Hello Friends: The following excerpt (it's real long, so feel free to skip over it if you have no interest) deals with military discrimination and ROTC, incl. the address for the national day of action against discrimination. Having been a former service member myself, I have a personal interest in this subject. The report which follows is quite informative. Enjoy..... - ----- Forwarded message ------- Overview of the Armed Forces Discriminatory Policies Against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People Prepared by Marc Gunning Coordinator of the National Day of Action Against Discrimination January 17, 1992 NDAAD P.O. Box 751 East Setauket, NY 11733 - 0751 Based on figures quoted in a report commissioned by the Pentagon (Sarbin and Karois, 1988), it is estimated that the United States Armed Forces employs over 80,700 service people, making it the largest employer in the United States. Despite this distinction, it is allowed by federal mandate to discriminate against approximately 25% of its employees: those who are lesbian, gay and bisexual. It should be noted that the figure 25% is a more conservative figure than percentages afforded to us by studies conducted by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940's. [Kinsey, 1948; Kinsey, 1953] In these studies, Kinsey found that of his sample population of 5,000 white males, approximately 10% had little or no heterosexual experience, nearly 20% had at least as many homosexual experiences as heterosexual experiences, 37% had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm, and 50% had at least one homosexual fantasy to orgasm. The percentages for the same experiences among women were roughly half that of men. The question immediately arises, however, that given the high degree of intolerance towards those who are sexually attracted to their own gender, would that not preclude many gay, lesbian, bisexual people from entering the military? A study conducted by the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center that was commissioned by the Pentagon addressed this question. Harry (1984) found that homosexual and heterosexual men were equally likely to have served in the military. Homosexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to have had military service. Weinberg and Williams in a sworn affidavit state: "the vast majority of homosexuals in the Armed Forces remain undiscovered by military authorities, and complete their service with honor." [Sarbin and Karois, 1988; p. 23] As the authors of this report point out, these statements imply that a large number of lesbian, gay and bisexual people have served honorably in the United States military. For the purposes of this paper, a conservative estimate that 25% of armed forces personnel are lesbian, gay or bisexual seemed appropriate. Using that estimate, current Department of Defense policies call for the removal of approximately 20,190 service women and men. Department of Defense directive 1332.14, issued January 28, 1982, states: Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Armed Forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among the members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the military services; to maintain the public acceptability of military services; and, in certain circumstances, to prevent breaches of security. [Sarbin and Karois, 1988; p. 19] Richard Mohr, author of Gays / Justice, points out that the U.S. military was racially segregated until 1948 on many of the same grounds as those purported for barring lesbian, gay and bisexual people, "...especially the ground that whites could not work with blacks." [Mohr, 1988, p. 196] The policies that were used to bar women from active service also made allusion to the close proximity that men and women who have to live and work under in a manner very similar to directive 1332.14. Despite the military's predilections, Blacks and women have been successfully integrated into the armed forces, and the United States military is considered by some to be a model in affirmative action. Taking the seven rationales of directive 1332.14 as a group, it becomes apparent that lesbian, gay and bisexual people do not have to engage in homosexual behavior in order to be removed from service. While consensual homosexual activity is also forbidden by military policy and has been used as grounds for dismissal, DoD directive 1332.14 is unique in that it asserts that the condition of one's sexual orientation may be grounds for discharge. In other words, the mere feelings of attraction towards one's own gender is sufficient for dismissal from the armed forces. As such, many lesbian, gay and bisexual activists point out that this intrusion on the thoughts and feelings of service men and women is akin to establishing a kind of "thought police". Prior to the institution of directive 1332.14, the military's policies related to this issue focused on the acts of homosexual activity. In his book Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two, Allan Berube notes: Traditionally the military had never officially excluded or discharged homosexuals from its ranks. From the days following the Revolutionary War, the Army and Navy had targeted the act of sodomy (which they defined as anal and sometimes oral sex between men), not homosexual persons, as criminal, as had their British predecessors and the original thirteen colonies. Any soldier or officer convicted of sodomy, whether he was homosexual or not, could be sent to prison. [Berube, 1990; p. 2] This policy has also served as