Why DADT Repeal Implementation is
“Shovel Ready”
By Michael Bedwell
|
For nearly four decades, millions of American
tax dollars have paid to create policies and
programs to “maximize combat readiness” by
“fostering positive human relations throughout
diverse armed services” to which out gay service
members could easily and swiftly be added. |
With many in the gay community still swooning over the
surprise roses for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Secretary Robert Gates and ADM. Mike Mullen brought to
their February 2nd Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing, a certain numbness to the prick of
their thorns persists to our peril. In short, the
Secretary, seconded by the Chair of the Joint Chiefs,
insisted that, despite the President’s general
endorsement, repeal should wait until after the Pentagon
completes another study, lasting at least until the end
of the year, and that whenever repeal might happen after
that they must be given another year to implement it. I
believe such a timeline is objectively unsupportable on
its face, and disastrous in the chilling effect it’s had
on votes to repeal before the makeup of Congress changes
with November’s midterm elections dooming repeal
entirely.
While the Secretary proposed a nearly two-year process,
a recent Palm Center study found that none of the other
countries who have lifted their bans took more than four
months to implement. Gates described three alleged
unknowns he wanted studied that, when deconstructed,
amount to two lavender herrings: surveying straight
service members, as well as their families, for their
opinion of the “impact” repeal would have on them, and
the “impact” on military policies and procedures. In
fact, the word “impact” was used so many times during
the hearing that one could easily have based a new
drinking game on it. Even as both men admitted that they
“just didn’t know” if, in fact, such “negative impact,”
“disruption,” “polarization,” pox and pustules would
actually occur, they, nonetheless, for reasons
unexplained, began with the presumption they were so
likely to happen that Congress should do nothing until
the Pentagon proves they won’t.
The Palm Center,
consistently more dedicated to trading facts than
political horse trading, has also
responded forcefully to the
first irrational rationale, asserting that the
Pentagon should only, “consult troops for relevant
information rather than ask their permission for
reform.”
http://palmcenter.org/files/PalmCenterIssuesKeyRecommendationsToPentagonWorkingGroup%20.pdf
How can that require a minimum of 11 months?
Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire,” adds, “The
‘unit cohesion’ rationale was essentially made up by
senior military officers and political pundits who were
either clueless or hateful. Dozens of studies conducted
across fifty years have failed to find a shred of
evidence for the unit cohesion argument.”
While Frank has touched upon it in his writing, I’ve
never seen the solution for most of the various issues
lumped into Gates’ second excuse, which seems to imagine
the need for a virtual reinvention of the military in
terms of policies and procedures, adequately explained.
In fact, in most ways, integration of out gays is
“shovel ready” and, under no circumstances, would
require a year more to actualize.
“In
the beginning….”
This is not the first time Gates has advanced the idea
that lifting the ban would be an undertaking of tectonic
proportions, apparently based on his understanding of
history. Referring to President Truman’s order to
racially integrate the military in 1948, Gates has
noted, “It was five years before the process was
completed.”
Like so many comments over the
last year by both the President and members of his
administration relative to DADT, that supposed lesson
from history is another wrong one. For it wasn’t that
racial integration NEEDED to take so long but that it
was ALLOWED to.
In truth, his math is wrong. It
was actually allowed to take much longer than five
years, but the more important point is that, despite the
fact that it has became the custom for each new
Secretary of Defense to formally reaffirm the DoD’s
commitment to equal opportunity, he seems unaware of how
deeply detailed and widely staffed the military’s
programs to enforce that mandate are, from the Pentagon
to the smallest, farthest flung base around the world,
to which gays could be easily added as simply another
module.
Gates’ remark references the
completion of military integration of the active
services during the Korean War. But several National
Guard units were still segregated in 1962 when Gates’
predecessor Robert McNamara convinced President Kennedy
to announce the President’s Committee on Equality of
Opportunity in the Armed Forces chaired by attorney
Gerhard Gesell. The results of their investigations
echoed findings of the Civil Rights Commission, but it
was their recommendations that were revolutionary—on
paper.
One of their solutions was to include in each local
commander’s performance review an evaluation of how much
he had done to eliminate racial discrimination. That
was, predictably, met with great resistance, and, little
changed except on the few bases the committee visited
because the institution itself was not forced to follow
the Secretary’s directives released on the 50th
anniversary of President Truman’s Executive Order.
McNamara later admitted, "I was naive enough in those
days to think that all I had to do was show my people
that a problem existed, tell them to work on it, and
that they would then attack the problem. It turned out
of course that not a goddamn thing happened."
It wasn’t quite that bad; for
instance, the last ten states that had "resisted like
hell" began at least token integration of their guard
units by 1964. But, for the most part, all branches were
allowed to mostly ignore the Secretary’s
recommendations, and racist attitudes and racial
discrimination remained rampant until the nation and the
Pentagon were rocked by a series of serious racial
conflicts in the late 1960s and early 70s on bases and
ships around the world; from Kentucky to Korea.
