Msg#:57870 *GLAAD* 04/02/93 22:59:00 From: CRAIG CANADA To: ALL Subj: HEARINGS - DAY 2 Dr. Marlowe Chief of Military Psychiatry Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Dr. Henderson former commander of the Army Research Institute Dr. Korb former Assistant Defense Secretary fellow of the Brookings Institute Henderson: The soldier must belong and belonging depends upon each member of the group playing his or her appropriate role while on duty. The profound interdependency that characterizes military groups is grounded in the need for extraordinary levels of interpersonal trust; common language, values and perceptions are the modes of communicating and expressing this trust. It is the foundation of that ultimately selfless and extraordinarily intimate agape-like non-erotic love that characterizes the primary military group in combat. In our work in both operation Just Cause and Operation Desert Storm we heard the same theme expressed over and over again, in squad after squad, in its simplest and most powerful form we were told, 'We are family. We are brothers. We can make it only because we have each other.' In all of our interviews as well as our quantitative data soldiers were agreed that the prolonged periods of living together with each other and their leaders, working together, training hard and becoming a family was critical to their ability to withstand the prolonged stresses of the Shield period - separation, heat, crowding, isolation - and also widely perceived as been critical to the extremely high level of effectiveness displayed when committed to combat. There was a widespread feeling that the high levels of cohesion and corporate skill achieved in the desert had been central to the absolute minimization of the number of casualties that U.S. ground forces had taken... ...I would offer the thought that technological advances, smaller forces, battlefield dispersal and the shift to enforce projection modality have made the continuing maintenance of highly cohesive military units more important to the future than they have even been in the past and immediate present. In the past in time of danger we have usually been, one way or another, afforded the luxury of time in which to create highly cohesive units to counterpunch or strike the enemy. When we have not had that luxury the results, as in the initial weeks of the Korean conflict have been disastrous for our soldiers. The speed with which events and their consequences now overtake us make it imperative that our forces be able to make an immediate transition from peace to war. High continuing levels of cohesion are critical to making that transition with maximum unit effectiveness and minimal short or long term negative effects on the mental health, physical health and performance of the soldier. Thurmond: ...the noted military scholar, S.L.A. Marshall, listed five factors which he says promote cohesion. According to Marshall, the following factors are essential to cohesion: 1) Members share common values and experiences. 2) Individuals conform to the group norms and behaviors. 3) Members give up individual identity in favor of a group identity. 4) Members develop a dependency on each other. 5) Group members must meet all standards of performance and behavior. Now whether we agree on these five factors or not, I think we will all agree that in order for a military unit to be successful it must function as a team. The soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines must view the unit almost as a family unit. The unit must be the source of positive things. It must establish and enforce performance and behavioral standards. It must provide an environment of mutual respect and trust.... Nunn: Let me start, Dr. Henderson, Dr. Marlowe, with a question. Dr. Korb has stated his view that the question of whether the presence of openly gay men and lesbians in the armed services would undermine fighting effectiveness cannot be answered definitively until the policy is actually changed. Do you have a view on that, Dr. Henderson? Henderson: I don't agree with that. I think we know enough now about what causes cohesion, what the requisites are for cohesion are and so on, that we can very accurately say what the effects would be if you introduced situations into a military unit. Nunn: What do you think the effects would be? Henderson: The effects would be far more substantial than Dr. Korb indicated. I think he greatly minimized the problems involved. He cited, for instance, the foreign military experiences and the race experience. If I can, I'll just take a minute to talk about those two bits of evidence. First of all when the armed forces were integrated racially, it was 1953 when it actually did happen. At that time the then equivalent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military leadership, approved of it. It was a military necessity and they approved of that integration. They, at that time did not think it would be disruptive to the extent that they could not deal with it. Also...only 31% of the soldiers felt that the services should not be integrated racially at that time, which is far different than we have today. And, I'll cite some of those statistics later today. Nunn: Dr. Korb, I believe, gave a figure that 80% of the white soldiers opposed that. You're saying 30%. Would you give your source and I'll ask Dr. Korb.... Henderson: I think he said sometime in 1943. And he said later it was down to 50 odd percent. But by '53 they'd gone down to 31%. Korb: What I said was in '43 it was 80%. By '51 it was 44% but I stopped there and he's right as the policy... Nunn: So we don't have a disagreement on numbers we've just got a time frame... Henderson: That's right. So what I'm saying is when it actually did happen, in '53, only 31% of soldiers were against it. And, as I say right now, in the homosexual issue, we're talking about 70-78% of the soldiers are strongly against it and I'll come to that in a moment. What you also find back then is that the American public changed it's attitude towards race very quickly. It was broached and there was a rapid change in American culture about race. And everybody eventually came around to integration is right very quickly. You don't find that in today's public about the homosexual issue. If you go back and look at the National Opinion Research Survey Council data that tracks these things over time - University of Chicago - 20 years ago 67% of the American public felt that homosexual lifestyle was always wrong. Today, in the last 20 years, its actually hardened somewhat. We have 71% of the American public today feels the homosexual lifestyle is always wrong. So, you don't see the movement on that homosexual issue that you saw in the racial issue previously. So that really makes it non-analogous as far as I can see. The other point that he made, I think, that supported his point was the foreign military experience. If you look at - I might preface my remarks by saying that last fall I visited Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Israel, Great Britain and talked at length with 40-odd former Soviet now Russian general Officers about personnel problems and, basically, how they deal with issues of equal opportunity and so on as opposed to the requirements of military necessity and readiness - and based on my discussions, and a lot of it is a matter of public record you can categorize most of those countries into two categories. You can take Canada, you can take Denmark, you can take The Netherlands and - based on what I learned, what they told me openly - they put a higher priority on equal opportunity and individual rights than readiness. The Danes will openly tell you that readiness is not a major consideration for them. The Dutch tell you that they have, in their decision process, they give more priority, as well as the Canadians, to individual rights. On the other hand, those countries that have recently undergone traumatic military experiences - in Israel, Russia and so on - put readiness, military necessity, as their priority. You mentioned, Dr. Korb, allies in Desert Storm. The French really don't have any policy against gays serving but the pressures are such that if they come out of the closet they are very quickly separated. The Israelis, informally, have very severe sanctions against open, homosexuals serving openly in their services. So, when you look at the foreign military experience, there really isn't much support there for gays or homosexuals serving openly in the military. Nunn: Okay, Dr. Henderson, let me get to Dr. Marlowe right now so I can stay within my time here. Marlowe: Thank you senator. Let me make a couple of observations. a) As a scientist I can't pontificate because we have never studied the impact of openly gay members in army units because we haven't sanctioned openly gay members in army units. I'd like us to stop thinking about armies, however, when we talk about this and go back to the building block. The issue will be what kinds of relationships can be established between the four men in a tank crew, the 8-10 men in an infantry squad, the artillery section, the team, the crew. When the general culture is ready for something then the army will reflect it. If the general culture is not ready for it we cannot expect that it will be reflected. b) The second point is the issue of I'm not quite sure what we mean by openly gay. If a homosexual identity is the primary thing that someone is going to present to the other 3 men in his tank crew, to the other men in his infantry squad rather than the identity of a soldier it's going to make cohesion and incorporation awfully difficult; if his statement is you've got to treat me as an 'A' before I'll behave as a 'B'. I think there are a great many issues involved here that haven't been carefully looked at and that we simply have to think about and it's both a more complex issue than we might think going into it but an issue that can only be resolved at the cellular level where soldier meets soldier... Thurmond: ...Colonel Henderson, based on your research and expertise on military units and cohesion, what do you think the impact of introducing openly homosexual personnel into small military units would be? Answer as briefly as you can. Henderson: Based on survey data that comes from two independent conducted surveys - Miller Moscoe's and also the Los Angeles Times survey where they conducted interview in over 38 military installations, all 3 services - you get these sorts of data. 78% of soldiers oppose allowing homosexuals into the military. 90% feel very strongly about the privacy issue. They're strongly against it on grounds of privacy. 74% of male soldiers believe homosexuality is abnormal. 75% believe gays serving openly in the army would be very disruptive to discipline. 81% think there would be violence against homosexuals if it did happen. This indicates to me that if you did that you would have severe disruption within these primary groups that we've been talking about that are so vital to cohesion in the vertical and the horizontal bonding [I prefer vertical bonding myself] that it'd be extremely difficult... Thurmond: Colonel Henderson, there have been some proposals to allow openly homosexual personnel to serve in the military but segregate them in certain types of units. In your opinion, is this a viable option and how might this affect cohesion? Henderson: I haven't studied that in any depth. My initial response would be I don't think it's a viable option because right away you run into fairness problems and so on. Thurmond: Dr. Korb, you have described how some police and fire departments allow homosexuals to serve openly and relate this to how a policy change might work within the military. While there may be some superficial similarities between the military and some civilian occupations, would you agree that there are core differences and these differences might weaken or invalidate these comparisons? For instance, men serving in submarines, men serving on ships, and men serving in fox-holes and in other capacities? Korb: Senator, I would agree that there are some differences, as I said in my statement, no situ - these are not perfectly analogous but I do think we can learn some things from them about unit cohesion, which is what we're here to talk about today, because you do have police and fire departments who have to go in harm's way. I also refer to the fact that, in some of the studies done, there is the question of privacy because in the locker rooms the police and fire departments do change but no situation is perfectly analogous. Thurmond: Dr. Marlowe, are you aware of cases of homosexuals openly serving on active duty? If so, what was the impact of their presence on cohesion? Marlowe: Senator, anecdotally I have come across cases in which homosexuals have openly served on active duty. The impact on cohesion depended upon two things: whether or not - let me say knowledge that people were homosexual - whether or not they brought overtly homosexual behaviors into the group, in which case the group extruded them, usually moved to have them put out of the army; or whether or not it was considered to be his private thing that is not exhibited while on duty. The response was very much dependent upon other factors as well relevant to the individual. The critical variable was did the individual behave homosexually in the group or restrict his behavior outside of the group and off post. Thurmond: Dr. Marlowe, what is the relationship between the advancement of technology and small unit cohesion? Is cohesion still important for high tech units or has it become less important? Marlowe: Senator, it is my profound belief that it has become much more important. High technology has created a far more decentralized battlefield in which small groups of soldiers work and operate invisibly and in quasi-isolation from each other. It is my belief, and I base this on observations of exercises, debriefings after combat, that it has maximized the need for groups to perceive absolute trust in their fellows... ...I think decentralization carries a greater symbolic and emotional need for high levels of cohesion rather than a lesser one and decentralization is the primary product of high technology. Kennedy: ...I want to reaffirm my support for President Clinton's leadership in seeking to break down the barriers of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military. The compromise fashioned by President Clinton in conjunction with Senator Nunn and the Joint Chiefs is a first essential step towards ending that discrimination. This struggle is the latest chapter in the great unfinished business of America, which truly is liberty and justice for all. This nation was founded on the principles of equality in opportunity. If we do not end discrimination where ever it exists in our society then America is not America. We have been here before. We will surely be here again. For our country the work goes on and now is our time to do it. The issue here is not whether gays will serve in our armed forces. They do, and often with great distinction. All members of this committee have acknowledged that. The issue is whether gays will have to lie about their private lives in order to be able to serve and risk their lives for the country they love. The task before us now is how best to move towards the complete integration of our armed forces in a sound and effective manner while reaching the shared and compatible goal of individual liberty and military efficiency. The military efficiency exists for the sake of liberty. Not for its own sake and we must never forget that. The purpose of our armed forces is not simply to defend a piece of geography but to protect a set of ideas and ideals. A military that denies those ideals defeats its own most basic purpose. While we cannot transform hearts and minds over night, if we have learned anything from long experience it is that changing policy is an essential step in breaking down barriers, changing attitudes and building a better nation. For example, it was once thought that black and white soldiers could not serve together. In fact, in 1945 testimony as delivered before _this_ committee stating that one of the surest ways to destroy the efficiency of the army was to integrate blacks and whites. In fact, I think my colleagues would be shocked to review the record of a half a century ago and just see how little the arguments for discriminations have changed. We're told in 1948 that integrating black and white members of the armed forces would raise insurmountable issues of cleanliness, health and morale. Some called it a perversion of the police and the power of the state. One of our colleagues testified [was this Thurmond?] in order to preserve segregation argued the incidence of syphilis, gonorrhea and all other venereal diseases is appalling; higher among members of the negro race than among members of the white race. General Omaha Bradely warned a congressional committee that complete integration might seriously affect morale and thus affect battle efficiency. Navy secretary Frank Knox warned Franklin Roosevelt men live in such intimacy