Thinking about the Newport Scandal, I wanted to provide a little
more information about how the armed services has treated sodomy
cases/homosexual conduct in their ranks. During WW2, it was common to give
soldiers caught exhibiting homosexual behavior an administrative discharge
called a "blue discharge" (instead of an honorable or dishonorable
one). This could cause embarrassment and shame to the serviceman's family and
could bar him from some Veteran's benefits.
In 1992 Defense Force
Management published a report titled "DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality."
It explained the reasons for previous exclusion of homosexuals and the cost of
this policy. It ultimately recommended an end to such practices. This was the
eve of DADT.
Arguments for the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, or even more open-minded policies, included practical and financial concerns. Advocates contended that what the Armed Forces lost in money and expertise because of their policy on homosexuals far outweighed any supposed personnel objectives it achieved. Among the 1992 report's many findings, standout numbers included an estimated 17,000 service members separated for reasons related to homosexuality from 1980 to 1990. Over that time, it estimated a $28,226 to $120,772 cost for training each replacement troop or officer, respectively. The report found a disproportionate percentage of homosexuality discharges in the Navy, and a higher impact on women within the Navy. Overall, most blue discharges were given to white, enlisted men, not a surprising outcome given the numerical dominance of that demographic at the time.[1]
The findings from that report and additional reviews published by the Department of Defense paved the way for policy reform regarding homosexuality in the armed forces. One of the most significant topics discussed in the report responded to the army’s defense of anti-homosexual enrollment practices. These included professed concerns about unit cohesiveness and order. At the time of the report’s publishing, the DOD’s policy on homosexuality read as follows:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence
in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who,
by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct,
seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of
such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain
discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among
servicemembers, to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to
facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently
must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy: to recruit
and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public
acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.[2]
In conclusion, the Defense Force Management’s report professed
outright rejection of such arguments. They recommended that the monetary loss
and impracticality of the current system damaged the whole military body in a way
that far outweighed any of the alleged risks. That language, from 1982, rested
on the old notions of homosexuality as a mental illness. However, unlike in the
times of the Newport Scandal, there was much more common acceptance of
homosexuality.
[1] Defense
Force Management, “DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality,” June 12, 1992,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/151963.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment