1 year after don't ask don't tell was repealed, guess what?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sirlynchmob**

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/11/study-one-year-later-no-overall-negative-impact-on-military-after-repeal-of-dadt/

Imagine that, no negative impacts. I bet if marriage equality is finally passed in the US, we'd see the same results. No negative affects, no slippery slopes, no raptures.

For nearly 17 years, gay and lesbian soldiers of the U.S. military were expected to deny their sexuality under threat of dismissal as part of the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

The repeal of the policy on September 20, 2011 stirred controversy, and inspired passionate arguments on both sides of the issue.

Now a year later, the first academic study of the effects of repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” has found the repeal has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”

The study was published Monday by the Palm Center, a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, which describes itself as “dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.”

“The report confirms what the research suggested all along,” said Professor Aaron Belkin, lead author of the study, and director of the center.

According to the report, the authors of the study were scholars on the issue of gays in the military, including scholars from the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Marine Corps War College.

Several members of the study team advised the Pentagon’s 2010 DADT working group on repeal, and one member, Col. Gary Packard, Jr., a professor at the US Air Force Academy, led the group that drafted the Defense Department’s plan for implementing repeal, the report said.

To reach their conclusions, the report said six months after the repeal, researchers requested interviews with 553 of the 1,167 retired generals and admirals who signed a 2009 statement claiming that DADT repeal would “break the All-Volunteer Force.” Only 13 responded, but according to Belkin all those that did said the same thing, “They couldn’t point to any evidence that their concerns bore out.”

Researchers interviewed activists and experts who publicly opposed repeal, as well as “watchdog groups” on both sides of the debate, thinking that these groups had a proven record of keeping a close eye on any possible issues within the ranks, or problems with individual service members, according to the report.

“Such organizations maintain large formal and informal networks of active-duty personnel and have considerable experience in ferreting out and reporting incidents of abuse and other disciplinary breakdowns,” the report said.

Researchers also analyzed media coverage of the repeal over the past year, and consulted active-duty service members, including interviews with soldiers from all branches of service, heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual.

“No one is more qualified to comment on the impact of DADT repeal than active-duty service members, who live their lives and perform their duties in the context of the new policy of open service,” the report said.

One active duty participant, a chief warrant officer in the Navy told researchers that not long after the repeal she felt “an increase of sneering jokes and stupid comments” but “they faded away fairly quickly.”

An enlisted soldier at a military university told researchers that when DADT was in effect, his unit mates would use degrading, anti-gay language, “almost absent-mindedly and with little consequence,” but that after repeal, he said, “it was kind of a big deal for two weeks,” as soldiers considered what it would mean for their comrades to be openly gay.

The report says the soldier told researchers that after people wrapped their heads around the idea, their consideration changed, “the new attitude seemed to be, ‘now that I know someone who is [gay], I’m talking about a real person. I’m not just using abstract insults [but words] that actually mean something.’”

While the Obama administration has used the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” as a talking point and gained support among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, two planks in the Republican Party’s 2012 platform also appear designed to score political points.

The first says Republicans will "reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation," and another says, the party will conduct an "objective and open-minded review of the current Administration’s management of military personnel policies and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action."

“To me that is code that they want to repeal,” Belkin said, “If they take control of the White House and try to do that, then we’ll have to have a conversation about the effects of repealing don’t ask don’t tell, and I think this study will be able to inform that conversation.”

**kronk**

If you want to serve in the military, I don't care if you're straight, gay, lesbian, or a Dallas Cowboys fan.

**alarmingrick**

sirlynchmob wrote:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/11/study-one-year-later-no-overall-negative-impact-on-military-after-repeal-of-dadt/

Imagine that, no negative impacts. I bet if marriage equality is finally passed in the US, we'd see the same results. No negative affects, no slippery slopes, no raptures.

For nearly 17 years, gay and lesbian soldiers of the U.S. military were expected to deny their sexuality under threat of dismissal as part of the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

The repeal of the policy on September 20, 2011 stirred controversy, and inspired passionate arguments on both sides of the issue.