aboard ship that we simply can't enlist negros above the rank of messmen. In fact, nevertheless, against strong resistance and threats of mass resignations we moved on the issue and proudly America moved forward. Today our best military sociologists refer to it as one of the great military success stories. More recently we were told that if women served along side men our military would be impaired but once again, adopting a policy of justice, we improved our armed services and our society as a whole. This is the American journey at its finest; from slavery of millions towards the full equality of all. We must not be deterred now from taking the next step. It's time to shift the focus from status to misconduct. There are thousands of cases of sexual misconduct against women by men in the armed forces with uncertain abjudications. In fact, studies show that women in the armed forces are more than twice as likely to experience sexual harassment than women in civilian life. Instead, our military has found the time and resources to remove 16,000 gays and lesbians at a cost of nearly a half a billion dollars over the last 12 years. These priorities are simply wrong. We can pursue sexual harassment in the military by both homosexuals and heterosexuals and not adopt a litmus test based on status. It is through leadership, training, discipline and a strict code of conduct that both sexual harassment and hate crimes of all kinds can be appropriately and severely dealt with. It's time for the armed forces to stop discriminating against anyone because of _who_ they are and what they do in their private life. So, today we revisit the issue of unit cohesion which we all agree is the essential aspect of military readiness and while the concept of cohesion may be difficult to define there's no doubt that effective leadership and the ability to get the job done define it's core. It is this which is essential to making a good solider and it is this which our committee should do all it can to support and encourage. Condoning prejudice is an appalling means to unit cohesion. Whatever name discrimination takes, it ought to be exposed and rooted out. Change is never easy but this change is just another way for our armed forces to stand for freedom and I believe our women and men in uniform are equal to this battle. So, let us proceed now in the knowledge that someday when history looks back at this time we will be measured as others have been before us. The questions are fundamental. Will we stand in the tradition of Lincoln? Will we stand with A.P. Randolph? Martin Luther King? Betty Friedan? Ceasar Chavez? John Kennedy? Harry Truman? Lindon Johnson? With all of them and so many others that have widened the frontiers of freedom? Will we stand with the past or the future? And so, the question comes to us. It is this year that this committee, this congress and this country must answer the call to liberty... ...I just had at this time a question for the panel. Dr. Henderson, you and Dr. Marlowe have stated that the core values, and I quote, common to any first rate army are fighting skill, professional teamwork, physical stamina, self discipline, duty (selfless service), respect for unit leaders and loyalty to the unit. I'd be interested if each of the panelists can tell us which of these values may not apply or be embraced by gay or lesbian soldiers. And, how do you know. And, tell us any research or fact basis for your belief. Henderson: When recruits come into the service they don't come into the service with those values. What happens in the military, they are put through an intense resocialization process to achieve those values and give primary loyalty to those values you just mentioned. To get to that point, and I think this is the essence of what most of us have been saying here, to get to the point to arrive at those values you've got to have commonality in group goals. You've got to have the subordination of the individual values to the group so that they can be resocialized into those group values. If you have gross, widespread dissimilarities in your initial population of recruits you're an extremely difficult difficult time in achieving that resocialization process. You're going to have fragmentation. You're going to have personal conflict and so on. So, basically, what I'm saying is that if you do have severe differences in values in a group, you're never going to be able to achieve the levels of performance in those values you just listed. Korb: I disagree completely. I think if you take a look at the court record of those who have been asked to leave the military without a behavioral situation, just because they've been discovered in terms of asking a question on a security clearance or they happen to make a remark that's picked up by the press, these men and women - and I think at least one of them is here, Colonel Cammermeyer, I say a reservation for her back there, I can't see if she's there - have embraced all of these values and then some. When I went to Colonel Cammermeyer's hearing for her administrative discharge the prosecutor, if you will, or whoever was presenting the government's case, told me outside, he said, I don't believe in this but I'm being forced to do this. When the hearing ended, basically what the panel said is we want to keep you. We have no choice. These are the regulations but if they ever change the regulations we want you back. And, the two star general that was forced to discharge her basically cried when he had to do it. Now all of these people felt that she embraced the same values that they did. I went down to Lieutenant, Jr. grade, Tracey Thorne's administrative hearing and I was prevented by the Navy from even taking the stand and they had his squadron mates get up there and talk about what a fine naval aviator he was and they talked about how, in fact, they were proud to serve with him and he had not undermined unit cohesion. So, I reject completely any inference that gay men and women do not embrace the values of the military which is the desire to serve one's country and to deal with all enemies foreign and domestic. I think, in the military, as I said in my testimony, we have people with various backgrounds and various views on every issue but there's nothing that good leadership can't withstand in the way of getting the correct values to perform effectively in battle. And, again I refer to the articles by General Truscott talking about specific instances of people serving under fire in Korea in a small unit with people knowing that they were gay. And, in the article by Richard Goodwin in the Los Angeles Times about people that he had served with in World War II. So, I don't think that there's any reason why, with proper leadership and training as well as training of the other members of the group as we've done to deal with problems caused by the integration of women and blacks, that you cannot achieve the cohesion. In fact, I know we already do. Marlowe: Senator, first let me say that I know of no research on the specific issue you're asking about. Extrapolating from what we do know, I would only make the following observation and I'm repeating myself, it will depend entirely upon the way in which the individual presents him or her self to the group and the primary identity that the individual interacts with the group with. If that identity is soldier hewing to the values of soldier and behaving to the standards of soldier I think you have one set of issues. If the individual insist upon being treated first and foremost in terms of a different primary identity, as happened in Viet Nam in terms of drug using, as has happened in any number of cases, then I think we have another problem. So I think what we do get down to is the question that I would ask that puzzles me, which is, frankly, what role does open proclamation of gender preference have in terms of service as a soldier. I haven't been able to find an answer for that question that satisfies me... Cohen: ...Dr. Henderson, you indicated that in 1953 we went from a [unclear] integration at that time in the services. Correct? Were they following President Truman's lead or was this something the military initiated on its own? Henderson: As I understand, President Truman directed the military in 1948 to begin to investigate the need to go ahead and integrate. By 1953, the military had come around to that viewpoint and accepted it. Cohen: So a fair statement would be it was presidential leadership at that time that at least provided the impetus for a change in attitude that was reflected by the military. Henderson: If you read the history, and I think there's agreement on this, that military necessity at the time in terms of manpower needs, caused the military leadership at the time to say that we need to do this. Cohen: Well, military necessity and presidential leadership. And, I might point out, as I recall, Dr. Marlowe, you indicated that social attitudes towards African-Americans, other minorities, might change or were changing at that time compared to the attitude of society toward gays right now. But as I recall, back in 1954, we the Supreme Court that also came down on Board against Brown - Brown against Board of Education that mandated the integration of our educational institutions. So we had a president and a Supreme Court that was reflecting Constitutional or social policy at that particular time. Is that correct? Marlowe: That is correct. The other thing I would point out is that overwhelmingly the states of the Union at that time were non-segregated and the army was reflecting the policies of the former Confederacy rather than the entire nation. Cohen: Dr. Korb, you've talked about your evolutionary opinions on women in the military. Women are discriminated against today, are they not, in the military? Korb: That's correct. Unfortunately. Cohen: They are not allowed on board submarines? Korb: That's correct. Cohen: They are not allowed aboard aircraft carriers and such? Korb: That's correct. Cohen: They are not allowed to engage in land combat? Korb: That's correct. Cohen: Is there a rational basis in your mind for discriminating against women in these capacities? Korb: Not in my mind, senator. Even when I was in office I testified before the house that we ought to drop the combat restrictions. I applaud the Congress after the Persian Gulf for having dropped the restriction on women in air combat and as you know, we had the presidential commission on women and they recommend allowing women to go to sea in everything but submarines. Cohen: So you can find no basis whatsoever for separating the sexes in small quarters in a military capacity? Should there be separate facilities for women on board submarines or aircraft carriers? Korb: I think there already are separate facilities... Cohen: Should there be? Korb: I think there should be. Cohen: Why? Korb: Well, because of the way in which a society expects us to separate people. Cohen: But why? What would be the rational basis for society demanding a separation of the sexes? Korb: I think it's based upon the moral values that we have. Cohen: Does it have to do with sexual attraction of male and female? Korb: Certainly, that's one component of it. Cohen: Is that something that would lead to an undermining of unit cohesion and readiness? Korb: Well, some of the research shows that when people are out in the field for long periods of time, they begin, and I think quote Charlie Moscoes on this, that over time the service members adopted an attitude of 'let them look'. The soldiers of different sexes readily adapt to loss of privacy when they're in the field for a long period of time. Cohen: So it's your position, then, that women should be engaged in land combat as well? Korb: I see no reason. The Canadians have dropped that restriction. Cohen: And the fact that there might be physical differences between male and female in armed or hand-to-hand combat would be not a rational basis in your judgement. Korb: Well, obviously I don't think anybody should be involved in hand-to-hand combat unless he or she can meet the prerequisites of being able to deal with hand-to-hand combat. Cohen: You've indicated there's been an evolutionary change in our society with regard to our attitude toward the minorities and also women. Should there be an evolutionary policy with respect to our attitude toward gays in the military? Should this be a policy of evolution that we not take total action today as opposed to allowing our social policies to evolve to that degree. Korb: As I look at the data, over the 80s the opinion polls showed steadily increasing support for allowing gays and lesbians in the military. When president Clinton made his campaign promise, during the campaign it was not really an issue. As far as I know there was no data to say that people held that against him. Now, after the inauguration and the publicity on the issue the opinions began to swing back against it and right now its almost too close to call. It's somewhere around 47% on each side. Cohen: Let me ask you. If we were to lift the ban against homosexuals serving in the military, should there be a policy that would prevent a display of gay lifestyle? Korb: I think that we do need appropriate standards of behavior and we have to do as the Canadians are doing and the Australians are doing, work our way through this on a case by case basis to insure that we don't do anything that undermines military cohesion. Cohen: Do you end up with a situation in which you're allowed to be gay and be in the military but not display? Korb: Again, I think one would have to ask the question of what form that display took. Cohen: Let's assume, hypothetically, it took place either on base or off base with displays of affection at an NCO club. Korb: I think if you're off base that's one's private conduct. That should have no bearing at all. Cohen: On base? Korb: I think on base we would have to develop certain regulations. If I may, senator, during the 80s we had a very big debate before this committee and the congress about allowing chaplains to wear headgear and that was a big debate and actually there was congressional legislation to overturn the military's policy that prevented rabbis and emans from wearing appropriate headgear. Nunn: Thank you very much senator Cohen. The only thing, I'd like to get back at some point Dr. Korb to this off-base/on-base 'cause I think this is an important area and right now there are all sorts of military jurisdiction over personnel conduct off-base, so I want to get back to that and see how you would handle the existing DUIs and the existing all sorts of regulations off-base. Senator Glenn. Glenn: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think the issue that was raised the other day about whether there is a right to be in the military, I think we should comment on again. I don't feel there is a right. We keep people out because of height, weight, lack of education. A lot of other things, so there's a not a right as I see it. Military exist for one reason. That is they have to fight. And, may have to represent us all and we want to do that with getting the fewest people killed that we possibly can do. {repetitious and redundant mouthing about boot camp} Marlowe: What we do, really, in one sense, is very simple. It is to demonstrate to young people who come in from the highly individualistic self-serving, if you will, society that we live in - the me generation and the personal view - into members of a group with the profound understanding that their survival, their success, their achievement - and the army does this through a program of continual successful achievement in basic training and advanced individual training - is profoundly bound up in their relationships with and their interdependence with the other members of the group... I guess the best way to put it is that in years in which we worked, looking at basic training, the only soldiers who had ever had anything equivalent in terms of understanding the nature of group and being part of a group were people who had been on football teams or in bands. It is not a common experience in the United States anymore. I think, once again we get to the issue of what kind of role model the people who create the behaviors and the expectation will bring to the environment. And, that for me would be the primary behavioral issue if we're going to talk about this in terms of gays in the military. What kind of role model is being presented? How are they behaving? I have seen over the years a number of instances, for example, in which drill sergeants, drill instructors have abused the power that they had, the terribly asymmetric power that they have in terms of trainees, in terms of women. And have come pretty close to destroying commitment to the institution and the group on the part of their trainees. So, I think the real issue, again, comes down to what kind of role model is being presented. What kind of behavior will one see. Glenn: ...What if we have a gay drill sergeant? Marlowe: Again, I think we have the question of what is the behavior being exhibited by that drill sergeant. What is the model that we want or that