The "Don't ask-don't tell" policy regarding sexual orientation has been in effect in the military for eight years. First proposed by former Senator Sam Nunn and endorsed by the military leadership, including General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the policy was a compromise that satisfied fully neither the military nor those who wanted no restrictions. Both sides preferred a more decisive outcome.
President Bill Clinton and those who believe that professed gays have a right to serve openly have labeled the policy a failure. The military, which accepted the compromise in spite of reservations, has pronounced it a success.
To be sure, there have been problems. The murder of Army Private First Class Barry Winchell last year at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, is proof that there are gay bashers in the military—just as there are in many large organizations. But gay bashing would be despicable and wrong with or without the policy. Such behavior reveals a breakdown in discipline and leadership, but not necessarily a failure of policy. Some point to increases in the number of gay discharges as evidence of a failed policy. Much anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that many service members have professed to be gay in order to obtain honorable discharges.
The policy has been attacked by many who simply have no clue regarding the military lifestyle and living conditions in an operational environment. Those who have not spent some time living in a shipboard berthing compartment, sleeping just inches away from others above, below, and alongside, and shared shower and toilet facilities with dozens of others, can have no concept of the total absence of privacy. For some new sailors, it is a profound cultural shock. Some never get used to it. It is not like a college dormitory or a typical workplace, and the environment is not comparable to that in police and fire departments, where members work together and share facilities, but have at least some privacy.
Most of the heterosexual men with whom I have spoken told me that they would feel very uncomfortable undressing in the presence of professed homosexuals who no longer have any reason to conceal their sexual orientation. Gays tell me that this is pure homophobia and that gays would exercise self-control. That is not good enough. Would we allow men and women to bathe and sleep together in a similar environment based upon assurances that they would behave? It is undeniably true that gays are serving with distinction in the military today without displaying sexual attraction at the sight of a nude member of the same sex. But that may be more self-preservation than self-control; to behave otherwise might reveal sexual orientation and risk a discharge from the service.
Professing one's sexual orientation in today's liberated society may do wonders for one's pride and self-esteem, but many people would rather not be forced to share such information. They regard it as an intensely personal matter; many regard it as a moral issue. If service members were to profess publically a homosexual orientation, is it not reasonable to assume, then, that they intend to practice what they consider normal sexual behavior? Such behavior, however, is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a more stringent code by far than those governing civilian behavior.
Unfortunately, the policy has become a political football. Candidates are taking positions based not on what is best for the military and the country, but rather on what plays best to their various constituencies. Gay rights advocates see the right to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces as an important endorsement of their lifestyle. Many citizens view the policy simplistically as one of the few remaining examples of discrimination against a minority group. Those taking the most vocal stands, however, often are the least knowledgeable of the issues involved and the distinctiveness of the military lifestyle.
The most important of these issues is the right of heterosexual service members to a reasonable degree of privacy. Requiring heterosexuals and professed gays to be roommates and showermates would present enormous problems for many of the same reasons that would result from allowing males and females to sleep and bathe together. I was involved in the integration of women in ships in the Pacific Fleet in 1979-1980, and, as space-constrained as we were on board ship, cohabitation was never seriously considered. If professed gays have a right to serve, should we require separate berthing accommodations for straight men, straight women, gay men, and lesbians? Does anyone think that such an arrangement could work—even if we had the space?
Is there, in fact, any "right" to serve in the armed forces? Courts traditionally have recognized the distinctive nature and structure of military service. It is not just another job, subject to the usual equal opportunity laws. The armed forces must discriminate, if you will, against the elderly, the overweight and underweight, those who are sight- and hearing-impaired, those with intelligence quotients below a certain level, those with certain illnesses, those who have prison records—and those who show intent to practice behavior that constitutes an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Comparing the barriers that professed gays perceive with those faced by African-Americans and women in the past is not a valid comparison and trivializes the discrimination these groups actually faced. Sexual orientation should be a private matter; race and gender obviously are not. Gays may continue to serve in the armed forces without barriers by keeping their sexual orientation a private matter—as indeed it ought to be.
Captain Kelly served more than 30 years in a wide variety of ship and staff assignments. He commanded the guided-missile destroyer Parsons (DDG-33), the guided-missile cruiser Fox (CG-33), and the destroyer tender Dixie (AD-14), as well as the U.S. Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Don't Ask—Don't Tell: Is It Working?
By J. F. Kelly Jr.