violence, if the victims do not identify iE as such. fn additlon to l_imiEing the opporEunJ.ty to punish perpetraEors, Ehe vicLim's fear of being idenEified as homosexual may lead to delays in seeking necessary Ereatment for injuries.
A,I{TT.HOMOSEXUTJ
HOMOSEXUAI,S
IN
VIOI'ENCE AND THE IMPLEMENTtrION OF THE MIIJITRY
POLICY REGRDING
Clear Message of Zero Tolerance from the Leaderehp The occurrence of anti-homosexual violence in the military under any policy regarcing homosexuals is at least partly a reflection of military leacership, As ciscussed in the chapter on implementation, one of the mosL import.ant facLors in effecting a change in policy and minimizing negaEive consequences such as anti-homosexuaf violence is a clear message from leadership of zeyo Lolerance for such violence and an assurance that those convicf.ed of committing it will be severely
penalized. Hovrever, given the lkelihood that many homosexuals hrill contnue to keep their orientation quiet, there may sLiIl be strong ncentives noL to reporL incidents or threats under any policy. Any policy thaE includes penalties for revealing one's homosexual status
may

2:04-cv-08425 #154

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2:04-cv-08425 #154

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 154 Filed 04/05/10 10 Pages

-1LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Written Discovery Lay Depositions Expert Depositions

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s)

March 18, 2010 Deposition of John Alexander Nicholson III ................0035-0050

Defendants Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories .......................................................................0159-0170

-3LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

-5LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

-6LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

-7LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

-8LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Regulation 500-3-3 ................2622-2772

Report entitled A Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality .......................................................................2821-2836

-9LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

- 10 LOSANGELES 859170 (2K)

Case 2:04-cv-08425 Document 154-1 Filed 04/05/10 201 Pages

LCR Appendix Pages 1-200 (Part 1 of 19)

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

DEPOSITION OF AARON BELKIN, Ph.D. March 5, 2010 San Francisco, California

LCR Appendix Page 0001

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

LCR Appendix Page 0002

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 data. there is a range of knowledge. But on the polls,

LCR Appendix Page 0003

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

about the sky falling down are at very least cast

LCR Appendix Page 0004

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

when you say it is the service member's perceived

LCR Appendix Page 0005

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Under certain conditions? Yes? Absolutely, under certain conditions

LCR Appendix Page 0006

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

LCR Appendix Page 0007

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

LCR Appendix Page 0008

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

And then third

LCR Appendix Page 0009

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Okay. Anything else?

LCR Appendix Page 0010

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

ethnographic evidence, and legal evidence.

LCR Appendix Page 0011

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And take me through each of those

pieces of evidence. A Well, the legal evidence is the queen

would not need a queen for a day exception.

But, for example, a

LCR Appendix Page 0012

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

LCR Appendix Page 0013

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

Page 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q All right. And what specific questions

commander had allowed a straight service member to

LCR Appendix Page 0014

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA

shower at different times.

someone was allowed to live off base.

LCR Appendix Page 0015

Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA