Subject: (very long) RAND Report Executive Summary
From: "Lois Morrison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 14:23:35 EST

It still bothers me that the Rand Report did not receive the 
attention and distribution it deserved.  I hope it still of interest. 

The Preface states: "The research documented in this report was
completed and provided to the Secretary of Defense prior to the
decisions announced by the Secretary and the President on July
19, 1993".

Typing by Lois Morrison without permission.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY:
OPTIONS AND ASSESSMENT

National Defense Research Institute (RAND)  MR-323-OSD

Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense

                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

On January 29, 1993, President Clinton signed a Memorandum
directing the Secretary of Defense to "submit ... prior to July
15, 1993, a draft of an executive order ending discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in
the Armed Forces".  The Presidential Memorandum also directed
that any recommendation by the Secretary should be one that could
be "carried out in a manner that is practical and realistic, and
consistent with the high standards of combat effectiveness and
unit cohesion our Armed Forces must maintain".  [1:Memorandum for
the Secretary of Defense, Ending Discrimination on the Basis of
Sexual Orientation in the Armed Forces, January 29, 1993.]

On April 1, 1993, the Secretary of Defense asked RAND to provide
information and analysis that would be useful in helping
formulate the required draft Executive Order.  This Executive
Summary briefly describes the approach and major conclusions of
the study.  It then summarizes the major findings that support
that conclusion.

Approach

An interdisciplinary team of researchers from RAND's National
Defense Research Institute considered a wide range of topics
potentially relevant to the issue of acknowledged homosexuals
serving in the military.  Staff members visited several foreign
countries and the police and fire departments in six American
cities, seeking insights and lessons from analogous experiences
of other organizations and institutions.  The team considered the
historical record, focusing on the integration of blacks and on
the development of the current policy that prohibits homosexuals
from serving in the military.  It reviewed public opinion,
including the views of current active-duty military personnel,
and the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexuality, and
related health issues.  it examined a number of legal and
enforcement issues, as well as the literature that deals with
implementing change in large organizations.  The results of the
team's research are detailed in the subsequent chapters of this
report.

The Policy Option

In light of this research, the team examined a range of potential
policy options.  Most of the options were judged to be either
inconsistent with the President's directive, internally
contradictory, or both.  Only one policy option was found to be
consistent with the findings of this research. with the criteria
of the Presidential Memorandum, and to be logically and
internally consistent.  That policy would consider sexual
orientation, by itself, as not germane to determining who would
serve in the military.  The policy would establish clear
standards of conduct for all military personnel, to be equally
and strictly enforced, in order to maintain the military
discipline necessary for effective operations.  The option
requires no major changes in other military personnel policies
and no change in current law.  The "not germane" option could be
implemented without any changes in the administrative guidelines
for prosecutions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ).  However, several considerations lead to the conclusion
that the policy would be more legally defensible and less costly
and cumbersome to implement if the guidelines were revised to
exclude private sexual behavior between consenting adults.

REVIEW OF ANALOGOUS INSTITUTIONS AND EXPERIENCES

To understand the possible effect of changing policy to permit
homosexuals to serve and to examine how other institutions have
implemented similar changes, members of the research team visited
a number of foreign militaries and domestic police and fire
departments.  None of these organizations is an exact model for
the U.S. military personnel policy.  Besides these analogous
institutions, analogous situations such as the experience of
racial integration of the American military were also studied for
potentially instructive insights.

The Experience of Foreign Militaries

Researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the
Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.  With the exception
of the United Kingdom, all of these countries permit known
homosexuals to serve in some capacity in their Armed Forces. 
Several broad themes emerged from these visits, with potential
implications for the situation facing the United States.

     In countries that allow homosexuals to serve, the number of
     openly homosexual service members is small and is believed
     to represent only a minority of homosexuals actually
     serving.

     Service members who acknowledged their homosexuality were
     appropriately circumspect in their behavior while in
     military situations; they did not call attention to
     themselves in ways that could make their service less
     pleasant or impede their careers.

     Few problems caused by the presence of homosexual service
     members were reported.  Problems that did arise were
     generally resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis. 
     If a problem developed to the point that unit might become
     dysfunctional, action was taken to remove the individual
     (homosexual or heterosexual) from the unit.

The Experience of Domestic Fire and Police Departments

Unlike the foreign militaries, domestic police and fire
departments function in the American cultural and societal
context.  Police and fire departments share a number of
characteristics with the U.S. military that make them the closest
domestic analog.  They are hierarchically organized with a well-
defined chain of command.  Members work together as teams.  A
substantial proportion of job time is spent training for short,
intense periods of hazardous activity.  An inherent feature of
the job is putting one's life at risk.  They are markedly
different, however, in that only the military deploys its member
on ships, or routinely engages in field exercises of extended
length.

