Conservative critics of Elena Kagan, such as William Kristol and Ed Whelan, have focused on her role in trying to prevent military recruiters from interviewing at the Harvard Law School campus because of the law banning openly gay individuals from serving in the military. The critics argue that Kagan’s stance was badly misguided and a possible indication of anti-military bias. I think this critique of Kagan is half-right. She did make the wrong call, but there is no proof that it was caused by anti-military bias.
I. Why Kagan was Wrong.
Like Kagan, I believe that the military’s exclusion of openly gay personnel is both unjust and foolishly prevents the armed forces from using potentially highly qualified personnel. I’m not completely convinced that it’s “a moral injustice of the first order,” as she put it. But I certainly think it’s an injustice of the second or third order.
At the same time, barring military recruiters from campus was not the right response to this injustice, especially in wartime. As the critics point out, it was ultimately Congress and the President, not the military, which imposed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Kagan and other law school leaders were in the strange position of boycotting those who obeyed morally dubious orders while giving a pass to those who issued them. Moreover, until they were invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2003, some 13 states still had laws on the books banning “sodomy.” Even if these laws were rarely enforced, that seems a much more severe infringement on gay rights than DADT. Yet neither Harvard nor (to my knowledge) any other law school banned recruiters from those states’ legislatures and other government agencies.
Even more importantly, the military’s unjust policy in this one area has to be weighed against the many good things the armed forces do, including their vital role in protecting our lives and freedom against outside enemies. In this regard, there is much to be learned from the position that black leaders took during World War II. Even though the armed forces were then segregated by law and otherwise engaged in egregious discrimination against blacks, the NAACP and other civil rights organizations supported military recruiting because they recognized that the enemies the military was fighting were far worse than the racist injustices of the armed forces themselves. As Joe Louis put it at the time when asked why he was promoting recruitment of blacks into a segregated military, “[t]here may be a whole lot wrong with America, but there’s nothing that Hitler can fix.” The analogy is particularly apt in light of the fact that the radical Islamist enemies we are currently fighting have antigay policies that make even the most bigoted American social conservatives seem enlightened by comparison. As co-blogger David Bernstein put it back in 2005:
[C]onsider[ing] . . . that the military is engaged in several shooting wars right now, one can also question how much weight one should give “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the broader scheme of things, even if one thinks it’s a terrible, invidious policy. A hypothetical: would it have been morally appropriate for law schools to ban military recruiters during World War II because of military segregation and discrimination, or would it have been morally superior to cooperate with the military and provide needed talent for WWII, while still urging the political branches to change the military’s policies…? If any of the leading advocates of boycotting military recruiters have seriously grappled with the moral implications of doing so in the midst of major military conflict with truly awful enemies, I haven’t noticed it.
II. Why She (Probably) Wasn’t Motivated by Anti-Military Bias.
Despite my opposition to Kagan’s efforts to exclude military recruiters from Harvard Law School, I see no indication that they were the result of antimilitary bias. The strongest argument in favor of such bias is that she sought to exclude the military, but not recruiters from Congress and the executive branch, which had imposed DADT in the first place. However, there are alternative explanations for this double standard.
First, the HLS policy and that at other law schools applied only to those employers that discriminate against gays in their own hiring, not to those that might have promoted antigay policies by other employers. The military falls in the former category, Congress and the executive branch, the latter. Expanding the policy to cover that second category would have been a major step that Kagan and other deans would understandably be reluctant to take.
Second, boycotting recruiters from the executive and legislative branches of the federal government (as well as numerous state and local governments with various antigay policies) would have seriously impaired the employment opportunities of law students at any law school that took that step. Taking this consideration into account would not be a case of unprincipled hypocrisy or “selling out” on Kagan’s part, as some critics suggest. Rather, it’s a case of two principled commitments conflicting with each other. On the one hand, the objective of promoting equality for gays and lesbians, on the other a law school’s obligation to help its students find employment opportunities. It is not necessarily unprincipled for a law school administration to conclude that the former obligation doesn’t always take categorical precedence over the latter.
To be completely clear, I don’ think that either of these points justifies the position that Kagan adopted. To the contrary, I think her position was wrong for the reasons explained above. But they are plausible explanations of her actions not based on anti-military bias.