he is prepared to present to the young people who he has charge of between 16-20 hours a day? He is with them continuously. He is the most important figure in their lives. They begin by hating him and wind up at the end of 8 weeks worshiping him and wanting above all things to be just like him. Glenn: Colonel Henderson, would you comment...? Henderson: I think the basic techniques are isolation. First you take these new recruits and you isolate them. You put tremendous pressure on them in terms of schedule, lack of sleep, intense training requirements. And then you reward them through their need for recognition, esteem and so on. And through that process you get this resocialization, these new values that we're talking about earlier. And at the same time you build a tremendously strong vertical bonding between the soldier and the leadership. And now if you take that process and put that in terms of what impact are we going to have if we insert homosexuals into this process as leaders and soldiers, and Dr. Korb has referred to it essentially as a strong leadership problem, that would tremendously complicate the process that was described. You'd have to have something like sensitivity sessions, or what have you. Sensitivity sessions are extremely non-useful. Very limited usefulness. They basically serve notice on what behavior and attitudes are not approved. In terms of changing basic values they're not very useful. You're going to charge the leadership with taking these new recruits and telling them that the values they learned on this issue, in church or Sunday school or from their parents or friends are wrong. You have to go 180 degrees the other way. That is putting the military force in the forefront of major sociological change in this country for those people coming in the service and that is not the military's job. Glenn: Larry, would you comment? My time is up but would you comment also on this... Korb: Well, I think we, as has been well expressed, we have a socialization process and we develop a team but I would like to comment on a couple of things that was said in passing. If, in fact, that drill sergeant had a specific sexual orientation, what impact would it have? Well, before that person could be a drill sergeant, they would have had to perform in the service. They would have had to accept the values of the service and we're very careful about the people who become drill sergeants 'cause we recognize the tremendous power that they have and I assume all of that would be done ahead of time. There's also the question about moral values and I think this is really key. We a diverse nation. We don't impose any code of morality on any particular group. The scientific evidence is leaning in the direction, and more and more studies, that having a homosexual sexual orientation is inherited rather than learned behavior. And, I refer you on this to James Michner's wonderful article yesterday in the New York Times, when he quoted from Leviticus which a lot of people refer to in saying that homosexual behavior is immoral and the person should suffer some tremendous punishment. As Mr. Michner pointed out, if you've read the rest of Leviticus, lots of things we do today, like dishonoring our parents, would also be subject to the pain of death. So I think it's very important to get to this moral issue because I know that there are some people who believe that having a gay or lesbian sexual orientation is immoral. I simply reject that point of view. I understand why they hold it but I think when a person comes into the service he cannot bring his or her moral values whether they relate to this subject or divorce or lots of other things. I mean, supposing that drill sergeant were divorced and you had a group of people who were raised, as I was as a Roman Catholic. How do we handle that? Nunn: Senator McCain is recognized. McCain: Dr. Korb, on July 27, 1992 on the Larry King show in response to a question by Mr. King you said according to the Pentagon's own studies done done in Monterrey approximately 200,000 people in the military are homosexual. What study are you referring to? Korb: PerSerEct (?) Studies sir. McCain: Conducted when? Korb: They were conducted, they started in 1985 when the Pentagon was concerned about the fact that a lot of people with security clearances actually ended up being convicted as spies. For example, the Walkers... McCain: Dr. Korb we have made a study of all of those studies and we can't find that. I hope you'd supply it for the record... Korb: I would be more to McCain: ...because we cannot find that information. And, in response also to another question from Mr. King, you said when I tried to raise the issue - meaning that of homosexuals in the military - I was told there was no way the president would ever back it so what we decided to do was to do studies to find out, in fact, if there was a problem. The studies were completed in 1988. They were done by the Pentagon's own research unit out at Monterrey and they basically said you have no empirical evidence for keeping the policy. We suggest that you consider changing it. What study are you talking about. Korb: These are the same PerSerEct studies. McCain: Are you talking about the 1991 PerSerEct study that you referred to in your statement? Korb: That's part of it but these studies came out over a period of years beginning, the drafts first circulated in 1989. McCain: But Dr. Korb, I have both of those and the one in '89 says, and I quote, this paper primarily addresses the 3rd question. Specifically, this paper attempts to address the question 'How do homosexuals differ from heterosexuals in background characteristics relative to security suitability. Thus, this paper has a narrow focus and does not address all questions concerning the suitability of homosexuals from employment in positions that require national security clearances. In the 1991 study, which you specifically refer to in your opening statement, Dr. Korb, you're opening statement you say Professor Theodore Scharman (?) co-author of the 1991 PerSerPect study for the U.S. military etc. In this study, in the preface, it says this work does not deal with the Department of Defense policy that excludes homosexuals from military service. It was strictly confined to security clearances. Dr. Korb, you're being a bit disingenuous when you're saying that this was a study concerning homosexuals in the military when they specifically and categorically state in the opening of the study that you refer to that it DOES NOT address that issue. Korb: Senator, if I may, I quoted the author of the study. I didn't say he said it in the study. I said that he is the co-author. He stated, when asked about this. I'd also point out that the earlier drafts of those studies were rejected by Craig Alderman who was then the deputy under-secretary. And he sent them back and he said you covered an area I didn't want you to cover throw this stuff away. So I saw the earlier drafts of those studies and I'd be happy to supply them for the record if you'd like. McCain: I'm sure I'd be very happy to see those Dr. Korb but you and I also know that there's thousands of drafts that are made and if we rely on drafts we obviously end up in a very complicated situation. The fact is, your reference both on Larry King's show and on this show does not point out the fact that neither one of these studies, that both of these studies specifically point out that they are not addressing the issue of gays in the military. So, that's a fact. Korb: No, I would beg to differ with you senator. They weren't a draft. They were the earlier versions and they were told, actually, to throw them away and come back with a completed version because, as Craig Alderman said in that letter, this is not the subject we asked you to address. And I would suggest that you get the people who worked on that study here to tell you exactly what happened. McCain: I think we could do that Dr. Korb but your statements clearly indicate that these studies substantiate your conclusion when these studies, the final studies, do not have anything to do with that. Dr. Korb, you mentioned that countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military, such as Israel, Canada, Netherlands and Australia say that they have not experienced problems that have undermined morale and cohesion. Obviously, I think it would be important to point out that its only been a few months that Canada has been embarked on this experiment. Now, as far as Israel's concerned, I've got several quotes here about the state of the situation in Israel. Ruben ? former chief psychology for the Israeli defense force says, "Where we stand today is still far, far behind where the U.S. stood even in the early 70s. While no conscript is asked about sexual preference, anyone who says he is gay or suspected of being gay is referred to a mental health officer for psychological testing." It goes on to say, "There will be an indicator in his file that limitates him from serving with specific units such as intelligence or in small units where the closeness of living accommodations are so tight and limited it may create problems. They won't send him to a submarine, for example...they're not allowed to serve in positions requiring top secret clearances, including any work with codes." Is that what you had in mind when you were talking about how Israel allows homosexuals in the military? Is that what you had in mind? Korb: Well, if you take a look at the Israeli experience, the Israelis still have a policy which, as Secretary of Defense Cheney said, is an old chestnut. There is a feeling in Israel that homosexuals are security risks. At one time, this was the stated position of the U.S. government. So, obviously, they then don't give people the clearances. As Secretary Cheney said, that's an old chestnut. We no longer have that particular policy. And it is true, as I can read you a quote from the New York Times that, "Some homophobic Israeli commanders are thought to harass homosexuals or deny them promotions. Many gay Israeli soldiers in turn seek transfers to bases where they can work during the day and sleep at home. But some commanders so value their gay soldiers that they try to block such transfers." McCain: Would you support a policy where if a person who is gay or suspected of being gay is referred to a mental health officer for psychological testing? Korb: Not unless their behavior indicated. Not on status alone. McCain: Then you would not agree with the Israeli policy? Korb: I would not agree because at one time during WWII that was the policy of the United States, that people who were gays were referred to the psychiatrist to see if they could, quote/unquote be set back correctly. McCain: Finally, Mr. Chairman I know my time is up, you're quoted in the New York Times as saying, "People who are opposed to the initiative know what opinions are and they take a survey to support their point of view. To say we'll love to do this but see, we'll have this problem. Nobody would give a damn what the troops thought if the military's leaders backed the policy." You're speaking for yourself there, sir. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Nunn: Thanks Senator McCain. Senator Bingaman. Bingaman: In your statements, Dr. Korb, you have a statement which I believe is self-evident and I assume all three witnesses would agree with it. It says that research tells us that the more dissimilar the group, the more difficult will be the task of trying to create unit cohesion. I just ask the other two witness if they have any problem with that statement. If that's true, then essentially what we're saying is that the decision to allow African-Americans into the service was deleterious to unit cohesion as you define it. Is that correct? Does everybody agree with that... Henderson: Yes, but I would qualify my answer. The issue of comparing race and the gay issue are not analogous. One, as I said earlier, one is more deeply held. One is physiological in basis. The other is a learned bias. The population at the time in the military was not very strongly against, as I said earlier, against race. The population in the military today is very strongly against it. Bingaman: Let me ask you a question about this because I think we get down to this issue of values. In a book that you've written on the subject, Dr. Henderson, entitled 'Cohesion' you have a two sentence statement in there that I'd like to get your reaction to or comment on. You say, "Another ethnic situation that might become more significant for the U.S. army is the growing Hispanic population in the United States and its distinctly pro-community, non-military tradition and Spanish speaking values. Again, intense resocialization and policies that maintain army and national values, after initial training, offer the best methods of achieving values that promote unity and cohesion." I guess my question is what - I'm having trouble understanding what Spanish speaking values are. My state is one where about half the people are Hispanic and most of our medal of honor winners, I believe, have been Hispanic. What do you see as Spanish speaking values and how do you see that as making more difficult the job of cohesion in the military? Henderson: I think, perhaps, you're reading too much into that statement. The main point there is that the main requirement to building cohesion is the ability to communicate amongst members of the small group. A small group has to be able to talk to each other. They have to be able to figure out what each other's about. What their values are and so on. The Hispanic community does maintain its Spanish speaking characteristic for a long time in this country. What I'm saying, basically, is that you've got to be able to communicate in a small group to get the cohesion necessary. If one group does not speak English, does not speak and communicate its ideas in English adequately, you're going to have difficulty creating cohesion. That's basically what I'm making. Bingaman: I thought that's something that the military determined when they let people in, that they could speak English at an adequate level that they could serve... Henderson: That's what I'm saying. And those Hispanic soldiers that speak English very well do very well in the military. They're able to communicate. So don't misread what I'm saying there. Korb: Senator, on that subject, unit cohesion, I think if you look at the example of the Navy which in the early 70s, some 25 years after president Truman issued his executive order, they were still having problems assimilating blacks, as I mentioned. You had the race riots on board the KittyHawk and you had a near mutiny on the Constellation and I might mention we were at war at the time and so these were quite serious incidents. As a result of this, Admiral Zoomwalt, a very courageous chief of naval operations, brought all the Admirals to Washington and he informed them that their careers hung on how rapidly they improved conditions for blacks. And he ordered mandatory seminars on race relations for all officers. And subsequent to that, and I was part of this up at the Navy War College, the Navy made tremendous progress in this area but it did cause cohesion problems in the Navy, even as late as the early 70s. Bingaman: So, as I understand at least your position Dr. Korb, is that whenever you make the group more dissimilar, it undermines cohesion to a degree and the question is, is that something that is justified in order to pursue other goals? Korb: My position is, can that be remedied with proper leadership and education. Bingaman: Dr. Marlowe, do you have a point of view on that? Marlowe: No. I can only say that history demonstrated that there were, indeed, problems with cohesion following the integration of African-Americans into the military. The Defense Race Relations Institute was set up. A large number of EEO programs was set up in the army. Every unit had an EEO NCO. It took years of work for the military to reach the point that it's at now. Certainly, in the Army, well ahead of the rest of the country in terms of racial integration. But to say that this was accomplished easily and without a significant amount of pain and dislocation would be foolish. Coats: Thank you Mr. Chairman and blah blah. I was particularly struck Dr. Marlowe by the similarity of small unit cohesiveness, how critical it is to military success. How important it is to the safety of the young men and women that we ask to serve in the military and the results of Desert Storm that designated it. Particularly, Dr. Marlowe, the results that you outlined. In listing the elements that make up a successful unit that is cohesively bonded together, you both discussed a sharing of cultural values, similarities. In fact, if I could quote from you, Mr. Henderson, you indicated that in terms of the vertical cohesion that the respect and the sharing of values between the troops and its leader and visa versa was critical. In fact, you even said the most potent source of leader's power is his ability or her ability to cause the soldier to identify with the leader. "Successful officers and non-commissioned officers