Now a year later, the first academic study of the effects of repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” has found the repeal has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”

The study was published Monday by the Palm Center, a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, which describes itself as “dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.”

“The report confirms what the research suggested all along,” said Professor Aaron Belkin, lead author of the study, and director of the center.

According to the report, the authors of the study were scholars on the issue of gays in the military, including scholars from the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Marine Corps War College.

Several members of the study team advised the Pentagon’s 2010 DADT working group on repeal, and one member, Col. Gary Packard, Jr., a professor at the US Air Force Academy, led the group that drafted the Defense Department’s plan for implementing repeal, the report said.

To reach their conclusions, the report said six months after the repeal, researchers requested interviews with 553 of the 1,167 retired generals and admirals who signed a 2009 statement claiming that DADT repeal would “break the All-Volunteer Force.” Only 13 responded, but according to Belkin all those that did said the same thing, “They couldn’t point to any evidence that their concerns bore out.”

Researchers interviewed activists and experts who publicly opposed repeal, as well as “watchdog groups” on both sides of the debate, thinking that these groups had a proven record of keeping a close eye on any possible issues within the ranks, or problems with individual service members, according to the report.

“Such organizations maintain large formal and informal networks of active-duty personnel and have considerable experience in ferreting out and reporting incidents of abuse and other disciplinary breakdowns,” the report said.

Researchers also analyzed media coverage of the repeal over the past year, and consulted active-duty service members, including interviews with soldiers from all branches of service, heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual.

“No one is more qualified to comment on the impact of DADT repeal than active-duty service members, who live their lives and perform their duties in the context of the new policy of open service,” the report said.

One active duty participant, a chief warrant officer in the Navy told researchers that not long after the repeal she felt “an increase of sneering jokes and stupid comments” but “they faded away fairly quickly.”

An enlisted soldier at a military university told researchers that when DADT was in effect, his unit mates would use degrading, anti-gay language, “almost absent-mindedly and with little consequence,” but that after repeal, he said, “it was kind of a big deal for two weeks,” as soldiers considered what it would mean for their comrades to be openly gay.

The report says the soldier told researchers that after people wrapped their heads around the idea, their consideration changed, “the new attitude seemed to be, ‘now that I know someone who is [gay], I’m talking about a real person. I’m not just using abstract insults [but words] that actually mean something.’”

While the Obama administration has used the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” as a talking point and gained support among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, two planks in the Republican Party’s 2012 platform also appear designed to score political points.

The first says Republicans will "reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation," and another says, the party will conduct an "objective and open-minded review of the current Administration’s management of military personnel policies and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action."

“To me that is code that they want to repeal,” Belkin said, “If they take control of the White House and try to do that, then we’ll have to have a conversation about the effects of repealing don’t ask don’t tell, and I think this study will be able to inform that conversation.”

No Man-on-dog Marriage?
Fraz will be crushed!

**Jihadin**

Most of us really don't care what sexual orientation someone is. Just do the job to standard or exceeding standards.

**Frazzled**

alarmingrick wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/11/study-one-year-later-no-overall-negative-impact-on-military-after-repeal-of-dadt/

Imagine that, no negative impacts. I bet if marriage equality is finally passed in the US, we'd see the same results. No negative affects, no slippery slopes, no raptures.

For nearly 17 years, gay and lesbian soldiers of the U.S. military were expected to deny their sexuality under threat of dismissal as part of the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

The repeal of the policy on September 20, 2011 stirred controversy, and inspired passionate arguments on both sides of the issue.

Now a year later, the first academic study of the effects of repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” has found the repeal has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”

The study was published Monday by the Palm Center, a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, which describes itself as “dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.”

“The report confirms what the research suggested all along,” said Professor Aaron Belkin, lead author of the study, and director of the center.

According to the report, the authors of the study were scholars on the issue of gays in the military, including scholars from the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Marine Corps War College.

Several members of the study team advised the Pentagon’s 2010 DADT working group on repeal, and one member, Col. Gary Packard, Jr., a professor at the US Air Force Academy, led the group that drafted the Defense Department’s plan for implementing repeal, the report said.

To reach their conclusions, the report said six months after the repeal, researchers requested interviews with 553 of the 1,167 retired generals and admirals who signed a 2009 statement claiming that DADT repeal would “break the All-Volunteer Force.” Only 13 responded, but according to Belkin all those that did said the same thing, “They couldn’t point to any evidence that their concerns bore out.”

Researchers interviewed activists and experts who publicly opposed repeal, as well as “watchdog groups” on both sides of the debate, thinking that these groups had a proven record of keeping a close eye on any possible issues within the ranks, or problems with individual service members, according to the report.

“Such organizations maintain large formal and informal networks of active-duty personnel and have considerable experience in ferreting out and reporting incidents of abuse and other disciplinary breakdowns,” the report said.

Researchers also analyzed media coverage of the repeal over the past year, and consulted active-duty service members, including interviews with soldiers from all branches of service, heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual.

“No one is more qualified to comment on the impact of DADT repeal than active-duty service members, who live their lives and perform their duties in the context of the new policy of open service,” the report said.

One active duty participant, a chief warrant officer in the Navy told researchers that not long after the repeal she felt “an increase of sneering jokes and stupid comments” but “they faded away fairly quickly.”

An enlisted soldier at a military university told researchers that when DADT was in effect, his unit mates would use degrading, anti-gay language, “almost absent-mindedly and with little consequence,” but that after repeal, he said, “it was kind of a big deal for two weeks,” as soldiers considered what it would mean for their comrades to be openly gay.

The report says the soldier told researchers that after people wrapped their heads around the idea, their consideration changed, “the new attitude seemed to be, ‘now that I know someone who is [gay], I’m talking about a real person. I’m not just using abstract insults [but words] that actually mean something.’”

While the Obama administration has used the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” as a talking point and gained support among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, two planks in the Republican Party’s 2012 platform also appear designed to score political points.

The first says Republicans will "reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation," and another says, the party will conduct an "objective and open-minded review of the current Administration’s management of military personnel policies and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action."

“To me that is code that they want to repeal,” Belkin said, “If they take control of the White House and try to do that, then we’ll have to have a conversation about the effects of repealing don’t ask don’t tell, and I think this study will be able to inform that conversation.”

No Man-on-dog Marriage?
Fraz will be crushed!

hey hey watch now pardner. Stick your face within 6 inches of TBone on the couch so he can gum you to death for your insolence!

**Happygrunt**

kronk wrote:
If you want to serve in the military, I don't care if you're straight, gay, lesbian, or a Dallas Cowboys fan.

After their loss today, I would think that the depression would make them ineligible for combat duty.

On another note, GO HAWKS!

**sebster**

So despite claiming that the US was somehow exceptional and that sexual equality in the military would be a disaster, it turned out just like it has in every other country where it's been put in place. Well that's shocking. Really just totally out of the blue.

**AustonT**

@OP
Honestly before DADT was repealed the military was, by and large, integrating homosexuals. You get the occasional stereotypical homophobe but the truth is that's the exception rather than the rule. I would encourage everyone to remember that DADT was the first step in integrating homosexuals in the military, though it has been maligned since then it accomplished its goal. Jihadin is absolutely right, I couldn't give two gaks who you sleep with as long as you perform your duties at or above the standard.

**Bromsy**

I would say that DADT gave us 17 odd years for your average soldier to become more open minded and tolerant. Probably a good thing. Baby steps people.

**sebster**

AustonT wrote:
@OP
Honestly before DADT was repealed the military was, by and large, integrating homosexuals. You get the occasional stereotypical homophobe but the truth is that's the exception rather than the rule. I would encourage everyone to remember that DADT was the first step in integrating homosexuals in the military, though it has been maligned since then it accomplished its goal. Jihadin is absolutely right, I couldn't give two gaks who you sleep with as long as you perform your duties at or above the standard.