Finally, it’s worth noting Kagan’s 2007 speech at West Point, where she went out of her way to praise the military and emphasized that her stance on military recruitment was not an indictment of the armed forces as a whole:
I want to thank all of the cadets here this evening-not for attending this talk (I’m told it’s not optional!), but for all you will do to defend, protect, and strengthen this country. Each of you has made a decision-a profound commitment-· to join “the long grey line” of service. I am in awe of your courage and your dedication, especially in these times of great uncertainty and danger. I
know how much my security and freedom and indeed everything else I value depend on all of you….I don’t accept many outside speaking invitations; this may be the only talk of this kind that I’ll give this year. I accepted this invitation primarily to thank all of you senior cadets….
I have been grieved in recent years to find your world and mine, the U.S. military and U.S. law schools, at odds indeed,
facing each other in court – on one issue. That issue is the military’s don’t-ask don’t- tell policy. Law schools, including mine, believe that employment opportunities should extend to all their students, regardless of their race or sex or sexual orientation. And I personally believe that the exclusion of gays and lesbians from the military is both unjust and unwise….But I would regret very much if anyone thought that the disagreement between American law schools and the US military extended beyond this single issue.
To be sure, Kagan could hardly take a generally negative stance on the military in a speech at West Point. But as she implied in the speech itself, if she were genuinely anti-military, she could simply have turned down the invitation (perhaps by pleading conflicting commitments, of which an HLS dean usually has many).
In sum, Kagan’s support of a ban on military recruiters is legitimately subject to severe criticism. Senators should certainly question her about it. But I don’t see any reason to believe that it reflects a general hostility towards the armed forces.
UPDATE: Ed Whelan e-mailed to say that he had not claimed that Kagan was anti-military but merely that she had “elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security.” I appreciate the correction. However, it’s worth noting that Whelan (quoting Peter Beinart) endorsed the view that Kagan’s policy “amounted to ‘a statement of national estrangement,’ of Kagan’s ‘alienating [her]self from the country.’” I was wrong to understand this as an accusation of antimilitary bias. But if it’s not that, then it seems an accusation of general estrangement from the US as a whole, which is an even broader charge. I think the points I made above cast doubt on this charge as well as on the narrower charge of anti-military bias. For example, I don’t think that she would have praised the military so effusively at West Point (or even spoken there to begin with) if she were “estranged” from the nation that military is tasked with defending.
josh bornstein says:
Ilya,
Thanks for pointing out this speech . . . it was one I was unaware of. I urge Republican senators to ignore it, however, since it does not fit into the narrative pushed by some conservatives.
A really nice post, Ilya. Balanced, objective, and informative.
May 10, 2010, 8:42 pmspo says:
If she didn’t hold anti-military animus then why did she single out the military for, you know, following Title 10 of the United States Code?
She also didn’t have a problem with law firms who represent our enemies.
Bottom line: she subjected military recruiters and interested students to second-class status. That’s usually a sign of some animus. And she was completely over the top and selective with her criticism. Clinton signed the bill, but some recruiter paid the price. Count me underwhelmed by her integrity and patriotism.
May 10, 2010, 8:45 pmspo says:
“A really nice post, Ilya. Balanced, objective, and informative.”
Ilya of course missed the obvious fact that DADT is enshrined in law, and given civilian control of the military, the military has no choice but to follow the policy. I wouldn’t call that “balanced”.
May 10, 2010, 8:47 pmMax Power says:
Prof. Somin:
Your first point seems to be premised on a not-totally-accurate picture of what Kagan in fact did. She did not attempt to ban military recruiters from campus. Rather, as explained in the Wall Street Journal by Kagan’s predecessor as dean, Robert Clark:
In effect, Kagan simply re-instituted a policy that predated her, and one that did not even attempt to bar military recruiters from campus. Rather, she placed a mostly symbolic distance between the school and the military by refusing to lend the official imprimatur of OCS to the military’s recruitment efforts. I don’t see how this symbolic step undercut the military’s mission during wartime or otherwise undermined the many good things that the armed forces do.
May 10, 2010, 8:47 pmRoger says:
Kagan gave a speech at West Point, and used the opportunity to criticize military policy. And Ilya cites this a proof that she is pro-military?!
What does she say about the Afghan and Iraq wars? There must be more evidence. Everything so far is anti-military.
May 10, 2010, 8:53 pmspo says:
max, if she had had her way, the military would have been barred–completely. And yet she welcomed, with open arms, law firms that want to free guys to kill our fighting men and women.
Let’s get that right.
May 10, 2010, 8:55 pmspo says:
“But I would regret very much if anyone thought that the disagreement between American law schools and the US military extended beyond this single issue.”