Visits to police and fire departments in six cities (Chicago,
Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, and Seattle) resulted
in several key findings.

     Even where police and fire departments policies prohibit
     discrimination based on sexual orientation, only a very
     small number of homosexuals acknowledge their orientation,
     particularly where the environment is perceived as hostile
     to homosexuals.

     Homosexuals who join police and fire departments evidently
     join for the same reasons that heterosexuals do.

     Acknowledged homosexuals are sensitive to the overall norms
     and customs of their organizations.  They tend not to behave
     in ways that shock or offend, and they subscribe to the
     organization's values on working problems out informally and
     within the ranks.

     Anti-homosexual sentiment does not disappear.  However,
     heterosexuals generally behave toward homosexuals more
     moderately that would have been predicted based on their
     stated attitudes toward homosexuals.

     AIDS is a serious concern of heterosexuals and not one that
     is quickly alleviated by education.

     Policies of non-discrimination against homosexuals in these
     departments had no discernable effect on the ability of
     their departments to recruit or retain personnel.

     Implementation is most successful where the message is
     unambiguous, consistently delivered, and uniformly enforced. 
     Leadership is critical in this regard.

     Training efforts that provide leaders with the information
     and skills needed to implement policy were essential. 
     Sensitivity training for rank and file, however, tended to
     breed additional resentment and to be ineffective.  Training
     that emphasized expected behavior, not attitudes, was judged
     most effective.

The History of Racial Integration in the United States Military

The historical experience of including blacks in the military can
also provide some insights concerning the military's ability, as
an institution, to adapt to change.  These are the key insights:

     Starting as early as the final years of World War II and
     especially during the Korean War, integrated Army units were
     able to function effectively in all sorts of situations,
     even in the most demanding battlefield situations, and even
     if the individuals involved has not experienced prior social
     integration.

     It is possible to change how troops behave toward previously
     excluded (and despised) minority groups, even if underlying
     attitudes toward those minority groups change very little.

     Leadership matters for implementation--civilian and military
     leadership must be prepared to work together over a lengthy
     period to ensure effective implementation of controversial
     policies.  In some cases, civilian oversight of
     implementation may be necessary.

PUBLIC AND MILITARY OPINION

How any option for ending the restriction on homosexual service
will fare depends critically on its acceptance by the public and
by the people serving in the U.S. military.  A review of various
surveys indicates that U.S. public opinion is divided over this
issue.  Until recently, roughly half of the population believed
that homosexuals should be allow to serve.  However, a recent
poll indicates that the percentage who believe they should not be
allow to serve >under any conditions< has dropped to 21 percent. 
It is worth noting this is far below the percentage (61 percent)
who were against racial integration of the services at the time
of President Truman's order to desegregate the military.

Military opinion is overwhelmingly against allowing homosexuals
to serve.  In surveys and RAND-conducted focus groups, a minority
of service members expressed indifference to or approval of the
policy change, and women were less opposed than men.  A few
people on the focus groups believed that the military would be
able to cope with the change just as it coped with racial
integration.  However, most service members of all ranks
expressed opposition and concerns about the effects it would have
on privacy, morale, and unit cohesion and about the probability
of anti-homosexual violence and the increase of AIDS in the
military.

To the extent that changes in policy resulted in changes in the
number of acknowledged homosexuals in the military, the rate of
anti-homosexual violence might change, since acknowledged
homosexuals are more readily identified targets for such
violence.  The experience of foreign militaries and police and
fire departments suggests that if leaders make it quite clear
that violence will not be tolerated and stern action will be
taken, violence can be kept to a minimum.

As for concern about AIDS, DoD's testing program for Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) almost entirely prevents the entry
of HIV-infected individuals into the military.  Therefore, the
only way a change in policy permitting homosexuals to serve could
significantly affect HIV infection rates in the military is by
increasing the number of service members who are infected while
serving.  If there were an increase, it would have little effect
on military effectiveness.  All military personnel whose health
is seriously affected by HIV are discharged.  Further, all
service personnel must be tested before deployment and those who
test positive cannot be deployed.  Given the accuracy of HIV
testing, very few HIV-infected personnel would ever deploy or
serve in combat, the military blood supply would remain safe, and
there would be virtually no danger from contact with blood on the
battle field.