in cohesive units relay a strong sense of personal care, competence and security to their soldiers," which relive soldier anxiety. You quoted from research published in 1985 that the key to achieving this quality of leadership, this similarity of values among leaders. You talked about the importance of the fact that the leader often approaches the stature of a loved and respected parent. And then I think one of you, I'm not sure which one, described this almost in terms of agape love. Not agape love, meaning none-erotic love. That's a very powerful bond and I think what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that that bond - there's a direct correlation between that and unit effectiveness. And in Desert Storm there's a direct correlation between the reduction of the number of casualties. Am I basically on target there? Now, let's say we interject into that small unit, the element of sexual attraction. Sexual desire between two people. Let's not describe their gender at this point but just between two people. What does introduction of sexual attraction, the erotic, not the agape but the erotic love, do to that cohesion and whether it's among the unit, the soldiers in the unit, or between the leader, perceived with the leader or the soldier. What does that do to that? Marlowe: If I may sir, it destroys it. And I think we have seen this happen on a heterosexual basis in units in which erotic love between a leader and a soldier has been introduced. Coats: Why does that destroy it? Marlowe: Because of the implications which can never be kept out of favoritism, of differential behavior, of differential reward. In World War I, I think, it's Robert Graves who describes the platonic homophilia of a young British officer coming through the public school system and watching officers on the Western Front develop crushes on enlisted men and the extraordinarily destructive effect this had as it became public. I'm not sure whether it's Graves or Spender. The way in which other members of the unit responded. X never goes on patrol because he's the captain's darling. And, the relationship had no sexual consummation. They would never contact or touch. Just the sense of the interjection of an erotic special view of one person by the other was enough to damage the unit. Coats: And you use the same term that General Schwarzkopf used when asked this similar question, he said it would destroy. Others have said undermine, but General Schwarzkopf said destroy and as a psychiatrist who has studied the issue, you're saying it would destroy that cohesiveness that you described as the key critical element to success.. Marlowe: I think it would go a long way to it. By the way, I'm not a psychiatrist senator, I'm a social anthropologist. I want that on the record. Coats: Dr. Henderson? Henderson: In answer to your generic question, what is the effect of sex on unit effectiveness, it's interesting to note that the Roper poll surveyed soldiers that returned from Desert Storm. Of those soldiers in units that had mixed gender units, men and women in the same unit, 45% of those soldiers said that sexual activity was a significant degrading factor in military effectiveness. So, sex does have a negative effect on military effectiveness. Coats: Is that the basis, then, for segregating men in close living situations. Henderson: Well, you have other issues too. You have privacy issues. Coats: But it the sexual attraction - tension - that could either undermine or destroy the unit, that is the basis for separate living quarters. Henderson: I would say that's a major basis, yes. Coats: Now is it not, almost by definition, isn't homosexuality or proclaimed homosexuality, by definition, a sexual desire or interest in someone of the same sex? Is there any dispute for that? Therefore, by putting homosexuals in with heterosexuals, you are introducing that same element of what, Dr. Marlowe, you just described, into the small unit. Is that not correct? Marlowe: Of the potentially erotic, yes. Coats: And therefore, the presence of that, as you said, Dr. Marlowe, could destroy the unit. Marlowe: It could if it's acted on senator. Coats: Is the perception that it might be acted on, or the favoritism, or the distrust that might result from that, cause you also talked about respect, identity, shared values between the troops and it's leader as being key to that cohesiveness. Marlowe: Senator, I have great respect for soldiers. I think the critical issue would be is the leader exhibiting behavior that would lead to that interpretation. Coats: Is it reasonable... Nunn: Mr. Coats, I'm afraid your time has expired. Senator Exon. Exon: I'd like to get, maybe a better, your definition of some of the definitions that we have seen throughout your statements and, with the questions here this morning. Dr. Henderson, I notice on page four of your statement you say, "Then the group can be expected to expel or somehow separate then non-conforming individual." Now what do you mean by a non-conforming individual? Obviously, first place, you're talking about a homosexual. That would be a non-conforming individual under your interpretation, is that correct? Henderson: Possibly, yes. Exon: POSSIBLY? Henderson: If I can put that remark and my statement into context, in combat, any situation, any isolation, any deviation from the group norms that threatens the survival of the group is acted upon by the group very rapidly. The whole concept of cohesion takes on added sharpness in a combat situation where survival is at stake so any perceived behavior, any perceived value, what have you, that threatens the group is acted upon and that individual is isolated, rejected, expelled from the group by any number of means. Exon: I think, probably, then you answer verifies what I though you were saying, although when you said possibly a homosexual would be a non-conforming individual - let me press you a little further for some details on that. Would a mal-content who was a heterosexual under those combat situations you outlined, would a mal-content effect the cohesiveness of the unit in combat? Especially the small units that I thought you concentrated on very well in your statement? Henderson: A malcontent who is obviously mal-content in opposition to group values would. That's right. Exon: But, under what has been "norm" in or military service, the mal-content who is a heterosexual could conceivably do as much damage to the cohesiveness of that unit that you referenced but the mal-content could not and would not be discharged from the service but a known homosexual could and would be? Is that right? Henderson: Mal-contents are often discharged under provisions for unsuitability. It's got nothing to do with homosexuality so a mal-content who is unsuitable can be discharged from the service. If I can... Exon: Certainly, I'm trying to expand on this. To get what I'm saying is that I really believe, although my opening statement here on Monday indicated my preference on this whole matter, I do think we have to take a look at the overall situation and let me follow up this way. It's quite clear to me from your opening statement, Dr. Henderson, that you would prefer and you are recommending, certainly, that we continue the former policy of once a homosexual is established they should be dismissed from the service? Henderson: I think that the problem of having homosexuals serve openly, to the extent it becomes a divisive cleavage point in small units where it presents cohesion problems, that sort of situation will prevent those units from reaching the highest levels of combat performance necessary. You cannot have that sort of achievement performance and homosexuals serving openly at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. Exon: Let me phrase the question another way and I would like each of the members of the panel to put aside what are your fundamental beliefs in this area and ask each one of you that if the Congress and the president got together and dictated that we do not want nor do we think it's proper to discharge from the service a homosexual who is serving properly and has caused no difficulty, what kind of a code of military justice do you think and how could we form a code of military justice [that] would allow homosexuals who are not open and avowed homosexuals, what kind of a code of military justice do you think we could form or do you think we could form one that would give some protection to the homosexuals who cause no difficulty and serve with great distinction? Nunn: Senator Exon, could you clarify one point so we'll know the answer and then make sure - are you saying that if being openly gay and lesbian is where we move in policy then what kind of code of conduct or are you saying where you keep the prohibition on being open gay and lesbian. Which? Exon: I have said earlier that I do not believe open gays in the military will work. What I'm trying to get to, Mr. Chairman, the question is, if a person, if a homosexual is not open and does not flaunt...[tape ends] Korb: ...opinion is split on this issue. During the 80s, support for dropping the ban, and particularly for not throwing people out of the service who were discovered to be homosexuals who were performing well, increased. When this debate erupted, public opinion began to swing back and forth and it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 47-42 for or against it according to the latest polls. Faircloth: Are you honestly telling me that you can equate lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military with the same level of importance as the wake up time, curfews and work schedules, is that what you're saying. Korb: No, I'm not saying that senator. What I'm saying is that if in fact you say we can't do this even though we would like to, because the troops are against it, I think that you then, to be consistent, would have to say if the troops are against it we can't do this or we can't do that. We made a discovery when we went to the volunteer military. The army first slogan was that the army want's to join you and what we basically did is, it darn near did us in, was try and conform the military's values to societies values and that's the point I was trying to make. That you do not poll the troops about issues that you feel are right to do. Nunn: Thank you senator Faircloth. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that all members in the room have had one round. Dr. Marlowe, you but a lot of emphasis on behavior and you distinguish between behavior, I believe you're distinguishing between behavior and thought. There is a provision in the regulations now that talks about someone's desire. That seems to me to get into mind reading and I don't know how that is enforceable or whether it even should be enforceable but there are other parts that get into intent and that's a little different under the law, but you also seem to be saying, you mention you agree with Charlie Moscoe, you seem to be coming down pretty close to the temporary policy we have now, if I'm reading you correctly. That is, ask no questions and no one has to give any answers. But, how do you judge someone who stands up and says, 'I am gay' or 'I am lesbian'? Now, is that status or is that, in your term, behavior? Marlowe: That is behavior. Speaking is behavior. The question that I would have to ask, looking at the group that person is a member of, is what are the consequences of that act for the group. How would people respond to that. Nunn: But you don't consider that status. You consider that behavior. Marlowe: I consider that behavior. Nunn: Do you distinguish between that and if someone were asked by their commander without volunteering, 'Are you gay or lesbian'? Marlowe: Yes. Nunn: You make a distinction there. Marlowe: I make a distinction between that because, you know, while there is no real distinction between them, under the present regulations, when the commander asks that question there are very severe consequences for the answer one way or another. Nunn: Dr. Korb, you equate, you made a fundamental distinction between what your view is on the civil rights, you said you do not believe that is an analogy in terms of civil rights and the homosexual discrimination. Am I readin' you right on that? Korb: Well, what I'm saying is I thing it is wrong to compare the two situations and say they are perfectly analogous. I think there is a difference and I can understand the concern of many African-Americans who say because I was discriminated against, now you got to say I got to allow gays in. I think there's some similarities in the sense of what we're talking about is a change to the social composition of the military but I do not think that you can equate them. Nunn: Do you believe, and you've mentioned, all of you have mentioned the fact that there was some unit cohesion disruption during the racial transition into a racially integrated military, and all of you, and I would certainly agree with this, indicate that that was worth the price. That that was the price we paid to have equal opportunity in America. But, we did spend an awful lot of time on equal opportunity seminars, sensitivity seminars, 10 years at least, maybe longer, in terms of real leadership, as you've said Dr. Korb. Do you envision, if we do lift the ban, Dr. Korb, that we will go through that? That we will have that obligation to go through that same kind of sensitivity training and that same kind of seminars on equal opportunity that will take 10 or 15 years? How do you visualize that. Korb: I expect that, yes, we will have to expand the mandate of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and all of the things that go with it to deal with this because there is an awful lot of stereotyping and information that's not correct. My hope is that having learned from what we had to do in dealing with integration as well as expanding opportunities for women, that we could make this less of a problem. Nunn: Cut the cycle down so it wouldn't be as long? Korb: That's correct. Nunn: But there's no doubt we're going to have to do that? Korb: No doubt in my mind, sir. Nunn: Let me ask where you would draw the line on conduct. I think you made it clear on status and I understand, I believe, all three positions on status. But on conduct, you said that off-base behavior, your believe, should be basically irrelevant to military code of conduct. Is that right. Korb: Off-base private behavior. Yes, sir. Nunn: Private behavior? You distinguish between that and, say, drunken driving? Korb: In the sense that...I think, obviously, we are concerned about people who drive while intoxicated... Nunn: But an off-base right now that is a court-martial offense. Would you say everything off-base is... Korb: Not everything. Nunn: But you're distinguishing, you're saying sexual behavior? Korb: Well, I'm saying that I ... what I'm saying is that because drunk driving says a lot about the individual's character, because it does endanger himself, that you can make regulations about that and we quite properly... Nunn: Okay, well let me try to get it down to what you're really saying should not be any of the military's business off-base. Is that sexual behavior or do you draw the line broader than that? Korb: Well, I mean there are other forms of behavior that have...I think the burden of proof is to show that that behavior is relevant to the military mission... Nunn: Alright. How about fraternization? An officer having sex with enlisted personnel, heterosexual? Korb: Because we do know that that is proscribed...because it would undermine unit cohesion... Nunn: So you would say that is something the military should have jurisdiction over? Korb: I think so, yes sir. Nunn: Would you say the same thing with homosexual fraternization? Korb: If it's fraternization in the sense that it upsets the chain of command, yes. Nunn: Alright, how about adultery between military members off-base? Should that be something subject to military... Korb: Not in my view. Nunn: Even if it involves military, other members of the military's family? Korb: Well, I ... you would have... Nunn: Because that would change very substantially the whole military code of conduct now because that is subject to and people are discharged, frequently, for adultery off-base with members of the military. Korb: Well, again, I think frequently is sort of in the eye of the beholder. I don't know how frequent it is. Nunn: Whether it's frequent or once every year, you would not have that in your code of conduct that would be enforced... Korb: No sir, I would not. I would rely on conduct unbecoming an officer, for example, rather than specifically proscribing that. That's my own, personal, view. Nunn: Okay. Let me get down to what kind of code of conduct you would envision, and right now, having relationships with other members of the military, as long as it's now an abuse of power, fraternization, is perfectly permissible. Holding hands on the base is permissible. Dancing on the base is permissible. Having date on the base is permissible. The base, in many cases, becomes the social home of many of our military people. Now, if we're going to basically change