It was a pretty big issue to Kagan, she was willing to sign on to a patently wrong position. Moreover, if disagreements are small, usually you don’t bar the person from your house–but Kagan wanted to.
May 10, 2010, 8:57 pmConstantin says:
She didn’t have any problems going to work for the guy who signed it into law, or for another guy who could push for its repeal but hasn’t. The whole time she picked on someone who couldn’t fight back.
Today proves she made the smart choice both times. But it’s completely unprincipled behavior coming from someone who so strongly denounced the legislation.
May 10, 2010, 8:57 pmMax Power says:
I don’t know of any concrete evidence that suggests that her personal preference would have been to bar the military completely. Are you just speculating or do you know of something I’m not aware of?
May 10, 2010, 8:59 pmMax Power says:
To be fair, when she agreed to go work for Clinton, she presumably didn’t know he would later sign DADT into law, and when she agreed to go work for Obama, she presumably didn’t know that he’d go back on his prominent and unqualified campaign promise to repeal it apace.
May 10, 2010, 9:00 pmKamal says:
So for a school who has an anti-discrimination policy for all recruiters, you think its wrong to prevent the following exchange:
Recruiter: We want you! Are you gay?
Recruit: Yup!
Recruiter: Oh.. well.. we don’t want you.
That goes directly against the universities policy. This is clear-cut.
May 10, 2010, 9:08 pmDennis D says:
Kagan’s anti Military bias is very consistent with radical leftists who tried to ban JROTC in San Fran and rejected the Battleship Iowa as a museum.
May 10, 2010, 9:12 pmSteve says:
Kagan gave a speech at West Point, and used the opportunity to criticize military policy. And Ilya cites this a proof that she is pro-military?!
If everyone who criticizes military policy is anti=military, then basically everyone in the military is anti-military.
May 10, 2010, 9:18 pmBrennan says:
Of course spo is purely speculating. There’s no evidence that she wished to bar them completely.
And let’s please kill the repulsive Liz Cheney-esque nonsense about Kagan harboring a deep animus against the U.S. military while having “[no] problem with law firms who represent our enemies.” If this is the best you can do, spo, count yourself out of intelligent debate.
May 10, 2010, 9:19 pmRedman says:
This is the worst post I’ve ever read on this blog. Part 2 is totally without merit.
May 10, 2010, 9:21 pmAdam B. says:
By the time she joined the Clinton Administration, DADT was already law.
May 10, 2010, 9:22 pmSteve says:
Kagan gave a speech at West Point, and used the opportunity to criticize military policy. And Ilya cites this a proof that she is pro-military?!
If everyone who criticizes military policy is anti-military, then good luck finding anyone in the military who isn’t anti-military.
May 10, 2010, 9:24 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
The military could have recruited at Harvard any time, all they had to do was drop their bigot-policy.
Suppose the military said Jews are not allowed to serve openly. Should such a military be allowed to recruit at Harvard??? Of course not.
Bigotry is bigotry and should not be supported or tolerated at civilized institutions.
May 10, 2010, 9:26 pmMax Power says:
I stand corrected then.
Perhaps her realization that DADT was a “moral injustice of the first order” came at some later point in time; she may have reached that position only gradually. Alternatively, perhaps she didn’t hold Clinton personally responsible for DADT’s ills since it was arguably better than the prior policy of no gay service whatsoever and Clinton couldn’t have done better given the environment he faced. Or maybe Kagan is a grandstanding hypocrite and didn’t mind going to work for Clinton when it personally advanced her career, notwithstanding her already-existent moral revulsion at DADT. I guess I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.
May 10, 2010, 9:29 pmGuy says:
Setting aside the question of whether it’s a balanced response, isn’t it appropriate to oppose a law by boycotting the agency that is responsible for executing the law? If the boycott stood, presumably this would increase the military’s willingness to lobby for a repeal of DADT, and the Congress generally takes lobbying by the armed forces very seriously. Also, the university has a general policy of not allowing discriminatory job recruitment, not a general policy of not allowing recruitment by agencies that are responsible for the discriminatory job recruitment of other agencies. That might be a better policy, but then again it also blurs the line between opposing the thing (discriminatory recruitment), and opposing the advocacy of the thing (which may be respected in accordance with free speech principles and openness to opposing viewpoints).
May 10, 2010, 9:29 pmKamal says:
Yeah, but nearly all Christians are okay with Jews. Only catholics are okay with sex with men, and only if they are very young.