It has been much maligned lately because society quickly moved past its compromise position. Perhaps now that a more sensible end position has been reached people will be able to look back and recognise DADT for the middle step that it was.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:
I would say that DADT gave us 17 odd years for your average soldier to become more open minded and tolerant. Probably a good thing. Baby steps people.

Except other countries handled the transition without needing baby steps.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:

Except other countries handled the transition without needing baby steps.

True, and we all know every country's exactly the same.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
True, and we all know every country's exactly the same.

Well, we know some Americans like to pretend they're unique about all sorts of random stuff. I don't know why, I guess it saves from having to learn about other countries and think about comparisons, which means a lot less thinking.

I mean, we all know the political realities of the early 90s made DADT about the best anyone could achieve at that point. But can anyone honestly say that had people been allowed to serve openly in the early 90s the end result would have been anything other than 'and then things went on as normal'?

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
But can anyone honestly say that had people been allowed to serve openly in the early 90s the end result would have been anything other than 'and then things went on as normal'?

Well, I suppose you could argue otherwise, but "our military was a bunch of hopeless bigots and they weren't ready to give that up yet" isn't really something to be proud of. Sadly that's what "the US isn't like every other country" is really saying.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
I mean, we all know the political realities of the early 90s made DADT about the best anyone could achieve at that point. But can anyone honestly say that had people been allowed to serve openly in the early 90s the end result would have been anything other than 'and then things went on as normal'?

Dunno, I wasn't in in the 90s.

Wouldn't shock me, though.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
So despite claiming that the US was somehow exceptional and that sexual equality in the military would be a disaster, it turned out just like it has in every other country where it's been put in place. Well that's shocking. Really just totally out of the blue.

DI: "Only steers and queers come from Neb raska, and I don't see no horns on you boy!"
"well actually..."
Derp!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
sebster wrote:

Except other countries handled the transition without needing baby steps.

True, and we all know every country's exactly the same.

I had Hawaiian pork and teryaki chicken Saturday. We had ukileli music playing. In the distance, one could hear the occasional rifle shot. The pina coladas were good.

**Jihadin**

I served during all of the ninties

Clinton had the best idea of that time of not taking a stance on the gay issue by implementing DADT. We also had killing of gays in the military. The Ft Campbell incident I think in 97 being the most known. Gays though took a back seat when we had the racial killing at Ft Bragg of a black couple. Removing Gangmembers and Extremist took up like half of ninties. Actually extremist was first and then the gangmembers were added in a year later. Only time gay became an issue when one stepped forward and admits and signed the paperwork. Most assualt on a gay soldier there's alcohol involved. Now we have a alcohol related incident which is even worse then having a gay soldier

**Melissia**

Yeah, the military had a lot of problems with undisciplined so-called soldiers who are an embarrassment to the country they're supposed to serve, and whom give a bad name to the ones that we should be proud of. Still does, really.

**Seaward**

The military is a massive machine with more moving parts than I'd care to count. You can make adjustments as quickly as you want, but the resulting change in course is going to be slow. DADT was not a perfect policy, but it was probably a good transitional one. I'd liked to have just done away with it altogether, but I'm not sure it would have worked as smoothly.

**IronWarLeg**

I served in probobly the most stereotypical branch when it comes to homosexuality, the Navy Submarine service. It never bothered anyone aboard that there were crew members who were gay, and as a matter of fact this topic reminded me of a funny story.

When I served aboard the USS Ohio when we were being converted to SSGN from SSBN one of the shipyard workers put one of the medium size masterlocks (like the kind you use for a locker at school) on the freezer door for the galley and either quit or started working on a different project so no one could find the key.

We had a mess cook who was a homosexual and not afraid to let folks know about it, not in a overly annoying flamboyant gay guy way, but he wore pink fox belt buckles in his civvies and drove a big pink chevy truck etc.

This guy was about 6'6" 250 lbds of solid muscle.