a source of embarrassment for the Armed Forces, as they have been criticized a number of times for the manner in which they conduct investigations. For example, in a report issued by the Senate with approval by the full Naval Affairs Committee on July 19, 1921, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels and Assistant Secretary Franklin D. Roosevelt were among a number of people who were strongly criticized for their role in what became known as the Newport Scandal. Newport, Rhode Island, was at that time the home of the Naval Training Station and Naval War College (which later became the Naval Academy Preparatory School). It was also the site of an officially sanctioned investigation which involved, according to the report, the use of young servicemen to "go forth into Newport and to allow immoral acts to be performed upon them... for the purpose of running down and trapping certain alleged sexual perverts." [Murphy, 1988; p. 263] The committee went on to say that any government officials who allowed such actions were "absolutely indefensible and [were] to be most severely condemned." [Murphy, 1998, p. 263] Many activists maintain that more recent "witch hunts" which have occurred around the country, most notably at the Parris Island Marine Corps station in which many women were arrested and interrogated on suspicion of being lesbian, are also sources of embarrassment for the military. Taken individually, there remains no evidence for the seven rationales established by this policy. At the 99th annual convention of the American Psychological Association on August 15, 1991, social scientists revealed research that concluded that the DoD's policy is not based on scientific data, but on prejudice. The APA Council, in its August, 1991 meeting, passed a resolution which called the discharge of lesbian, gay and bisexual people "unfair" and resolved: ...that the APA opposes the DoD policy which finds homosexual orientation "incompatible with military service"; and be it further resolved that APA take a leadership role among national organizations in seeking to change this discriminatory policy. The Council also resolved that unless the military changed its policies concerning this issue, it will not permit its publications to be used as advertising media by the Department of Defense. [APA Monitor, 1991] The American Psychiatric Association passed a similar resolution in December of 1990, which clarified its position that it has formally opposed all discrimination, public and private, against gay and lesbian people and that it opposed the exclusion and discharge of people from the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation. It further asserted "...that no burden of proof of judgment, capacity, or reliability should be placed on homosexuals which is greater than that imposed on any other persons within the armed services." [American Psychiatric Association, 1991] The realization that no evidence exists for the military's rationales is not new. In 1957, the Crittenden Report, officially labeled the 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, contained the following statements: The concept that homosexuals pose a security risk is unsupported by any factual data. ...The number of cases of blackmail as a result of past investigations of homosexuals is negligible. No factual data exist to support the contention that homosexuals are a greater risk than heterosexuals. [Sarbin and Karois, 1988; p. 29] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, several federal district courts have found in the late 1970's and early 1980's that the military's exclusionary policy against lesbian, gay and bisexual people is arbitrary and have ruled against it. The only appellate court to have considered this issue, however, ruled that this policy was within constitutional limits. [Boggan, Haft, et al, 1983] The lack of evidence, however, has not hampered the military's efforts to investigate, interrogate, and discharge people who are sexually attracted to members of their own gender, or those perceived to be such. The latter consideration is important, as many activists maintain that because women in the military are considered "mannish" by some military personnel since they are in a traditionally male field, they are discharged at a rate that is almost ten times that of discharges for men. [Lewin, 1988] In 1990 the Village Voice reported, "Some feminists charge that military women who don't respond to sexual responses from men may find themselves accused of being lesbian." [Wilkinson, 1990] The effects of the military's efforts can be devastating and long lasting. The New York City Human Rights Commission's Gay and Lesbian Discrimination Documentation Project issued a report which included a number of incidents involving the military which were indicative of the lasting effects these actions have on people's lives: Nov 84 Perceived as a lesbian/employment/army A married heterosexual woman called. She was discharged from the Army several years ago because she was perceived to be gay. She came back to the base after a "night on the town" and was so inebriated, she passed out in another woman's room. The next day she was brought up on charges of homosexuality. She related that at her trial the "proof" they offered of her lesbianism was the night in the other woman's room (she too was accused of being a lesbian); the way she smoked cigarettes; and the fact that she was from New York City. Since her dismissal, she has been denied several jobs after potential employers saw her