In all seriousness though, this is a very apt comparison, that many will still disagree with (mainly because it exposes their homophobia).
May 10, 2010, 9:31 pmElliot says:
Looking at the entire situation, I’d say she has neither the character nor the judgement for the court. Note her treatment of Ogletree and Tribe.
She plays to the Left in cheap attempts to get their approval.
We should remember confirmation is a political process. Parsing her actions in an attempt to defend her doesn’t matter in that arena.
May 10, 2010, 9:31 pmGuy says:
I don’t think opposing DADT requires her to refuse to work for anyone who stops short of demanding its immediate abolition without compromise. Surely she is entitled to choose the means most likely to successfully bring about change. I don’t see how her resigning would increase the likelihood of the policy being changed.
May 10, 2010, 9:35 pmB-Rob says:
Obama has no legal authority whatsoever to repeal a federal statute. He can bitch and moan about it, and have his administration oppose it, but Congress has to act. It hasn’t as of yet, so the blame for DADT being on the books still is not his.
May 10, 2010, 9:35 pmGuy says:
I’m skeptical of that argument, Congress’ war powers are quite broad. If they barred Jews from serving, that determination would be subject to substantial deference from the courts, and in any event might not prevent Congress from requiring military recruiters on campus. (Though I agree that discrimination against gays has no legitimate distinction from discrimination against Jews).
May 10, 2010, 9:37 pmKamal says:
Her treatment of Ogletree and Tribe indicates poor character. If compassion (or pandering as you imagine it) is her worst vice, i think we should be glad.
May 10, 2010, 9:38 pmIlya Somin says:
Ilya of course missed the obvious fact that DADT is enshrined in law, and given civilian control of the military, the military has no choice but to follow the policy.
Actually, I specifically noted that fact in the post (pointing out that DADT was enacted by Congress, and that the military was following orders).
May 10, 2010, 9:38 pmRandy says:
Roger: “Kagan gave a speech at West Point, and used the opportunity to criticize military policy. And Ilya cites this a proof that she is pro-military?!”
So anyone who criticizes the military must hate the military? I would expect such a view in a fascist country, but not in a democracy. So obviously you hate democracy. (You see how easy it is to distort a viewpoint by extending a thin line of reasoning is rather poor argumentation.)
SPO: “if she had had her way, the military would have been barred–completely. And yet she welcomed, with open arms, law firms that want to free guys to kill our fighting men and women.”
She also wants to force your wives to wear black veils.
(sheesh) If you are going to argue that Kagan is a traitor, then make the argument. But don’t make unsubstantiated insinuations.
May 10, 2010, 9:42 pmB-Rob says:
It’s interesting — now we are to presume that Kagan is biased against the military. Let’s say that she is. How is that relevant to whether she is equiped to be on the Supreme Court? The military is an arm of the government; nothing more, nothing less. If she was anti-Department of Commerce, would that, too, disqualify her? Why haven’t any other Supreme Court nominees been quizzed on which administrative agencies departments they like and dislike. Like “Judge Roberts, I have heard that you are anti-Department of Health and Human Services. care to explain yourself?” “Judge Thomas, how do you feel about Department of Interior employees? Do you have a bias against them?”
How ridiculous would that be? Yet, the right now wants Kagan to express her love for . . . a federal agency? Just bizzare . . . .
May 10, 2010, 9:43 pmGI Jane says:
Kagan was right. Why should the US military be welcome to recruit on the campus of the best and brightest when combat grunts is too stupid to understand social justice in their 24/7 barracks and communal showers the way Harvard roughing it elites do?
May 10, 2010, 9:44 pmGuy says:
Frosh discourse?
May 10, 2010, 9:46 pmRandy says:
spo: “It was a pretty big issue to Kagan, she was willing to sign on to a patently wrong position.”
I’m sure you don’t believe it, but there are many people (like me) who honestly believe that our military’s effectiveness is harmed by DADT. When they have a shortage of Arabic translators and they fire perfectly good translators merely because they are gay, I believe that harms our ability to find, track and understand what our enemy is up to. Not to mention the enormous expense in training the people on the taxpayer dime and then wasting their expertise. Or the fact that thousands of good soldiers and trained personnel have been dismissed at a time when recruitment goals were falling short. Or even to mention that today, we have many high level military officers who support getting rid of the ban — or are you going to argue that Adm. Mullens is anti-military as well?