the ban and move in a different direction, do you believe that heterosexual behavior between men and women should be treated the same as homosexual behavior between men and women [!?] on the base or would you have a different code of conduct for gays and lesbians than for heterosexuals, on the base? Korb: I think if you take a look at the experience of the Canadians and Australians, they seem to be evolving in that way... Nunn: Which way? Korb: ...which is, as was quoted in the Washington Post where they talked about the issue that you're raising. They have not yet evolved a code of conduct even though they have made the decision. I think we have to take a look at whether, in fact, that behavior would be disruptive to military order... Nunn: If it would be disruptive to have the same standards for heterosexuals and homosexuals, would you then have two different codes of behavior? Korb: I think, initially, you might have to do that. And my understanding is that, according to the gays and lesbians in the military, that they would accept that. The vast majority. Nunn: What about family housing? Would gay and lesbian couples be given the same family housing privileges as... Korb: I think, if you take a look at that, the military is a reflection of society and when society accepts that legally, I think the military would have to take a look at it and see if, in fact, that would cause problems. But right now I don't see it as an issue because it is not something that society generally accepts. Nunn: It'll be an issue the first time there's a law suit brought, if the policy's changed. Korb: That certainly would be... Nunn: And that takes about 30 days in our society. {laughter} Thank you. My time has expired. Thurmond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You attributed a statement to General Mundy, commandant of the Marine Corps which indicated that Marines would be able to accept homosexuals with no adverse impact on cohesion if the ban was lifted. I'm aware of an all Marine message in which General Mundy urged all Marines to stand tall as this issue is debated. This message urges Marines not to quit, and says the corps will continue to be Marines not individuals. Is this the source of your attribution? If so I do not think your inference is accurate. If not, can you provide us your source for the record. Korb: Yes, sir senator. I'm quoting from a Reuter's news dispatch from the 9th of March, 1993 and it's headlined 'Marine Leader Says Integration of Gays Won't Damage Corps'. And what it refers to is an article that General Mundy authored in Leatherneck Magazine. And the body of the article supports that headline. That's what I'm referring to. I have not seen anything other than that statement and that's why I didn't include it in my prepared statement. I did say that I do think that that is a hopeful sign. Thurmond: Let me ask you a simple question. In your opinion, then, do you think that General Mundy favors lifting the ban on homosexuals. Korb: I have no idea what he says. All I can say is he says, "'The strict standards on sexual behavior that exist in the military today will continue,' Mundy's statement said. 'And as in the past, all individuals who enter the military must be prepared to accept necessary restrictions on behavior, many of which would be intolerable in civilian society.'" Thurmond: Now you yourself, I wanta ask you, do you favor lifting the ban on homosexuals? Korb: Yes sir, I do. Thurmond: That's what I wanted to know. Colonel Henderson, do you favor lifting the ban on homosexuals? Henderson: If the behavior is kept private, I have no problem with it. I am against lifting the ban for openly serving in the military. Thurmond: Under what conditions do you favor lifting the ban on homosexuals, Colonel Henderson? Henderson: Basically, I don't favor lifting the ban... Thurmond: You don't favor lifting the ban? That's what I wanted to know. Dr. Marlowe, do you favor lifting the ban on homosexuals? Marlowe: What I will say is what I said before, senator. What I favor is not looking at private behavior. Thurmond: Speak out, I can't hear you. Marlowe: What I favor is not looking at private behavior and not holding someone accountable for what's in his or her head. Do I favor lifting the ban on the open proclamation of homosexuality within the military unit? No. Thurmond: So you do not favor lifting the ban? Marlowe: I do not favor lifting the ban at that level. Thurmond: Thank you very much. Thank all you witnesses. Nunn: Thanks senator Thurmond. Senator Robb's recognized. Robb: Mr. Chairman I thank you. I have been chairing a hearing, a confirmation hearing, for the last three hours and hence have not been able, other than the first 30 minutes of the opening statements, and I'm afraid if I being asking questions at this point I would probably be repetitive. Let me pass for the moment and if there's something I'd like to follow up on, I'd like to request that opportunity... Nunn: Alright, I believe that gets us back to Senator Kennedy. Kennedy: Thank you Mr. Chairman. As I understand, earlier in the morning there was some reference about the comparison about discrimination on the basis of race and also on sexual orientation and I understand that in February the NAACP chair William Gibson pledged his organization in support of lifting the military ban on gays. And this is a quote, "'No citizen should be excluded from any aspect of life because of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation,' Gibson said. The civil rights leader drew direct parallels between the battle to desegregate the military and today's battle to win inclusion for the gays." Here's the quote, "'They said whites would not shower with blacks. They would not sleep in the same barracks. They would not take orders from black superiors. I have a deep sensitivity that discrimination against gays is no less pronounced now than it was against blacks then.'" Now, Mr. Korb, in your statement you refer back to the Viet Nam War as someone who was involved in authoring the amendments to eliminate the exemptions on education and also skills. We lost those amendments. Eventually we went to a random selection system. It was based upon a commission by Bert Marshall. But during that period of time, if we were to get back, if we were to have an active conflict that would involve the young people of this country to where I think most Americans would believe that that burden ought to be assumed across the spectrum of our population - that is what has happened at others times when we have had these major conflicts - what would we do then with individuals who're gonna come down to say they are gay or lesbian? I can remember, very well, the resentment that took place in this country when young Americans said that they had a conscientious objection to fighting the war. Many of them became medics and served with great distinction and gallantry. Others went to Canada. We went through enormous turmoil on that issue. Are we going to say that anytime this country gets in trouble that anyone, then, is going to be able to say that they're gay and be excluded? And somebody else who's straight is going to be sent out to the firing line and risk their life? Korb: That's what would happen under the current policy because if you say that a person says I am homosexual that makes them homosexual, you could not take them. And, it would be paradoxical. Here we have a situation where they're fighting to stay in and then if we went to war that would be a reason that they could avoid this very difficult burden. Kennedy: So if we were back at a time of even a random selection system where they went on down and said these young people were being sent to Viet Nam, effectively, instead of going to Canada all they'd have to do is say I'm gay. Korb: Under current procedures, that's correct. Kennedy: On the issue of women in the service, as I understand, a total of 13 females died in the Gulf War operations. Two women were killed in separate accidents under operation Desert Shield and 11 female casualties resulted from operation Desert Storm. Five of those women suffered from non-hostile deaths. Three of the six women killed in action were among the 28 soldiers lost during the February 26 scud attack on the American base near the city of Alco Bar. During World War II, more than 200 women, mostly nurses working at the front lines died. One nurse was killed during the Korean War. Eight females, all nurses, died during the 9 year stretch of the Viet Nam war. We have a report that was done on defense manpower data center, branch of the Defense Department, survey 1990, 20,000 military personnel about the incidence of sexual harassment defined as uninvited, unwarranted sexual attention broken down in specific areas. 64% of women surveyed reported they had been sexually harassed. This is as compared with between 30-40% of women in private business. What does sexual harassment do for cohesion in a military unit and effectiveness in a military unit? Korb: I think it's devastating and that's why the military has been taking such strong steps to deal with it. I don't think the Navy has psychologically recovered from the TailHook incident yet. Marlowe: Where we have seen it at the small unit level, it is devastating. It polarizes the unit. It shreds it. Henderson: I agree with that. Kennedy: What's been the best way that the most effective units have acted in order to try and deal with that? Korb: I think it's through the training that the chairman was referring to before and that's why we have the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, to help people deal with this particular problem as well as penalizing the behavior. Marlowe: Immediate and severe, bringing charges and as severe punishment as possible. Henderson: There ought to be leadership steps taken to insure that everybody in the service is aware of the behavior and that it's not approved. Kennedy: The question, Dr. Korb, seems to me that there we're talking sexual harassment, we're talking about conduct. Are we not? Korb: That's correct. Kennedy: That's intolerable in our military situation and I think that the various studies that have reflected that the incidences of that in the military, approximately, according to the Defense Manpower Study and others, which I'll include in the record, demonstrated about twice what it is in the civilian area. Now the military's attempting to deal - one goes into the military, they don't go in and say I'm a sexual harasser. Obviously, they don't. As all of you have said, what the obligation in the military is to deal in conduct and I as understand, from what all of you said, the best way of dealing with that issue is through leadership and through the kind of training and education, educating program. And as I understand from what all said, if this ban were lifted, there would be a standard of conduct that would apply to homosexual, lesbian behavior and heterosexual behavior and that that should be enforced. If that correct? Korb: That's correct. Kennedy: If you had that kind of code of conduct, Dr. Henderson and Dr. Marlowe, your reaction? Henderson: Well, basically, if you survey the troops, which has been done, as I've said, you don't find this concern. What you find their concern is are privacy issues. That's not analogous to the woman situation because women in the service are segregated for privacy reasons. Kennedy: Well they're sure not when they're being sexual harassed. They're sure not when they're being raped. Henderson: That's not my point. My point... Kennedy: Well, I don't get your point then. Henderson: My point is that women in the service are segregated for privacy reasons. They've got their own living quarters, their own latrines, their own showers and so forth. The other point is that, and if you look at the L.A. Times survey, another objection was the problem was perceived morality amongst the troops and reacting to that particular lifestyle. I'm not saying that's right or wrong personally. I'm just saying that exist in the ranks and it's there. You don't find that morality problem with women in the service. So that doesn't hold up in terms of your analogy. The third thing that doesn't hold up is, and this is by survey also and this is a concern for health reasons. And you don't find that with the women, so I understand your analogy but it's very limited. Kennedy: Dr. Marlowe, my times expired but maybe you'd just complete... Marlowe: Let me say two things. a) Your question is what are we defining as behavior and as behavior that is potentially harassing and divisive to the group. b) Leaders can control behavior. They can't control attitudes, sentiments, thought, what goes on in people's heads and what then happens at the basic level of the small group of four or five. Obviously, if the ban is lifted, we should have as rigorous a code of conduct controlling homosexual behavior that's displayed within the organization as we do heterosexual behavior and its display. Cohen: ...the rational examination to determine whether there's any rational basis for discriminating against a class of people and I must say there are some interesting paradoxes, Dr. Marlowe. You can burn a flag, for example, under the Constitution, but that's not an act, that's speech. You can declare your sexual orientation, that's not speech, that's an act. So I find that we're involved in some serious paradoxes. And I think you used the phrase that orientation is 'in the head' and you shouldn't penalize for what is occurring in one's head. And yet the declaration itself means it would inevitably lead to certain action. I recall one president, I believe it was pointed out by one of my colleagues, said he had lust in his heart. I don't know that he ever carried out that particular act. None the less, he was declaring what was in his head; in his heart. But you seem to feel, and the majority seem to feel, that the mere declaration will inevitably lead to a manifestation of a sexual act. Is that correct? Marlowe: No. Cohen: Then why would you penalize someone for simply declaring... Marlowe: I didn't say I would penalize someone for declaring himself. I said the group would probably penalize him, senator. My concern is the declaration of the act and the effect it has on the small group and the relationships within that group. And I'd like to be very clear about that. Cohen: Dr. Korb, you indicated before, I think you stated a truth, that not all homosexuals are attracted to one another and it's fair to say that not all heterosexuals are attracted to one another. But it's also fair to say, I think, that those who might not otherwise be attracted to each other might find attraction grows in direct proportion to one's absence of choice. Would you not agree? {much laughter} Korb: I'll give a qualified yes. I think I understand what you're saying here. Cohen: What I'm saying is the lack of a magnetic attraction might diminish when compared to a total lack of gratification. And that's what we get involved with when we have people on board ship for six months at a time; in a submarine for 3 or 4 months at a time, whatever that time might be. You might find that even though people are not otherwise attracted to each other given a wider choice, might, under those circumstances find themselves attracted to one another. So I don't think just by saying neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals are automatically attracted to one another really states the nature of the dilemma that's posed. Korb: Senator, could I comment because I think that's... Cohen: Comment at the end of my comments. I'm going to run out of time. You also indicate there's no reason to exclude women from front line combat as long as they meet the same rigorous standards applied to men. Do you know whether or not we insist on the same physical standards in our academies for male and female. Korb: No, we do not. Cohen: And do you think we should have the same physical standards... Korb: Yea. Provided you can show that they're related to what it takes to be a military officer. I have never been in favor of having different standards for men and for women. Cohen: So you think that women should meet the same physical standards that men do in basic training? Korb: If, in fact, those standards can be shown to have a relationship to job performance. Cohen: Do you think the standards that are now set are inconsistent with combat realities? Korb: Well, I know from my days in the Pentagon when we went through this women in the army study. When we had people look at them they found out that in some cases people were raising the standards so they would exclude women and all I'm saying is you need to have the same standards providing that those standards are necessary to accomplishing the task. Cohen: Another point you made in reference to Senator Levin in talking about displays of one's religion, are displays of religious of paraphernalia permitted to the general military population? In other words, can each individual wear a yammaka, or perhaps an Indian arm band or some display of one's religious affiliation? Is that permitted to the general population? Korb: Well, it is now because