LITTLE ROCK — During the debate over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell-which ended one year ago last week-Sen. John McCain insisted that ending the gay ban would do “great damage” to the military, and the commandant of the Marine Corps said it could “cost Marines’ lives.” One think-tanker agreed that we’d be taking “a risk with our lives, property and freedom.” Another declared breathlessly that, “ultimately all of civilian life will be affected.” Then there was the dire prediction that one-quarter of the military, or 500,000 troops, might quit in protest.
Underlying the debate were competing moral visions, but the claims over harm to the military were where it often played out on both sides. Gay-rights proponents countered by pointing out that there was never any evidence that openly gay service would hurt the military, and that plenty of research from foreign countries suggested the opposite. Even studies conducted by the U.S. military itself, and by the Government Accountability Office, suggested readiness would not suffer if gays served openly. The trouble was that the research was predictive, not descriptive. No one could actually say for sure what the impact on the military of ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be.
Until now. A new UCLA study, which I co-wrote with other academics including military professors from all four U.S. military service academies, has assessed whether ending the gay ban has indeed harmed the armed forces. It hasn’t. Our conclusion is that ending the policy “has had no negative impact on overall military readiness or its component parts: unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”
In one survey, more than 750 active-duty troops were asked three months after repeal about their morale, housing, perception of officer and troop quality, and overall quality of life. All the figures were the same or slightly higher than in a parallel survey administered in the months before repeal, meaning readiness did not drop. Recruitment and retention figures throughout the military have remained steady, and survey responses indicate that troops are just as likely to re-enlist after repeal as before. The military confirmed the premature departure of two servicemen-not 500,000.
While some troops told us they remained personally opposed to openly gay service, the germane point is that overall morale and readiness did not suffer as a result of the policy change. A heterosexual Air Force captain said that even when military members felt personal opposition to homosexuality, this did not generally translate into poor behavior and unit-wide disruptions. “That’s just not how it works,” he said. “Individuals may have a problem, but there is no problem with the group opinion.”
According to our interviews, peer relations improved as a greater degree of honesty and authenticity “promoted increased understanding, respect and acceptance.” Leadership advanced because commanders can better understand and address the needs of their subordinates when troops are able to speak freely. One officer said the ban had hindered military leaders from helping ensure the personal readiness of their sailors: Commanders had been scared to ask basic personal questions lest they learn something they’d have to report. With the policy change, said the officer, “everyone from leadership down were relieved.”
———◊———
Nathaniel Frank is the author of Unfriendly Fire and a visiting scholar at Columbia University’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law.
Editorial, Pages 10 on 09/24/2012