UNDERSTANDING UNIT COHESION

Concern about the effect that an acknowledged homosexual would
have on "combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" has dominated
the debate.  it also provides the basic rationale for the current
policy that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military
service". [2:Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, Enlisted
Administrative Separations, Enclosure 3H.]  Most military leaders
who have spoken publicly on the issue in recent months argue that
introduction of a known homosexual into a unit, no matter how
discreet his or her behavior might be, would seriously undermine
the cohesiveness of that unit.  Unfortunately, the subject has
not been studied specifically, and no controlled experiments or
other research bear directly on this issue.

There is a large body of potentially related empirical research
in the fields of industrial organization, social psychology,
sports psychology, and group behavior, a significant amount of
which was sponsored by the military.  Other potentially relevant
material can be found in the ethenographic and biographical
military literature.  The principal conclusion from an extensive
review of this literature is a common sense observation:  It is
not necessary to like people in order to work with them, so long
as members share a commitment to the group's objectives.  The
literature also indicates the following:

     If some members of a unit cannot accept the presence of an
     acknowledged homosexual, the result will probably involve
     some degree of ostracism of the homosexual, rather than a
     complete breakdown of the unit.  Whether this occurs will
     depend partly on the conduct, competence, and loyalty of the
     homosexual individual in question.

     Some heterosexuals might refuse to cooperate with known
     homosexuals.  However, many factors will help to promote
     cohesion and performance even in the face of hostility
     toward homosexuals.  First, research suggests that leaders
     play an important role in promoting and maintaining unit
     cohesion.  Second, military roles, regulations, and norms
     all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work
     cooperatively with homosexuals.  Third, external threats
     enhance unit cohesion, provided that the group members are
     mutually threatened and there is the possibility that
     cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.

Disruptive behavior or behavior that polarizes a unit or renders
it dysfunctional, whatever the cause of the behavior, can
undermine military effectiveness and should not be tolerated. 
Although some disruptions might result from have acknowledged
homosexuals serving in the military, the literature on cohesion
does not provide a basis for predicting the magnitude of the
increase.  Senior military leaders have stated that, in their
professional judgement, the effects would be substantial.  The
experience of analogous organizations such as foreign militaries
and domestic police and fire departments suggests any increase is
likely to be quite small.  Because the magnitude of the problems
cannot be predicted, military leaders must have tools available
to help them manage potential disruptions and to implement the
policy change successfully.

A POLICY OPTION FOR ENDING DISCRIMINATION

Based upon the research summarized above, a number of ways to
respond to the President's directive were identified.  A policy
that focuses on conduct and considers sexual orientation, by
itself, as not germane in determining who may serve was judged to
meet the President's criteria and to be most consistent with the
research findings.  Such a policy emphasizes actual conduct, not
behavior presumed because of sexual orientation, and holds all
service members to the same standard of professional conduct.  It
requires tolerance and restraint to foster the good of the group,
but implies no endorsement of a "homosexual lifestyle".

An illustrative >Standard of Professional Conduct< was designed
as part of the research project, with the overarching objective
of maintaining the order and discipline essential for an
operationally effective military organization.  Similar standards
have been used effectively in other organizations and foreign
militaries and are analogous to the "good order and discipline"
and "conduct unbecoming" provisions in military law that have
been used effectively by the U.S. military for years.  For
features of this standard are central:

     A requirement that all members of the military services
     conduct themselves in way that enhance good order and
     discipline.  Such conduct includes showing respect and
     tolerance for others.  While heterosexuals would be asked to
     tolerate the presence of known homosexuals, all personnel,
     including acknowledged homosexuals, must understand that the
     military environment is no place to advertise one's sexual
     orientation.

     A clear statement that inappropriate personal conduct could
     destroy order and discipline, and that the individuals are
     expected to demonstrate the common sense and good judgement
     not to engage in such conduct.

     A list of categories of inappropriate conduct, including
     personal harassment (physical or verbal conduct toward
     others, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or
     physical features), abuse of authority, displays of
     affection, and explicit discussions of sexual practices,
     experience, or desires.

     Application of these standards by leaders at every level of
     the chain of command, in a way that ensures that unit
     performance is maintained.

The conduct-based standard provides military leaders with the
necessary frame of reference for judging individual behaviors,
just as it provides individuals with clear guidelines.  Under
this standard, behaviors that commanders judged inimical to
effective functioning of the unit (i.e., that undermine task
cohesion) would not be tolerated.

The "not germane"/conduct-based policy does not require extensive
revisions to existing military rules and regulations or to
personnel policy.  If sexual orientation is regarded as not
germane in determining who may serve in the military, it is
equally not germane to decisions on assignment, pay, military
specialty, or benefits.  On issue such as recognizing homosexual
marriages or conferring benefits on homosexual partners, there is
no reason for the Department of DEfense to change current policy
or to become the "lead" federal agency in these areas.