of the action that the Congress took. Because when I was in office we had a commander who refused to let a Jewish chaplain wear his yammaka... Cohen: I'm not talking about the chaplain. General military population. Throughout the population. Is that permitted now? Korb: I think you're allowed to wear things provided that they don't endanger...in other words, wearing a medal around your neck or something like that. I do not think you're allowed to wear things on the exterior. Cohen: And that's for the reason you stated before, that the objective of the military is to try to, really, reduce the number of differences that exist within the unit so that each individual is subordinated to the overall whole. Right? Korb: That's correct. Levin: Senator, I didn't say religious paraphernalia. I said statement of one's beliefs. Cohen: With respect to other nation's experience. I must say the we ought to proceed with some caution rather than simply pointing to other nations. Canada and Australia have only adopted this policy for about a period of 6 months. Britain, there's still an absolute ban. France has no announced policy. You cited The Netherlands. I believe that's relatively recent. But the Netherlands says the military does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In Belgium. Belgium, for example, no discrimination against homosexuals in the military but gays will be rejected when they show, quote, a sexual perversion; when they pose a problem for the people around them or for themselves. I'm not sure exactly what that means but I think that when we look at Russia, for example, or Italy or Germany, we at least ought to proceed with some degree of caution before we say that because other nations have, in fact, lifted the ban, we should follow suit. I don't think that either Canada, Australia, certainly not Israel or others deploy people for six months at a time on board aircraft carriers or submarines. And, as I've indicated before, I'm trying to keep completely open on this subject matter. I want to impose as rigorous an intellectual examination of this issue as you possibly can to find out whether or not the myths and the stereotypes that were erected as a barrier to blacks and other minorities over the years and were shown to be false and malicious and, really, quite evil, whether or not they apply here as well. And I intend to continue this kind of examination. But I think we have to be very careful as we go about trying to come up with the right result. Robb: As I indicated earlier, I was not able to attend some of your testimony but I've got a couple of things I don't think have been covered and I'd like to just pose them in the context of this particular hearing. First let me state that I accord great significance to the question of unit cohesion. I think it's terribly important and if we can't find a way to solve the problem without maintaining unit cohesion, I think we've got a more serious problem than many of us, clearly, want to solve. This particular dilemma, have fully come to grips with yet. I'm curious, in terms of the time that this cohesion is really critical in the phase. We've talked a lot about the combat phase, which is what we're all trained for, ultimately, and much discussion of those who are in combat. It has been my own experience that a bonding takes place after a certain period of time where there is a shared experience and a shared knowledge where that each individual is relying on the other individuals in his or, I guess, presumably her, unit. Whatever the case might be. For mutual protection. Sustaining life. Whatever the case may be. I find it easier to look at it from an infantry context, with which I'm more familiar. And I think it's fair to say that everyone understands, when they're in a combat environment, that their life may, in fact, depend on every other individual. And if someone doesn't exercise proper fire discipline, if you're moving at night, whatever the case may be, that a break down is going to occur. Having said that, it's hard for me to envision that anyone who was a part of that kind of a bonding process would fail to uphold their commitment to their comrades in arms when the fighting or the prospect of imminent fighting does in fact occur. Is it fair to say that the examination that we're conducting here ought to focus on 365 days a year, in and out of the combat environment, or should we be focusing more on the critical stage for which most military training ultimately prepares its service people; in terms of when that's important. I recognize this is something of a stream of consciousness but it seems to me that if we're looking for unit cohesion we need to decide, we need to determine, if unit cohesion is going to be disrupted at a critical phase. i.e. when there at least is cause for imminent danger or imminent likelihood of engaging the enemy in battle. And, under those circumstances, is it really likely that, regardless of background, individuals, whatever their differences might be going into that equation, are not going to bond together for the survival of the unit? I direct that question to any of you. Again, I...let me make just one additional statement, saying that all of us like to think we're fighting for the flag, we're fighting for the folks back home, we're fighting for our - at least in the case of men, their wives, their sweethearts or others - but when you really, when push comes to shove, you really are fighting for the person on your right and on your left in an infantry context or if you're manning a battle station or general quarters in the Navy. Whatever the case may be, you know that you have to function together. Are we looking at the right phase? Henderson: Senator Robb. Let me answer the question this way. We are, from my point of view, we're talking about a transition that is highly dependent upon the state of cohesion the unit is at prior to going into combat. The evidence for this is fairly overwhelming. It goes back to Staffer's work on the American soldier. The work particularly done on Bradely's first army in which the cohesiveness of units directly related, according to one of the men who did the work - Bill Reader, a sociologist, formerly at Cornel - to the performance of those units at Normandy. In our own work what he have seen in our debriefings from Panama and from the Gulf in our work prior to combat in the Gulf and the after the Gulf, units, and I'm here talking about squads and platoons that were not cohesive before going into combat had problems in combat that other units did not have. I can think of one unit in one of these combat actions - I won't note which - which was riven between two factions involving an issue of favoritism. They had severe problems. The fought with each other. Some people refused the orders of one of the junior leaders. There were arguments about whether or not they should take certain risks in terms of providing fire support to another unit. This can be paralleled over and over again. Cohesion isn't something magical. It doesn't just suddenly happen the moment the bullets come. If it wasn't there it wasn't there to begin with it's going to take a long time and some dead and mangled bodies before you get it, sir. Robb: Dr. Korb? I agree. I think you need to build it in peace time and to the extent that you build it in peace time you're going to be more effective in war time. That's why we have training before we send people into battle. Marlowe: I agree also. A good case in point is the Israeli army. They make a very specific point of keeping people together and they build cohesion over the years in that is certainly reflected in their performance. Robb: My time has expired. Just one exit question, if I may. How are we handling this right now with respect to women. Particularly those who are in, at least, a combat environment in the Gulf situation? Who are we evaluating these same factors as they relate to cohesiveness in the present context? Marlowe: Sir, in the same way. And the one thing I can say is that in looking at support and service support units in the active army, the level of cohesion was extremely high. Women bond with men as members of the family. As it is the common metaphor of the combat group it became the common metaphor of the support group. They were, in fact, probably the most stressed people in the Gulf given the work load they had months before the war began. Robb: But is there any reason to believe that that bonding wouldn't occur between members of opposite gender who happen to have different sexual orientation? Marlowe: I do not know sir. I know that it has occurred between members of opposite gender with different sexual orientations when they didn't know about it. I think we would be in for a fairly difficult period for some time finding it out. McCain: Mr. Chairman I would ask, for the record, that the so-called article, which is actually a message from commandant of the Marine Corps to members of the United States Marine Corps be made a part of the record and I ask that because clearly, a full reading of this message is not a statement about whether or not the Marine Corps could or could not adjust to the presence of homosexuals in the Marine Corps. It is an effort, on the part of the commandant of the Marine Corps to, frankly, bolster the morale and reassure the members of the United States Marine Corps that they will get through this crisis as they have others throughout the history of the Marine Corps. And, frankly, at the end of it, where he says, "Let me state it is not characteristic of Marines to quit their posts, either under fire or when things are not to their liking. Those of you whose pride in the corps, sense of duty, honor and personal values run so deep are exactly the ones needed to remain on watch, to provide a steady hand." That's basically the message of the commandant in this message and I think it should not be construed in any other fashion. Mr. Korb, did you say that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are engaging in improper behavior for expressing their judgement on lifting the ban on homosexuals? Did you say, "It's legalized insubordination." Korb: Again, senator, you're taking things - this hearing is about unit cohesion and I'd be more than happy to talk. Now, if you want to go back and review statements that I've made, I give over 200 phone interviews a year, but let me explain the context. That word was used by President Eisenhower, as I tried to EXPLAIN to the person who called me. In fact, that's the way he typified that behavior. Those were his terms... McCain: Could I just ask then, are you...do you believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are engaging in improper behavior for expressing their judgement on lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military? Korb: I said that their behavior that they exhibited during this was, this type of behavior was characterized by president Eisenhower, himself a military person, as legalized insubordination. McCain: I guess I could ask the third time. Do you believe that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are engaging in improper behavior for expressing their judgement for lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military? Korb: I said, again, senator, I'll answer you for the 3rd time, I said that Eisenhower would have described that behavior as legalized insubordination. Those were his words. Not mine. McCain: Given the fact that he is departed some time ago, I guess we could make our own judgements as to how he would view this. I would think president Eisenhower would believe, especially before the decision has been finally made, that the Joint Chiefs have not only a right but an obligation to state their view on a policy that directly affects their ability to carry out their mission. Korb: No. As a matter of fact, he said that that right, which was written into the law, he described as legalized insubordination. He tried to change that law in 1958. And that's the point I was trying to make. McCain: Good. I'm sorry that you won't answer whether you think the Joint Chiefs of staff are engaging in improper behavior by expressing their judgement on this issue. Dr. Marlowe, we ... you and Dr. Henderson, I believe, from paying attention for several hours now, believe that we probably should pursue a policy or a viable policy would be no questions asked when entering the military. But you also said that an expression of sexual preference, i.e., one who is homosexual or lesbian, would then be grounds for some kind of action. Is that basically what you're saying? Henderson: That's basically what I'm saying. McCain: Well, explain this to me. If a person joins the military and doesn't state his or her sexual preference and announces sometime later that they're heterosexual, there clearly is no punishment. How can we justify punishment on the grounds of statement of one preference as opposed to another? You see my point. Henderson: I see you point, senator. And I'll go back to the answer I gave before. That this statement, my concern is the effect of that statement to the small group that the individual is working with and is part of. I'll also go back to what I said several hours ago. I do not understand what role his public assertion of gender preference has in terms of being a soldier, a sailor or a marine. McCain: Let me play the Devil's advocate here a second. A young man might like to say, 'I prefer the company of women'. A woman might say 'I prefer the company of men'. Maybe a young person who is male would like to prefer the company of males. You see...I think it's a bit of a dilemma here as to...we would allow one to state their sexual preference if they're heterosexual but not if they are not. Henderson: I think, senator, it is a dilemma. It is not an easy issue. But it is an issue that is fraught with many consequences. I am personally, and I underline personally, opposed, to punishing individuals who are status rather than behavior. I am deeply concerned about the effects of the range of behaviors on the capacity of the military to perform its mission and on the consequences that can come out of injuring that capacity. McCain: I share that view. And my point is, though, we're going to have to recommend specific policies and I'm very appreciative of the testimony here and I think it's been very helpful, the entire committee, but I think you also understand that we have to understand the ramifications of those policies. And this one, I'm not sure how we get through it. Henderson: If I can have one minute, let me give you an example. Having spent some time in the Gulf. Six guys sleeping on top of each other in a fighting position in the sand. A thousand people sleeping in a warehouse with 4-5 inches between each cot. The profound intimacy of military life when we deploy is something that one has to see. Within that crowding and that intimacy there arise great possibilities for hostility. There's great stress. The way it was handled in the Gulf, in unit after unit, was by people getting out and wrestling in the sand so they wouldn't have to fight with each other over the fact that they were living in each other's hip pockets 24 hours a day. I would be concerned about the effects in a group of heterosexuals sharing the normative values we see in the United States on someone who proclaimed at that point or within that context that he was publicly homosexual given the nature of the...