Well, we had this lock and needed to get into the freezer, no one could locate the master key (bolt cutters) so he looked at the lock, proclaimed "I got this" and grabbed the lock and twisted it off the deep freezer handle :O

It was quite impressive and I understood why people were happy to have this guy on our side if we went to a bar or w/e. Plus he was great at breaking the ice and was a magnet for chicks at bars.

Anyway I know that the whole DADT policy was a load of garbage and as stated above by other military members, as long as they do their job no one really cares.

**Ouze**

I think DADT was the best Clinton could have gotten, and I'm glad we've finally moved past that.

Finally we have the kind of military Barry Goldwater was for like, 50 years ago.

**TheHammer**

I seriously need to start saying really ugly and awful stuff, and then when those things are proven wrong just make jokes about Texas and dogs.

4 More Years!4 More Years!4 More Years!4 More Years!

**Frazzled**

TheHammer wrote:
I seriously need to start saying really ugly and awful stuff, and then when those things are proven wrong just make jokes about Texas and dogs.

4 More Years!4 More Years!4 More Years!4 More Years!

Sorry I've already cornered that market.

**TheHammer**

4 More Years! 4 More Years! 4 More Years! 4 More Years!

**Squigsquasher**

Well whadaya know? The US Military finally did something right.

**AustonT**

Ouze wrote:I think DADT was the best Clinton could have gotten, and I'm glad we've finally moved past that.

Finally we have the kind of military Barry Goldwater was for like, 50 years ago.

That evil Mr. Conservative his vision must be stopped!
Oh wait.

**TheHammer**

Nice way to use an anecdote to try to prove a larger point.

Edited by Manchu.

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Only time gay became an issue when one stepped forward and admits and signed the paperwork.

That's how it was written to work, but anyone who even half paid attention to the issue would have seen that was not how it operated in practice. The 'don't tell' part of DADT was interpreted as being seen while off base, off duty dancing with someone of the same sex. It was interpreted as people having their suspicions raised when you never dated, and never talked about girls.

**Ouze**

AustonT wrote:
Ouze wrote:I think DADT was the best Clinton could have gotten, and I'm glad we've finally moved past that.

Finally we have the kind of military Barry Goldwater was for like, 50 years ago.

That evil Mr. Conservative his vision must be stopped!
Oh wait.

I was praising him. I guess what I was trying to say is that I wish his brand had shaped the conservative movement more firmly. I don't agree with everything he was for, but lots of it was good, and he was consistent in his beliefs; as opposed to modern conservatism which often means smaller government when talking about the market while simultaneously passing stuff to keep gays from getting married, women from getting abortions, and so forth. The father of modern conservatives probably couldn't win an election now and would be tarred as a RINO; this is a sad thing imo.

**youbedead**

Goldwater is the father of the modern conservative movement. it's that the modern republican party isn't fiscally conservative only socially.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:
I was praising him. I guess what I was trying to say is that I wish his brand had shaped the conservative movement more firmly. I don't agree with everything he was for, but lots of it was good, and he was consistent in his beliefs; as opposed to modern conservatism which often means smaller government when talking about the market while simultaneously passing stuff to keep gays from getting married, women from getting abortions, and so forth. The father of modern conservatives probably couldn't win an election now and would be tarred as a RINO; this is a sad thing imo.

It's a good point. To me, no matter what you thought of the policies of Goldwater, at least they came some kind of intellectual background, and espoused a collection of beliefs that more or less made sense next to each other, and were positions of substance you could debate.

Compare that to what the Republicans offer up now, which is just a random grab bag of things they've chosen to feign outrage over. Anytime you point out the nonsense of any position they simply move stakes to some other complaint. And any attempt to find any kind of intellectual basis for any of this is just impossible, there simply isn't any effort out there to put in meaningful, substantive terms 'this is what conservatives stand for in the modern world and this is why' - instead you just get half assed books attacking liberal strawmen.

That said, I don't think Democrats are that much better. I mean, there is some kind of intellectual pedigree behind liberalism, but most of that gets lost in the special interest machine that is the Democrats.