The worst of these was a riot at Travis Air Force Base
in California that lasted three days, resulting in
numerous injuries, arson, the arrest of 135 airmen, and
the DoD and White House in shock. It was sparked by
something as simple as an argument between whites and
blacks over the latter playing “their” music too loudly,
but it was fueled by a number of preceding incidents
including the belief by black airmen that officials
should ban white airmen renting from off-base segregated
housing [an issue identified by the Gesell Committee
years before], and the growing anger that the military
was not keeping up with the changing civilian times even
as black inductees entered no longer willing to put up
with blatant discrimination and harassment while too
many whites were allowed to bring their civilian racism
with them. At the same time, they were angry about other
issues the Committee had addressed: the lack of black
officers overall and the lack of leadership of white
officers who tolerated or even encouraged racial
intolerance and discrimination in military job
assignments and advancement.
The immediate result was the creation of the Defense
Race Relations Institute and mandatory race relations
classes throughout the Air Force that were expanded to
all the branches. Today the agency is called the Defense
Equal Opportunity Management Institute [DEMOI] and has
mostly moved away from “sensitivity training” which
confronted racist attitudes to placing more emphasis on
behaviors and dispute avoidance and resolution. From its
$24 million, two-story, 94,000-square-foot,
state-of-the-art facility on Patrick Air Force base in
Florida, its current Commandant, CAPT Kathlene Contres,
is the highest ranking Hispanic woman in the Navy, and
only five command levels below Secretary Gates. Since
the elimination of segregated branches for women and
their acceptance at military academies, DEOMI has
expanded its charter to include programs on sexual
harassment and sexism, as well as extremism, culture,
ethnic studies, religious accommodations, and
anti-Semitism as the “foundation in the building of
leadership.”
Communication of our modern military’s embrace of
diversity begins as part of an eight-hour course for new
enlistees which makes clear that discrimination against
fellow servicemembers on the basis of race, color,
gender, or religion will not be tolerated; nor will
sexual harassment; nor will harassment of anyone
perceived to be gay. Yes, that is ALREADY a rule the
military teaches. From their PowerPoint presentation:
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR HARASSMENT
•
Definition:
Derogatory, persistent, threatening or annoying behavior
directed toward an individual or group.
•
Possible types
of harassment
–
Verbal (on or
off duty)
–
Jody calls
regarding homosexuals
–
Derogatory
language or references about homosexuals
–
Graffiti in
latrines, bulletin boards, etc.
–
Anonymous
threats; telephonic, electronic, etc.
HARASSMENT
•
All soldiers
will be treated with dignity and respect and will be
afforded a safe and secure environment in which to live
and work.
•
Harassment of
soldiers for any reason, to include perceived
homosexuality, will not be tolerated.
•
Commanders at
every level will take appropriate action to prevent
harassment of or threats against any member of the Army.
With
1.4 million on active duty around the world, and another
800,000 reservists, in order to be successful the
Military Equal Opportunity program [MEO] requires a
massive network of people and programs for which DEOMI
has been called “the mother ship.” Note the familiar
keywords in their mission statements, all echoed in the
Senate testimony of both Gates and Mullen: helping our
armed forces “maximize unit cohesion and maintain the
highest degree of combat readiness while maintaining the
DoD reputation as a place where all individuals have
infinite dignity and worth.” Their Vision Statement
declares DEOMI “is a force multiplier,” and their logo
combines symbols of Justice, Equality, and Truth.
Its backbone are the classes
taught by DEOMI on its campus, in the field, and online,
training Equal Opportunity [EO] advisors and counselors
for commands throughout the branches who were finally
told that their careers depended upon minimizing hostile
environments, enforcing nondiscrimination, and creating
positive “diversity climates” which are measured in
annual surveys of service members; nearly all
requirements recommended by McNamara’s committee years
before.
The basic, multi week Equal Opportunity Advisor training
covers
Communication Skills, Ethics, Socialization, Individual
Diversity, Cultural Awareness (Race & Ethnic Studies),
Religious Diversity/Accommodation, Power & Privilege,
Prejudice & Discrimination, Racism, Extremism, Sexism,
Sexual Harassment, Victimology, Diversity Management,
Mediation, Organizational Assessment, and Complaint
Processing.
Over 30,000 people involved in
various aspects of MEO have been trained so far. DEOMI
publishes its
own magazine, brochures, and training manuals; produces
videos, podcasts, satellite broadcasts, and materials
for producing base “special observances," one of the
main responsibilities of military EO professionals.
Designed to promote “harmony
among all military members and their families” and
“equal opportunity goals, ethics, and values” by
recognizing “the continuous achievements” of women,
various races, ethnic groups, and religions, observances
might involve just displaying educational posters on
bases worldwide and/or organizing events on each base
recognizing such things as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s,
birthday, the Holocaust, and Native American military
service. Popular religious panels include not just the
usual suspects but also Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.
One of DEOMI’s
videos is called, “Who's
on Your Team?” which addresses the variety of people
servicemembers might encounter in their duties spanning
race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, age,
and, among the DoD’s hundreds of thousands of civilian
employees they might work with, disability and sexual
orientation.
