Majority of military personnel do not support DADT

Timothy Kincaid

November 10th, 2009

Researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida have released a new study that finds that support for the anti-gay Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy continues to slip among military personnel.

Here is an abstract of the study, as published online by the journal Armed Forces and Society.

U.S. policy banning openly gay and lesbian personnel from serving in its military rests on the belief that heterosexual discomfort with lesbian and gay service members in an integrated environment would degrade unit cohesion and readiness. To inform this policy, data from a 2006 survey of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are analyzed in this study. Views of these war veterans are consistent with prior surveys of military personnel showing declining support for the policy: from about 75 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in this survey. Among the demographic and military experience variables analyzed, comfort level with lesbian and gay people was the strongest correlate of attitudes toward the ban. War veterans indicated that the strongest argument against the ban is that sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance and that the strongest argument in favor of the ban is a projected negative impact on unit cohesion. However, analyses of these war veterans\’ ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member is not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness; instead, the quality of leaders, the quality of equipment, and the quality of training are the critical factors associated with unit cohesion and readiness.

As of 2006, attitudes were:

The study found that just 40 percent of the military members surveyed expressed support for the policy, while 28 percent opposed it and 33 percent were neutral—less support than seen in previous surveys.

About 20 percent of those polled said they were aware of a gay or lesbian member in their unit, and about half of those said their presence was well known. In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.

The survey sample included personnel from all service branches and from a mix of ranks and occupations. It was designed to reflect the views of soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of whom were still on active duty.

Which further supports my rhetorical question, if active service personnel don’t support this failed policy, than who (other than Elaine Donnelly and the Administration) does?

Quo

November 10th, 2009

It seems to me that this survey shows that de facto support for the current policy is rather high. The 33% who are neutral should be counted among those who in effect support the policy, since they appear to be happy enough with the way things are. Certainly, if only 28% oppose it, then there do not appear to be any good grounds for the military to adopt a more tolerant approach.

Timothy Kincaid

November 10th, 2009

Quo,

Your logic is amusing. Are you sure you aren’t a nom de plume for Elaine Donnelly?

“The 33% who are neutral should be counted among those who in effect support the policy”

Except that, well gosh, they chose not to report that they support the policy. So, no, Quo, since they chose not to respond as supporting the policy, they should not be “counted” that way. They should be counted as “neutral”.

But those, like you, who seek justification for discrimination, will “count” anything in the way that will most harm gay people. And you don’t even see what that says about you.

John

November 10th, 2009

Actually I see this one as a wash, not really helpful to either side. Of course it is interesting that while the pro-repeal side has remained essentially steady over the years the “unsure” crowd has grown from 8% to 40% at the expense of the anti-repeal side. Perhaps this is reflective of what I recall from serving: rank-and-file especially in leadership roles are reluctant to add what to them is an unknown factor to consider in carrying out the mission even if a policy may be questionable. Many of those “unsure” may know good servicemembers who are gay but have no idea what a total repeal would add to their plate. Understandable, if difficult to surmount such an obstacle. This is where folks like Donnelly come in to exploint their concerns by generating fear. Oh not just of white parties in the barracks but of the UNKNOWN factor of this to your average grunt, NCO and officer.

Burr

November 10th, 2009

“In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.”

Hard to gloss over that.

Alex

November 10th, 2009

“The 33% who are neutral should be counted among those who in effect support the policy…”

That’s some of the most laughably blatant spin I’ve ever seen. You are so entertaining, Quo!

Quo

November 10th, 2009

There is no basis for changing the policy (at least not for changing it in the direction of greater tolerance) unless most members of the military actively support such a change. If there’s a small minority who support greater tolerance, and a larger number who are undecided, then things should be kept the way they are, or at least not made more tolerant.

That being the case, “neutrality” on such an issue amounts in effect to support for the current situation, even if those who declare themselves neutral can’t see as much.

Richard W. Fitch

November 11th, 2009

Here are some interesting comments regarding the AMA resolution to repeal DADT:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=205739268941&id=49288966338&ref=nf

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.