[tape ends] Coats ...and you described the situation that occurred in the Gulf during the Gulf war and you, I believe, said you would be very concerned about the stress, the reaction of soldiers and so forth if those who are openly declaring their homosexuality were allowed in that situation. Did I characterize that correctly? Marlowe: Yes you have senator. Coats: And Dr. Henderson, you agreed with that? And, Dr. Korb you agreed with that also? Korb: No I didn't. If I did I didn't understand the question because it had taken so long to get to it there because I was in a colloquy with Senator McCain at the time. I was still thinking about it. If I did or it appeared that I did, I do not. Coats: I thought I quite clear...you do not? Korb: I do not. Coats: You do not agree with either Dr. Marlowe or Dr. Henderson that the type of situation that Dr. Marlowe described would lead to additional stress, additional tension? Korb: I think it's a problem that could be handled. I mean, I've seen people in pressure situations both in and out get up and say all sorts of bizarre things. Coats: You don't agree? Korb: No. Coats: General Powell, and a lot of questions have come up today relative to the relationship here between racial discrimination and sexual orientation. Senator Kennedy, in particular, pursued that line. General Powell addressed that directly in a letter that now has been pretty well published and I want to just quote a couple of times from it here. He explains that he, obviously, as a leading officer and a military and being African-American is well aware of the attempts to draw those parallels, in fact he reminded the person he wrote the letter to that he didn't need any reminders of the difficulties of moving up in the system being black. But he also said, "skin color is a benign behavioral characteristic while sexual orientation is, perhaps, the most profound of human behavioral characteristics." Do all of you agree with that? That skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic and that sexual orientation, in general, I mean I assume there are exceptions, but in general, is behavioral? Dr. Marlowe? Marlowe: I would agree, sir. Henderson: Generally agree with that, yes. Korb: No. I agree with the first part. The second part, I think the research shows that people basically are born with this rather than being a learned behavior... Coats: That wouldn't make any difference would it? I mean, the manifestation of it would still be behavioral. Whether they were born with it or whatever. Korb: If we're talking about sexual orientation, I think we have to make the distinction between orientation and behavior. Coats: So you think that because someone says they're a homosexual or declares they're a homosexual, that doesn't imply that...isn't it by definition an interest in someone of the same sex? Korb: I guess we could be splitting words but if people say, you know, I engage in homosexual behavior, as opposed to saying I am, or if you're asked what is your orientation. Coats: But when asked their sexual orientation, if you didn't engage in the, the behavior, wouldn't you declare yourself asexual or celibate? Korb: I don't know if you're given those choices when you're asked, whether you're homosexual or heterosexual. I don't think they have celibacy as sort of a, in there. I think you're asked your orientation. Coats: But my, but my question goes to behavior. I guess you just disagree. Korb: Well, I mean, again, if you phrase it correctly, I mean if we, all I'm saying is I think we have to define our terms because I think that, what it is, it becomes a loaded question because if you say, 'Well, then this is a behavioral thing' then we're into regulating behavior and that's what we're talking about. Coats: My question is whether or not you agree with General Powell. Korb: I don't know what he means by the second part. I agree with the first part. I'm not quite sure what he means by the second part. I'd have to see more elaboration on it. Coats: Then, if I could just finish up by following up on where I was in the first round. Dr. Marlowe indicated that sexual tension in the small unit, he said, could destroy the cohesion of that unit. Dr. Henderson, basically agreed. And indicated that one of the primary reasons why we separate men from women in that small unit when they are deployed in their close living confinements is that sexual tension. There may be other reasons but that is a primary reason. I think there is agreement there. This is not to make a judgement on any one particular person. There may be someone there that has extraordinary self-control or, perhaps, doesn't express that sexual interest, but, in general, I think we would acknowledge - I would hope we would acknowledge - that men and women living in close intimate, profound intimate situations, that there would be a sexual dimension. Now it seems to me, and I know Dr. Korb you don't agree here, but it seems to me by definition, that is, by Webster's definition and every psychiatrist, psychologist, opinions, every definition that I've ever read, indicates that by definition a homosexual is someone who has a sexual desire or interest in someone of the same sex. Again, there may be individual exceptions but we're talking in general here. We're talking about the policies that affect 1.8 million men and women. So, my question is, in general, don't we run the same risk of injecting sexual tension into the small unit and therefore destroying the cohesiveness of that unit if we allow those who openly declare or manifest their, openly declare their homosexual preference? Don't we run that same risk as we run of putting men and women together in that, and confining them in profound, intimate living situations? Dr. Marlowe, would you? Marlowe: I think we run a risk. I think we run a risk in any situation if there is going to be any open declaration of sexual intent, if you will, within the situation. Coats: Dr. Korb. Korb: I think you got to talk about how that person declares there sexual preference. If the individual is not asked when he or she comes in and they've been serving in the unit for a while and they become... Coats: My question is whether or not it's declared. Korb: Well, that's what I'm saying. It depends on whether they declare that or what people know about them at the particular time. Coats: So, it'd make a difference if they declared it, depending on where they were in the spectrum of time and service... Korb: And how long they've been in the unit. Whether they've been under fire. Whether they've led people through battle. Whether they've lived in these situations you've been describing and had not caused any problems. Coats: Dr. Henderson? Henderson: Yes, I agree. I think there definitely would be a, that risk. Nunn: Thanks Senator Coats. Dr. Korb, you've mentioned 2 or 3 times that people are born with this and it's genetics and so forth and so forth. I'd like for you, if you would, give us your sources. Not now, but you could furnish them, for the record, on that. All of our testimony thus far, we've just gotten started, is just the opposite of that. We've had Dr. Barelli testify, library of congress, and that was one of the questions we asked him and he did directly address that. He says, "Scientific attempts to ascertain the origin of homosexuality have, to date, proven inconclusive and no generally agreed causality has been determined." He goes on to say, "Never the less, assertions of the link between genetics and sexuality have been made and the argument pressed that homosexuals represent a class meriting protection under the law or that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic comparable to race, for example. These arguments are sometimes made in pursuit of legal protection as a statutorily recognized minority. Since these arguments are based on scientifically disputed thesis, the courts have been generally unwilling to grant special protection to homosexuals." So I would just like, that's the subject of another hearing I'm sure, but I would like, if you would, give us your sources on that because that's in dispute. Maybe Dr. Marlowe would like to just give us his opinion. Marlowe: Let me say two things. I thought there was an excellent review article in the Atlantic the other month which comes to the same conclusion; inconclusive and not proven. As an anthropologist I have to query biological determinism because of the number of human cultures in which homosexual experience is universal for all males growing up within the culture ranging from classical Greece to many societies in Southeast Asia, Oceania and Africa in which periods in the life cycle and the developmental cycle of the individual involve regularized homosexual relationship as part of the cultural expectation of behavior. So, I think, one has to counter poise that kind of thing to an issue of biological determinism. Particularly as a number of these cultures changed over time and homosexuality went out or went in, within them. Nunn: Well, do you agree then with Dr. Barelli's testimony that it's inconclusive. Marlowe: That it's inconclusive. It's not proven. Nunn: Senator Glenn. Glenn: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The TV program the other night, Nurture or Nature, I believe was the title of it. I watched it thinking I was going to get the final, definitive answer and I didn't know any more about it when I got done than I did starting in. Is there going to be a major difference, you think, on unit cohesion when homosexual orientation is openly declared as opposed to when it remains a private matter, even though it be known or suspected? Dr. Korb, what do you think? Korb: Again, I think it depends upon when it's declared an how well the people know the other person in the unit. I think if you came back from a 6 month deployment or you came back from the Persian Gulf where you won the silver star and you let people know, I think that would be different than somebody who would declare it at the beginning of boot camp, for example. Glenn: Than you. Dr. Marlowe. Marlowe: I think Dr. Korb has just made the same argument I've made. And I think this is the difference between public proclamation to begin with. It will depend on the group, the relationship of the individual with the group. The experiences they've had. The intimacy that he feels with other members of the group that will determine whether or not they accept that statement. I think there's a massive difference between that and coming in having stamped on your 201 file - your military personnel file - homosexual. Glenn: Well I think everybody will probably agree that if this goes ahead that the acceptance of openly gay men and lesbians in the military will require a major change in the attitude of most military personnel or many of them, at least. I think that would be a fair statement. And I don't think you can just put out a proclamation to change attitudes. So, I'm concerned about how we go about changing some of these attitudes and I'm not sure how you go about that. Dr. Korb, how do you do this? How would you implement a policy if it removed the ban on openly gay personnel serving without prejudicing good order and discipline? Korb: I think that's why we created the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute; to deal with problems to unit cohesion caused by racial and gender problems, and I think you would want to learn from them how to go about helping people to understand the ramifications of this policy and to think through the reasons that they have the attitudes that they do. Glenn: Well, do you think - how far does this go? Because I don't think if this goes through, I don't think you just leave it up to local base commanders in their areas. This has to be something that's put out that applies military wide. DOD wide for everybody. Has anybody addressed the idea of housing and the survivor benefits and insurance and, you know, we have some communities around the country now that are now, in effect, recognizing gay marriages, or, they're not called marriages but it's significant other and they take their vows to each other and it's recognized, at least to some extent, as having some degree of legality, anyway, for certain purposes, whether it's the municipal retirement system or whatever it is. So that is something that's spreading. Now I think we have to think this through a little. Would you carry this on through to where a gay or lesbian couple would have rights to base housing and survivor benefit plan and, in other words, they'd be treated just the same as a married couple on the base? Korb: I think Senator Nunn addressed that before and my feeling would be that the military must do what society does and if, in fact, they decided not to do this, this would be a question for the courts to decide. Glenn: Dr. Henderson, in your book 'Cohesion the Human Element in Combat', published in '85, you compare the cohesion of North Viet Namese, U.S., Soviet and Israeli armies and concluded that our U.S. army was the least cohesive, I believe, of those ones that you had reviewed, and I won't go into that in detail, but are you aware of the results of any substantive studies that have been done on the subject of unit cohesion in the other services too; Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force? Henderson: Two parts to the answer. First of all, the book was published in '85 but it was really written in '82 and was based largely on the army that came out of the late '70s early '80s, recovering from Viet Nam where we certainly did have cohesion problems and the book reflects that. It's different than today's army. Most of the cohesion research has been done by the U.S. Army although I can tell you from extensive interviews with fighter pilots and Navy sailors and so on, cohesion is alive and well aboard ships and fighter squadrons, for instance, although they haven't studied it as much as the army has. Glenn: My main experience with the Marine Corps, of course, and I know in Marine boot camp the cohesion there is built from the ground up. The common experience, and so on, as we've talked about earlier today. Dr. Henderson, you indicated in your book that, and I quote this, "High recruit pay, permanent pass policies, liberal release policies, turbulent social affiliation with outside groups, living off post, cost effective barracks and messes; many other factors identified earlier in this study all work to insure that the small U.S. unit remains a fragmented group unable to coalesce around it's leaders to produce a cohesive unit." What happened between there and Desert Storm when we supposedly had great cohesion? Did they have a 6 month grace period after we decided to go over there to get the outfit together? Henderson: As a matter of fact, the 6 months that those units were over there were a major factor in the increasing cohesion in those units. We find also for instance, that the units in Korea that are over there that are isolated that are living on post, living in barracks, living under almost 24 hour leadership of their junior leaders have greater cohesion than units that are fragmented amongst the American community back here in the states. So that definitely does have an impact on cohesion. Korb: Senator Glenn, if I might, on that, I think that that refers to the point I made in my testimony, there were those that thought, given the things that you mentioned from Colonel Henderson's research, that an AVF (American Volunteer Force) never could get that cohesion. You had more married people, for example, and all of the other things that you talked about. And while I certainly would not argue that the build-up period before the war started had no impact, I think it goes to show that you can take a group with all of those, if you will, intervening variables and make them very cohesive. Henderson: If I may, senator Glenn, from 1982 on, because we were engaged in assessing and analyzing it, the army instituted a large series of programs to build cohesive units. There were massive changes in leadership training and massive changes in the way in which we handled and dealt with troops. The desert period was a very, very important one but what we saw in Desert Shield and Desert Storm was the end point of ten years, almost, of rebuilding the army. Glenn: My time is almost up but I just, uh, I wasn't here for the whole hearing this morning but I come back just to a little final statement here. The key to this whole thing, to me, is what happens in that first 10-11 weeks that people are in the service. I think that's where they're more indoctrinated than any other spot. You get beyond that point, a lot of them go off into supply duty and logistics and they go off into all sorts of things where this business of cohesion is not nearly as important, but in the combat units, you have to put everybody at boot camp or recruit training or IET, you're putting them through a commonality of experience that says that every person coming in is liable for combat. And you're trying to build that unit cohesion and it's always been amazing to me how these young people come out of that 10 weeks or so and you've taken 'em from fuzzy haired, you know, earing, the whole schmeer of civilian appurtenances that they hold dear these days, and you put them through this and you shave their heads and you take their civies and you send them home or burn them - probably most of them better off burned - and then you take them down by whatever DI, yelling in their face and crawling through the mud and all this commonality of experience and then you gradually start building more loyalty to that squad and that's the basic question, is whether then, if you put a homosexual in the middle of that, can you get the same kind of feeling there where each person that goes through that winds up at the end of that time feeling more loyalty to that squad and more loyalty to their buddies than you do, worry about getting hurt themselves. And that's an amazing transformation in a short period of time. And whether that can be carried out with other people coming in, where you have that kind of bonding going on, I guess that's the bottom line of our inquiry here. Levin: Mr. Chairman. There are some difference I think between race, sex, ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation. But what we're talking about today, is we're talking about the impact of any of those, particularly homosexuality, on cohesion. And there, it seems to me, a lot of the questions become the same. We will tolerate a impact on unit cohesion if the source of that impact is race. The answer now is no. Gender, the answer now is no. In other words, we're not going to allow - if there were an all-white unit - to say we don't want any blacks in our unit it's going to affect our cohesion. We simply say it's too bad whether it affects your cohesion or not. Whether you think it affects