military records. No jurisdiction. [p. 43] Apr 85 Gay/Employment/Military A 24 year old man called. He said that he'd had an excellent service record while in the Marines. However, he was harassed and dishonorably discharged after six years of service because it became known that he was gay. He said they had no actual evidence that he is gay, and he stated that the pivotal factors at his hearing were the testimony of a man whom he did not know, and the mention of "the type of clothes" he wore. He was extremely upset because he had dedicated himself to the Marines, had intended to make it his life career and now had to abandon that hope and was unable to obtain another job because of the dishonorable discharge. He also lost all eligibility for benefits which otherwise would have been his right because of his years of service. We could only give the man referrals for support since the military is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. [p. 62] This also affects students enrolled in Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs and military academies. James Holobaugh, an ROTC student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was kicked out of the program when it was discovered that he was gay. Adding insult to injury, the Navy attempted to bill Holobaugh over $35,000 for his tuition costs until several congressman openly criticized the Navy for its "mean-spiritedness". [Holobaugh, 1990] Joseph Steffan, a senior cadet at the United States Naval Academy had an impeccable academic record and was one of six battalion commanders. He earned his qualification pin in submarines, was accepted into the exclusive nuclear power program, sang the National Anthem on nationwide television for the annual Army-Navy game and performed as a solo tenor for the President and distinguished guests at a Christmas concert. Six weeks before graduating from the Academy, he was dismissed after he revealed to a friend that he was gay. Steffan estimates that the Navy spent in excess of 100,000 tax dollars to educate, house, feed, clothe and equip him, only to discharge him for his sexual orientation. [Wilkinson, 1990; Steffan, 1990] The issue of tax dollars being wasted is an important one to consider. According to a report obtained from the General Accounting Office by the American Psychological Association, an estimated 5,000 service members were discharged between 1985 and 1987 for homosexuality. Taking the average of 2,500 service members discharged annually, if one were to assume that the average expense paid per service member for housing, board, medical benefits, salary, and other expenses to be $60 thousand per annum (author's estimate), one arrives at the estimate that the U.S. invests $150 million each year on people who are systematically removed from service, unable to provide a return for that investment. There are additional costs involved: U.S. tax dollars pay the full costs for investigations, legal expenses, and all other administrative expenses to carry out this directive. While exact numbers are not readily available on these additional costs, Miriam Ben-Shalom, a Staff Sergeant in the Army Reserves who was kicked out for being a lesbian woman, estimates that it cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 million for all the expenses incurred to keep her out of the Reserves. One example expense that Ben-Shalom detailed was that each time her court case was heard, the military had to fly in a battery of lawyers from around the country at the taxpayers' expense. Changing this policy is apparently not as difficult as the Pentagon would have the public believe. Either President Bush or Secretary Cheney could issue an order to countermand the DoD's discriminatory policies. As was done when the order was made to integrate African-Americans into the military, social scientists could institute proactive educational and support programs to ease transitions and change prejudicial attitudes. The aforementioned Pentagon-commissioned study makes such a recommendation: Social science specialists helped develop programs for combating racial discrimination, so that now the military services are leaders in providing equal opportunity for black men and women. It would be wise to consider applying the experience of the past 40 years to the integration of homosexuals. [Sarbin and Karois, 1988; p. 25] In a letter to Secretary Cheney dated November 6, 1990, Stanley R. Graham, president of the American Psychological Association, wrote: Furthermore, we are aware that the policy decisions to integrate African-Americans and women into the military were not based on court orders, but were executive decisions that reflected both advances in social attitudes and the practical personnel needs of the services. For these same reasons, the American Psychological Association urges you to reverse the Department's discriminatory policy against homosexuals and begin the process of integrating openly lesbian and gay persons into the U.S. military, just as your predecessors undertook the process of integrating African-Americans and women. We understand the seriousness of such a decision and offer you the Association's support and assistance in making this important and just transition. It should be noted that there are a number of inconsistencies within the Pentagon's enforcement of the its own policy. Perry Watkins enlisted in the Army in 1968 and checked the "yes" box on the induction form asking if he had homosexual tendencies. He was questioned by an Army psychiatrist about his homosexuality, who determined that he was homosexual and suitable for military service. He officially requested three times to be let out of the army and was denied. On the fourth occasion that his homosexuality became an issue, it was the Army who sought to remove him. After convening a board of four officers, it was decided that there was no reason for Watkins to be discharged. Watkins then decided to continue his career in the Army, and was later denied. He sued and after a number of court appearances, on May 3, 1989, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army must allow Watkins to reenlist since it had always known about his homosexuality and had officially commended his performance throughout his fifteen years of service. Additionally, it has recently been revealed by the Advocate that a top spokesperson for the Pentagon was gay. Despite the revelation, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney has stated that this spokesperson will remain in his position. Cheney has stated that he sees no discrepancy with this, since the Pentagon spokesperson is a civilian and not a service member. He has also indicated publicly that he feels the policy is "a bit of an old chestnut" which he "inherited". Currently activists have been targeting the discriminatory policies of the military on a number of levels: letter writing campaigns to the President and the Secretary of Defense; protests at the Pentagon; petitions; campus protests targeting ROTC and military recruitment; and other actions are just a few examples of the mobilization that has been and continues to occur. Activists are also lobbying Congress members to support a Resolution introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Boxer (H.Res 271) and a companion Resolution introduced by Senator Brock Adams (S.Res. 236) which urges the President to take action an issue an Executive Order to rescind the military's discriminatory policy. Additionally, the second annual National Day of Action Against Discrimination (NDAAD) has been announced and efforts are underway to coordinate activists across the country to fight discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people in education, employment or provision of services. Formerly called the National Day of Coordinated Action Against Discriminatory Policies in ROTC, the NDAAD will take place on April 10, 1992, and will focus on three levels of discrimination: the military; colleges and universities that do not have sexual orientation anti-discriminatory policies; and businesses that discriminate against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Over 125 campus organizations participated on April 10th, 1991's National Day of Action, and a target has been set for 200 organizations participating nationwide in one of the largest such projects to take place in the lesbian, gay and bisexual civil rights movement. Further information regarding the National Day of Action Against Discrimination can be obtained by writing or calling: National Day of Action Against Discrimination P.O. Box 751 East Setauket, NY 11733 - 0751 Attn: Marc Gunning (516) 632 - 6709 Bibliography Bales, John (1991). DoD policy excluding gays blasted. The APA Monitor. 1 - 30. Berube, Allan (1990). Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II. New York: Free Press. Ben-Shalom, Miriam (1990). Personal account given at the "About Face: Combating ROTC's Anti-Gay Policy National Organizing Conference." Minneapolis: November 9, 1990. Boggan, E. Carrington; Haft, Marilyn G.; Lister, Charles; Rupp, John P.; Stoddard, Thomas B. (1983). The Rights of Gay People. New York: Bantam Books. 32 - 48. City of New York Commission on Human Rights. Gay and Lesbian Discrimination Documentation Project: Two Year Report on Complaints of Sexual Orientation Discrimination. November 1983 - October 1985. Graham, Stanley R. (1990). Letter to Secreatry of Defense Richard Cheney on behalf of the American Psychological Association. November 6, 1990. Greenberger, Phyllis (1991). Letter to Congressman Gerry Studds explaining the American Psychiatric Association's position on homosexuality and the armed forces. October 24, 1991. Holobaugh, James (1990). Personal account given at the "About Face: Combating ROTC's Anti-Gay Policy National Organizing Conference". November 9, 1990. Humphrey, Mary Ann (1988). My Country, My Right to Serve. New York: Harper Collins Publishing. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. and Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders and Company. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. and Martin, C. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders and Company. Lewin, Eric (1988). Gay groups suggest Marines selectively prosecute women. New York Times. December 4, 1988. 34. Mohr, Richard D. (1988). Gays / Justice. New York: Columbia University Press. 194 - 199. Murphy, Lawrence R. (1988). Perverts by Official Order. New York: Harrington Park Press. Sarbin, Thomas R. and Karois, Kenneth E. (1988). PERS-TR-89-002: Nonconforming sexual orientations and military suitability. Monterey: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center. Steffan, Joseph (1990). Personal account given at the University at Stony Brook. October 11, 1990. Wilkinson, Francis (1990) The gay cadet. The Village Voice. 24 - 31. . 4 - 31. - ----- End of forwarded message(s) ------- John E. Cereso ********** Chairperson, GLBSU * PINK * SUNY Fredonia ****** **** CERE5447@FREDONIA ** "Life is like a urinal, first it pisses all over you, then it flushes you out of existance"; JEC