Concerns about privacy are often cited by those who oppose
permitting homosexuals to serve in the military.  A survey of
military facilities shows that in many newer military facilities
there is greater privacy in showers and toilet areas today than
was common twenty years ago.  However, members of the military
often find themselves in situations where very little personal
privacy is available, such as aborad ships or on filed maneuvers. 
In situations where privacy is impossible, standard of conduct to
foster personal privacy have been developed:  Individuals act in
ways that do not intrude upon and are not offensive to others. 
For this reason, a strong emphasis on professional conduct
conducive to good order and discipline is the key to dealing with
privacy issues as well.  Freedom from personal harassment and
uniform standards of conduct are the best guarantees of privacy.

If sexual orientation is regarded as not germane in determining
who may serve, enclosure 3H of the DoD regulations concerning
administrative separations (DoD Directive 1332.14) should be
rescinded.  The most problematic regulatory and legal scenario
would be to end discrimination without revising portions of the
Manual of Courts Martial (MCM) relating to Article 125 (Sodomy)
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  [3:From the
perspective of a homosexual member of the armed forces, the
policy choice would have both positive and negative consequences. 
A positive outcome would be the ability to serve openly in the
military.  But a negative consequence could be that if 1332.14 is
repealed without changing Article 125, the only way for the
military to discharge a homosexual would be through an Article
125 prosecution.  Under current policy many homosexuals are given
administrative discharges and are not usually prosecuted under
Article 125.  By not removing or modifying Article 125,
homosexuals would be at greater risk of an Article 125
prosecution.]  They have historically been applied differentially
to heterosexuals and homosexuals.  Retaining them after
rescinding Enclosure 3H would weaken the "orientation-neutral"
principle of the "not germane" policy.

A practical approach to dealing with this issue would be to
revise the MCM to prosecute only non-consenting sexual behavior
or sexual acts with a minor [4:Appendix C contains an example of
such a revision.]  No changes would be necessary in the sodomy
article of the UCMJ itself, because the code does not specify the
sexual acts that are illegal.  The definition of the offense is
in the MCM, an administrative document.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

The manner in which the policy change is implemented could have a
decisive impact on whether these problems are managed with
minimal disruptions or undermine the effort to change.  Based on
the research conducted in this study, key elements of an
implementation strategy can be identified:

     The message of policy change must be clear and must be
     consistently communicated from the top.  Given the fact that
     senior leaders of the military are on record opposing any
     change, it will be necessary, if a change in policy is
     selected, that these and other leaders signal their
     acceptance of the change and their commitment to its
     successful implementation.  It must be clear to the troops
     that behavioral dissent from the policy will not be
     permitted.

     The option selected should be implemented immediately.  Any
     sense of experimentation or uncertainty invites those
     opposed to change to continue to resist and to seek to
     "prove" that the change will not work.

     Emphasis should be placed on behavior and conduct, not on
     teaching tolerance or sensitivity.  For those who believe
     that homosexuality is primarily a moral issue, efforts to
     teach tolerance would breed additional resentment. 
     Attitudes may change over time, but behavior must be
     consistent with the new policy from the first day.

     Leadership must send messages of reassurance to the force. 
     The military is currently undergoing a variety of other
     stressful experiences, e.g. declining budgets and the
     drawdown in the force.  In such an atmosphere, it is
     important to signal that the change in policy will not have
     markedly disruptive effects and that it is not intended as a
     challenge to traditional military values.  This climate of
     psychological safety is conducive to acceptance of the
     change.

     Leaders at all levels should be empowered to implement the
     policy, and some special training or assistance for leaders
     may be a useful device for ensuring that the change is
     understood and occurs rapidly.

     A monitoring process should be established to identify any
     problems early and in the implementation process and address
     them immediately.

The option assessed here, a conduct-based set of standards
applied under the premise that sexual orientation, as such, is
"not germane" to military service appears to meet the President's
criteria and to be consistent with empirical research and
historical experience.  By following the implementation strategy,
the Department of Defense should be able to increase the
probability that a policy that ends discrimination based on
sexual orientation can be implemented in a practical and
realistic manner and that the order, discipline, and individual
necessary to maintain cohesion and performance are more likely to
be preserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DELETE THIS LINE AND BELOW WHEN QUOTING A PREVIOUS MESSAGE.
Otherwise, your message will not be forwarded to the list.

To be added to or removed from the list, send mail to
         [email-masked]

To send mail to the list, send mail to
         [email-masked]