Newspapers / Q-notes (Charlotte, N.C.) / March 31, 2001, edition 1 / Page 4
Part of Q-notes (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
PAGE 4 T Q-Notes T March 31, 2001 Key supporters of military’s gay ban have changed their position Discrimination rationale is eroding by Aaron Belkin Special to Q-Notes' SANTA BARBARA, CA — Several military and academic figures who were influential in the debate leading to the current ban on openly gay soldiers in the US military re cently reversed or softened their posi tion on the matter. In light of mounting new evidence sug gesting that lifting a gay ban does not un dermine combat per- Aaron Belkin formance, numerous scholars now say they op pose the ban entirely, or believe it could be eliminated without harming the military. The Center for the Study of Sexual Minori ties in the Military, a research unit of the Uni versity of California at Santa Barbara, last win ter sponsored a conference in San Francisco to discuss the issue of gays in the military “Don’t Ask Don’t Fell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Preju dice or Military Necessity?” was the first ever WCCNCSDATNITd ^!P4CrED PCtSCII %-4 4?l • SCS litr%Alt it-f riirtrri^l I «ASfll4«4ll> IliSI 1 .INI A fAiiiNtir riiAC vi t>ACrCD AGAIN?! AT HOUSE PRICES Jk’HlLE Vhu VIEW THE SHOW FR0J| 300M BOOM'S LOFT! FEATURING DJ KEVIN “DA BOMB” Visuals bV' BOV ROB gathering of experts from the left and the right as well as military officials from Israel, Austra lia, Britain and New Zealand who discussed successfully lifting such bans in their countries. Among the scholars — who initially favored a ban on openly gay soldiers in the US — was Christopher Dandeker, Flead of the Department of War Studies and Professor of Military Sociol ogy at Kings College London. As recently as 1999, Dandeker wrote in the journal. International Secu rity, that by allowing soldiers to serve openly, “cohesion and mili tary effectiveness would be nega tively affected.” He called for de ferring the open integration of gays in the ser vices “until circumstances are more propitious.” But in comments offered this winter at the Commonwealth Club of California, Dandeker stated that after the British military successfully lifted its gay ban, his thinking had shifted “in the light of evidence and argument and discus sion.” In follow-up conversations, he said, “I think I underestimated the extent to which in tegration can proceed,” though he added that he remained cautious about how quickly the pro cess could proceed in the US. Some people who long believed lifting the gay ban would disrupt the military recently changed their thinking. Laura Miller, Assistant Professor of Sociology at UCLA who has con ducted research on the opinions of military personnel, had expressed concern that there might be significant disruptions if the ban were lifted. But after participating in a recent con- “Fd Jbe open to evidence that persueisively shows that the costs are less than what I thought theyd be.” ^ Professor Peter Feaver, Duke University ference on the experiences of foreign militaries that ended their bans, she believes the prob lems in the US might not be prohibitive. “Af ter the conference,” she says, “I was persuaded that even for those who would come out in an unsupportive environment, there probably wouldnt be quite the level of open hostility I had thought.” Peter Feaver, Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, who headed a 1998 study of civilian-military relations, has re cently come to see lifting the ban as a poten tially viable option. “In 1993, ” he says, “I was 1 NOW! NO^ U I ^2 i M »■ BPlFPfUf' COCKTAIL SI»ECIALS M r' IVIEIVIBERS ^ D GUESTS TOLLY RANCHERS f PlUS; HOT MALE DANCER^ lASHOWTOBOOl _OWgrWEDjag5pAy THRU SUWOAVg pm 70».373.9ia» - SECURED SUPERVlSeD PABKIN6 -A UP WELCOME skeptical about the wisdom of lifting the ban.” But conversations with a colleague, Don Snider, Professor of National Security Studies at West Point, convinced him that the hurdles to full integration might be surmountable. Snider suggested that the ban could be lifted so long as a strict set of regula tions accompanied the change. The new rules must prohibit any fraternizing or public dis plays of affection among gay and straight soldiers while in uniform. Feaver found Snider’s plan “an intriguing and plau- — sible argument, more plausible than others I have heard,” but he added he would like to see the idea thor- oughly debated. I d be open to evidence,” he says, that persuasively shows that the costs are less than what I thought they’d be.” Cass Sunstein, the noted Professor of Con stitutional Law at the University of Chicago, testified before Congress in 1993 about the le gal viability of the Clinton compromise. Though personally opposed to the ban, Sunstein believed at that time that it would pass constitutional muster, satisfying the courts as a rational policy serving a “legitimate govern ment interest. He counseled judicial restraint, saying, I think the ideal is for this question to be tesolved politically rather than judicially” But Sunstein has since reversed course on his legal analysis, and he no longer thinks the courts should validate “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harrass” (DADT). “I thought that then, he says. Ive kind ofchanged my mind.” The gay ban in the US, he now believes, has been so ineffective and is so unnecessary as to warrant a legally adventutesome” approach. This policy has been so disastrous in its effects,” he told researchers, “...that I guess if the courts struck this down, you should gulp a bit, but smile.” In fact, early supporters of the ban on gay ttoops have been backing away from the military’s discriminatory policy for years. Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant Secre tary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, was re sponsible for implementing the directive that re quired gays to be discharged. But in 1994, Korb, then a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, wrote a very personal essay in which he explained a radical change of heart. Appalled that his policy had led to “an unprecedented era of witch-hunts to flush out these ‘undesirables,’” he described how “over the past decade, my own views on this subject have changed considerably and I now feel that the nation and the military would be best served by dropping the ban entirely.” Korb was particularly disturbed by the Pentagon’s efforts to conceal findings from a study it commissioned to determine whether gays were a security risk. The study concluded not only that gays were not a security risk, but that they were entirely suitable for military ser vice. But the Pentagon labeled the study a “draft” so it would not have to be released to the public, and it ordered a new study which would omit the objectionable findings. The in cident, wrote Korb, “provided compelling, empirical evidence that there was no good rea son to exclude gays and lesbians.” Even the chief academic architect of DADT, Northwestern University military sociologist Charles Moskos, recently co-wrote a piece in the Washington Post criticizing the “insidious” effects of his own policy. Entitled “Suffering in Silence,” the piece explained that soldiers who have been harassed and assaulted frequently feel they cannot report the incidents for fear of be ing targeted for investigation and possibly ex pelled. In at least one case, the constant abuse of a soldier who was perceived to be gay esca lated into his fatal assault, a death that might have been averted had he felt free to report his perpetrators to authorities. Moskos has even distanced himself from the centtal rationale behind DADT: the alleged threat of gays and lesbians to unit cohesion. In an interview last fall with Lingua Franca maga zine, he dismissed the importance of unit co hesion, saying “I don’t cate about that; I’m just against requiring gays to live with straights.” Although Moskos continues to believe that al lowing gays to serve openly would compromise heterosexual privacy in the showets, his recent remarks seem to indicate a softening in his ear lier belief that lifting the ban would jeopardize unit cohesion. T
Q-notes (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 31, 2001, edition 1
4
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75