your cohesion or not, it's too bad. We have adopted a standard, we're not going to let it affect your cohesion. We're going to go to the capability of our commanders and we're going to say we aren't going to tolerate that situation and we're not going to prevent someone from serving because of their race. Same thing I think is true with religion. Same thing now is true with gender and the question is whether we're now going to to that relative to sexual orientation. And I am reminded in this regard of, and I think it's fair here to quote the reaction of some of the military leaders when it was proposed that we integrate racially the services. The Secretary of the Navy said in December of 1941, and this goes directly to the cohesion question, putting aside the source, "The close and intimate conditions of life aboard ship. The necessity for the highest possible unity and esprit des corps. The requirement of morale. All these demand that nothing be done which may adversely affect the situation. Past experience has shown, irrefutably that the enlistment of negros other than for mess attendants leads to disruptive and undermining conditions." Now that's what was said by the Secretary of the Navy in 1941 and, finally, the President of the United States said, whether it does or it doesn't, you're going to live with it. That may effect unit cohesion or not in the short term. We, as a country, are not going to allow that to dissuade us from our course. That was the decision that was made by the Commander In Chief. And in that regard it is relevant to look at arguments which were made relative to race. Unless there's a rational basis, unless there's a rational basis here for the antipathy among our troops to homosexuals then that becomes the issue. Is there a rational basis. Now all of you say, as I understand it, that you would allow homosexuals to serve if they keep it to themselves. Is that fair Dr. Marlowe? Marlowe: Yes. It is. Levin: Dr. Korb, you say that and Dr. Henderson you say that? To put it another way, the current ban on homosexuals serving, you would modify to read that only homosexuals who acknowledge their homosexuality should be banned. Is that accurate, Dr. Marlowe? Marlowe: Who publicly present it within the military context. Levin: Right. Who acknowledge in the military context that they're homosexual. Those are the only ones who should be banned. Other homosexuals should not be banned. Marlowe: That's fair, sir. Levin: That's fair? I won't ask you (Korb) because you're position's different. Dr. Henderson, is that you're position? Henderson: You know, by the use of the word acknowledge, you're implying that somebody's going to ask them about it and they're going to say yes. Well, I don't agree with that. Levin: Okay, so you'd use the word state? Henderson: I would say that if a homosexual comes in and _asserts_ in a very public manner that he's homosexual and that's his lifestyle and that's what he's going to be, then that's a problem. Levin: Okay. Let me put it in your terms then. For the homosexual who does not, on his own initiative, _assert_ that he is a homosexual, you would permit homosexuals to serve? Henderson: Probably yes, as I said before. Levin: Yea, but that's a change in the current law. Not just a change as to whether we ask the question. I think you both have to realize the current law is that homosexuals cannot serve. Henderson: I thought that there was some sort of compromise worked out between the administration... Levin: No. The compromise is the question's not going to be asked. There's no change in current law. Henderson: Well, basically, I'm in favor of the current compromise. Levin: There is no current compromise. I just ask you a minute ago, do you believe that someone who does not openly assert his homosexuality should be allowed to serve and I thought your answer was yes. Henderson: If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that if someone keeps it private, should they be able to serve, and I say yes. Levin: And I'm just saying that that is a change in the current law. Nunn: That is the interim policy.... Levin: That is the interim policy but it is not... Nunn: Well the law doesn't govern this anyway. It's the regulations. Levin: Well, it's a change in the regulations 'cause the current regulations prohibit homosexuals from serving. Nunn: That's been circumvented by the President's new directive though, which supersedes those regulations. Levin: The regulation is that that person will, cannot serve if that person asserts his homosexuality. I'm talking about the regulations. Let me get back. I just want to make sure we understand each other. You are suggesting that the current _ban_ on homosexuals serving in the regs should be lifted for those who keep their homosexuality private? Henderson: In terms of the issue before this committee today, cohesion, I don't see a problem for cohesion issues under... Levin: Okay. Now, now let's get to the question you got to Dr. Marlowe and I asked the other day. You have a commanding officer now, who asks the question, are you a homosexual. If the answer to that question is yes, would you allow that person to serve? Marlowe: Two things, senator. First, under the interim policy, the commanding officer would not ask the question. The question would be asked only if some issue of behavior had come up. I think my answer would be, if this is a private conversation between the commanding officer and the soldier and not a public assertion on the part of the soldier to his group, which may not want to hear this assertion, I would not have a problem with the soldier continuing to serve. Under the present guidance, however, the commanding officer would not ask that question and the question would not come up if the soldier did not get into some kind of public issue equivalent to a DUI, or what have you involving his or her homosexuality. Levin: Let's assume there's a discussion in the barracks and the soldier says, 'I think...', defends the rights of homosexuals and everybody else says they shouldn't be here, we don't want them here and that one soldier says I'm going to defend the rights of homosexuals, I think we ought to allow people in the army to openly assert their homosexuality. Now the commander takes that person aside and says, 'Are you a homosexual' and the person answers yes. Would you allow that person to serve? Marlowe: Would I allow that person to serve? The person has not publicly asserted to his people, his friends, that he's a homosexual, you know, my first question is why is the commanding officer taking him aside, this issue is being argued in barracks all over the country. Levin: He wants to maintain the morale. Whatever the reason is... Marlowe: This issue is being argued in barracks... Levin: Would you allow the question to be asked? Marlowe: I would not allow the question to be asked. Levin: So that we then ought to have a new regulation which then prohibits questions of persons as to their homosexuality except under certain conditions. Marlowe: Right. Levin: Do you agree with that Dr. Henderson? Pardon? Henderson: Yes. Levin: So both of you would then agree that as part of any new policy, policy you would agree with, that we have to prohibit COs from asking the question except under certain conditions. Marlowe: Yes. I would...I think what you're getting at with this from is a legal, regulation sort of basis... Levin: In terms of morale. I'm only talking about in terms of cohesion. Marlowe: My judgement criteria is the affect on unit performance and cohesion, as we're all talking about today. And every situation you bring up, you have to judge in that context. Levin: If I can ask one more question, my time's expired. Do you believe, let me start, perhaps, with Dr. Marlowe, do you believe the large amount of antipathy among the troops against homosexuals serving is based on rational grounds of the likelihood of homosexual behavior or is based on prejudice? Marlowe: I believe a significant part of it is based on prejudice. {long silence} Levin: And the last question I have is of Dr. Henderson. Unless, Dr. Henderson, would you agree with that? Henderson: No. Levin: Okay. Henderson: A large part of it is based on basic socialization. You know, these young kids, 18, 19, 20 years old are raised in the mid-west. They're raised with certain values. I don't take the position I can normally say they're values are right or wrong. Also, we found out in cohesion studies, for instance in Korea, the fighter studies done by Humrow (?) that what causes young men like that to behave the way they do is this intense masculinity that comes up in a cohesive unit. They're young men. They're exploring their masculinity. They get macho and that is, I wouldn't say prejudice, I would just say it is a characteristic of being that old and doing what they're doing. Levin: Okay. My last question then would be whether or not, and Dr. Henderson, let me ask you this question, do you believe that if military leadership is committed to making a policy mandated by the commander in chief work in this area, that that military leadership can make it work? Henderson: Can you restate that again. Levin: Do you believe, if the commander in chief decides to lift the ban on homosexuals and to allow somebody who states that they're a homosexual to serve, we're not getting to any conduct other than that, do you believe if that is the decision of the commander in chief and assuming it's not reversed by the Congress, that the military leadership of our country could make that policy work. Are they capable of making that policy work if that ends up being the policy? Henderson: The policy would be implemented but let me point out that there would be, I'm convinced, degradation of military effectiveness, unit effectiveness. And, we would have to live with that reduced readiness. Levin: You think that would be true long term too? Henderson: You talked about race. You talked about this particular issue. I think this issue is much more intractable than any issue we've faced before. Levin: It's more tractable than race? Henderson: More _intractable_. Levin: Than race, in your opinion. Henderson: Than race. It's a bigger problem. The magnitude is much larger. Levin: Thank you, I think. Nunn: Senator Levin, on that line of questioning, which I think is very interesting, if someone doesn't assert they are a gay or lesbian, but, for whatever reason a commanding officer or sergeant or someone asks them if they were gay or lesbian, as I understand it that is not being done under the interim policy, as Dr. Marlowe basically said. But that is a good question and it's got to be addressed. It's got to be addressed. But I would also submit that if you change and you say status is alright, you can announce you are gay or lesbian, but we go to a behavior standard, whatever that behavior standard is, you've got the same question. Because unless someone says you're going to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the same commander that asks that question when status was not permitted could ask the same question about conduct. Now, Dr. Korb says off-base conduct he would exclude. I don't know that many people are going to agree with that 'cause that has tremendous ramifications. But that's another subject, whether off-base conduct, but my point is that even if you go to a status permitted situation but behavior not, you still can have that question posed, do you engage in homosexual activities. And even if status is permitted and that question comes back affirmative, then that is a violation, an admission of a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and basically would defy, I suppose, anyone's behavior standard that has testified thus far. Levin: Except that wasn't my question. Whether you engage in prohibited or illegal... Nunn: I know that wadn't your question. Levin: My question is, are you a homosexual? Nunn: I know it. That's the status, but what I'm saying is that, you've got a good question and that one's gotta be answered on a status basis even under the interim policy. That's got to be answered. As to whether we permit those questions to be asked. But, if you go to a status permitted situation where status is no longer a bar, then you still got that same kind of scenario, taken one step further, on conduct. Levin: That's also true with adultery. Nunn: That's true on any violation on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that's right. Levin: Any violation. It's the same question. Nunn: Exactly. I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just saying that the question you pose is not going to end with determination of going, moving, if the president moves towards a status... Levin: But the question, when you go beyond it, is no different from the question, can you now ask whether someone commits a crime... Nunn: And they can. Levin: They can say, did you drive drunk the other night. I guess you can ask that question. Nunn: Well, that's what I'm saying. If we go to a status permitted situation, then people can get up and announce I'm gay or lesbian, then we have then the situation, can a commanding officer ask whether you engage in that activity. Levin: And the same thing with heterosexual activity. Nunn: Well... Levin: You can ask, did you engage in an assault of a person of the opposite sex. It's the same question. Nunn: And they do. I'm just saying that you haven't solved the problem by going to status. The problem is, if the commanding officer wants to pose the question for the purpose of disciplining someone and kicking them out, even if you permit status, you still have that ability to do that unless we change the code and say you won't ask any questions about any violation of the UCMJ, which would basically wreck the UCMJ. Levin: No, you gotta keep the same principle we have now, you can ask any question about any illegal conduct. Nunn: Well, I'm just saying the problem is not going to be solved against someone, the commanding officer, if you move to status, you're still gonna have a tremendous host of problems out there. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just making that observation. Levin: But, could I comment about one thing you said. I don't they've changed the rule about what a commanding officer can ask. I may be wrong on that. Nunn: Well, they have barred anything that would resemble witch hunts and that is someone's own interpretation of what that is. I think there is an understanding with the Joint Chiefs now that the questions are really, basically, not going to be asked. Marlowe: What they've done is you cannot ask someone on enlistment. Have they gone beyond that and said COs now cannot ask questions about homosexuals status? Levin: Not by directive, by understanding. Henderson: My understanding, which comes from the New York Times is no. ? They've not gone that far. ? That they have got that the question is not being asked. Levin: That there's a directive that the question not be asked by a CO? ? No, there's no directive. ? I have no, no. ? There's no directive. ? In this rare case, the New York Times is wrong. Nunn: I don't think there's a directive. I think it's more of an understanding. Levin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nunn: Let me ask one final question, Dr. Marlowe, you mentioned that basically, uh, there was a great deal of prejudice involved in this area. Right? Marlowe: Yes, sir. Nunn: Let me ask this question, would someone, on a rational basis, in a barracks or in a military situation, have also a rational basis to believe that if someone announced their sexual orientation that they might act on that sexual orientation? That there was a likelihood of acting on it. Is that prejudice or is that a rational, inductive reasoning? Marlowe: I think it is a combination of both senator. Both prejudice, but rational expectation given the kinds of things that most people in this country are brought up thinking about almost all sexual behavior and all proclamations, particularly of homosexuality within an all-male group. Nunn: Right. ? In that regard, could I jump in. Is it also not true then that if a person who's homosexual did not announce their homosexuality, that there is a rational basis to believe that that unannounced homosexual might act on his homosexuality. Marlowe: There's no rational basis for anyone who doesn't know. ? But is there a rational basis to believe that an unannounced homosexual might act on. Marlowe: There's a rational basis to believe that any human being is capable of almost anything, senator. ? Could act on, that's, that's, so there's a rational basis whether there's an announced or unannounced policy. Marlowe: Yes, but there is, we've got to distinguish two things. One is the rational basis for you or I believing that any human being can act on any set of intentions. The other is the belief of the people who live with that person as to what his or her behavioral intentions might be or what risks might... ? And a significant part of that, you said, was prejudice. Marlowe: A significant part of that is prejudice, but prejudice is as great a controller of behavior as rationality. In fact, a greater one. --={*}=--