“Equal Opportunity Hotlines” are available in every
branch to which one may anonymously report incidents of
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion,
or political affiliation, as well as sexual harassment
or assault. The Army provides local numbers on its
bases; the Air Force has a toll-free national number:
1-888-231-4058.
A painful irony is that DEOMI has become so successful
that, in addition to training American federal civilian
employee managers, they now also conduct an
International Military Student Program to, “Serve as a
resource for equal opportunity, human relations, and
diversity training and consultation to requesting
international clients” that include Canada, Great
Britain, Slovenia, and South Africa, who, unlike the
government of their instructors, allow out gays to
serve.
In sum, contrary to Secretary Gates’ apparent belief
that the DoD would need to reinvent their wheel to
implement DADT repeal, DEOMI has already mapped how
minority groups of all kinds can be integrated in ways
that far from disrupting unit cohesion strengthen it
whenever the message of inclusion and nondiscrimination
is quickly and clearly communicated by strong leadership
as multiple studies of institutional change methodology,
including the 1993 RAND study commissioned then ignored
by the Pentagon, have demonstrated.
A realistic template and timeline are already contained
in the House Military Readiness Enhancement Act that gay
groups have been advocating for for five years:
“Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise
Department of Defense regulations, and shall issue such
new regulations as may be necessary…. The Secretary of
Defense shall further direct the Secretary of each
military department to revise regulations of that
military department … not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act. Such revisions shall
include the following:
(1) Revision of all equal opportunity and human
relations regulations, directives, and instructions to
add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the
Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to
related human relations training programs.
(2) Revision of Department of Defense and military
department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures
for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation.
(3) Revision of Department of Defense and military
department regulations governing victims’ advocacy
programs to include sexual orientation discrimination
among the forms of discrimination for which members of
the Armed Forces and their families may seek
assistance.”
Last year, a gay servicemember serving in silence in
Iraq while blogging for 365gay.com as “Michael Duffy”
wrote about the constant messaging from “commercials” on
Armed Forces Network television. You want to watch a
stateside football game or LOST? You’re going to
hear again and again that the military now has zero
tolerance for sexual harassment. In addition, there are
annual mandatory trainings.
“The
message is clear: if you make someone uncomfortable by
making unwelcome comments or committing actions that
might be considered sexual in nature, you could get a
reprimand or endanger your military career.”
He added this insight: “My own infantry unit can’t spend
15 minutes together without lapsing into some type of
homophobic or misogynistic diatribe. The amazing thing
is that when an unfamiliar woman is in their midst their
vocabulary immediately becomes devoid of the previous
perverse jocularity. What this means to me is that it is
possible for them to refrain from being offensive for as
long as required. Whether it was the threat of the
military’s zero tolerance of sexual harassment or some
other chivalrous reason, my colleagues can hold their
tongues if need be. They will be able to hold their
tongues about gays and lesbians as well, if they’re told
to.”
Imagine a series of “special observances” posters
featuring images of gay Navy veteran Harvey Milk,
retired outstanding lesbian Army nurse Grethe
Cammermeyer, the first American wounded in Operation
Iraqi Freedom, former gay Marine Eric Alva, or gay Marine
Vietnam veteran, the late Oliver Sipple who saved
President Ford from assassination. Or gay GI Robert
Fleischer who helped liberate Dachau, asking one of its
half-dead inmates, “Du bist Juden?” “Me, too.”
But they should start with the story of one of the
agency’s most gifted instructors, late T. SGT. Leonard
Matlovich who had been teaching what were then called
“Race Relations” classes when he decided to out himself
to his commanding officer as the first to fight the
military’s ban 35 years ago, a fact DADT opponents have
failed to recognize and exploit. Before his discharge,
the Air Force had sent him around the country to train
other RR teachers, and 93% of over 1500 students rated
him the best instructor they’d ever had. And, after his
discharge, despite philosophical support from Gerhard
Gesell, by then a federal judge after having led that
study of military racism for President Kennedy, someone
in President Carter’s Justice Department recognized both
the power of such symbolism and the potential of the man
to help the military change, and tried, unsuccessfully,
to convince the Air Force to hire him as a civilian “gay
relations instructor.”
Next year is the 40th
anniversary of DEOMI. If our first minority
Commander-in-Chief and his Secretary of Defense choose
to be the leaders this moment in History demands, if the
Pentagon is willing to learn by its early mistakes when
integrating people of color and women, and from its
subsequent rise to a model of equal opportunity for them
today, by then the 67 years of government sanctioned
homophobia can have ended and someone like LT. Dan Choi
can complete Leonard’s mission in a second way: helping
teach America’s armed forces that America’s guarantee of
freedom applies to us, too.
“Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens
the future, and renders the present inaccessible.” -
Maya Angelou
Michael Bedwell is a former
president of Washington's Gertrude Stein Democratic Club
and the creator of
www.leonardmatlovich.com.
© 2010
Gay Military Signal