So one could certainly argue that she is actually pro-military, because she wants the military to end this silly ban that is actually hampering its effectiveness, and it could fight our enemies so much better.
May 10, 2010, 9:52 pmSteve says:
The fact that DADT is a statute seems irrelevant to me. If Missouri passed a law that says law firms can’t hire black people, and Missouri law firms refused to sign the law school’s anti-discrimination pledge as a result, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the law firms were barred from on-campus interviewing as a result. The anti-discrimination pledge is objective; the object isn’t to measure animus.
May 10, 2010, 9:54 pmMax Power says:
He has no authority to single-handedly repeal it, but he has more power than just about any other single individual to bring repeal about. He can twist arms and lobby on the Hill, which all evidence suggests that apart from his grandstanding during SOTU, he is not doing. As a report by the Palm Center at U.C. Santa Barbara explained, he can also lawfully issue an executive order freezing the prosecution of DADT discharges in the meantime, but he has not. So, yes, you’re right that Congress has to act, but it’s not like the President doesn’t often drive the Congressional agenda when he really wants to.
May 10, 2010, 9:56 pmRandy says:
GI Jane: “Why should the US military be welcome to recruit on the campus of the best and brightest when combat grunts is too stupid to understand social justice in their 24/7 barracks and communal showers the way Harvard roughing it elites do?”
Actually, it is supporters of the ban who hold our military in contempt. They actually believe that our men and women are so immature they can’t handle themselves around openly gay people. It’s actually rather insulting when you think about it. Kagan and other people who oppose the ban believe otherwise — that our military fighting people are smart enough to handle it.
Not surprisingly, as many military top brass now acknowledge, most of our volunteers fighting for us are actually mature enough to deal with gays in their midst. I’m sure they can handle showering with a gay man the same way they shower with gay men now. And if they can’t? Well, then can always complain to the sarge!
May 10, 2010, 9:57 pmDavid says:
Ms. Kagan had the reputation as dean of being courteous and welcoming to military students at HLS. Even if she is “anti-military” deep down (which I doubt), these students will likely stand up for her against such allegations, and consequently, the charges are unlikely to stick in the confirmation process.
She can be extreme and misguided in her views on issues such as the Solomon Amendment without being anti-military. The former criticism might well succeed, but I think not the latter.
May 10, 2010, 9:58 pmAlex J says:
I think that during these wars it’s a perfect time to protest DADT by banning recruiters from campuses. It’s that same reason decriminalizing marijuana is more likely during this recession. During smooth times there’s very little incentive to change.
May 10, 2010, 10:01 pmGuy says:
That assumes that apprehending the enemy is more important than firing gay people, which, if I understand proponents of DADT correctly, is an important goal in and of itself.
May 10, 2010, 10:02 pmB-Rob says:
My dad fought in WW II in Germany. As he told the story, there were gays in his unit back then and everyone knew about it, too. They were able to handle in in 1945; I have to believe they can deal with it now.
May 10, 2010, 10:03 pmbee says:
William Kristol and Ed Whelan both have anti-gay biases. So why do they think we should listen to them about this issue?
May 10, 2010, 10:09 pmIlya Somin says:
For years, the U.S. military, because of its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, was not able to sign such a statement and so did not use OCS [the Office of Career Services]. It did, however, regularly recruit on campus because it was invited to do so by an official student organization, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association.
The symbolic effect of this special treatment of military recruiters was important, but the practical effect on recruiting logistics was minimal. In 2002, however, the Air Force took a hard line with Harvard and argued that this pattern did not provide strictly equal access for military recruiters and thus violated the 1996 Solomon Amendment, which denies certain federal funds to an education institution that “prohibits or in effect prevent” military recruiting. It credibly threatened to bring an end to federal funding of all research at the university.
This penalty would not have hurt the law school, which has virtually no such funding. But it would have hurt other schools at Harvard, principally the medical school and the school of public health. It would have eliminated about 15% of the university’s operating budget.
It’s a reasonable point. But recruiters get many advantages from being able to use the law school fall interview program (access to data bases, interview space, opportunities to see many students at once, etc.). Otherwise, they would have no reason to try to be a part of it.
May 10, 2010, 10:10 pmGuy says:
A brief history of the detention cases:
Hamdi
SCOTUS: Are you sure these people are terrorists?
Government: yes.
SCOTUS: He says he isn’t, did you listen to his evidence?
Government: He can tell his interrogator we made a mistake.
SCOTUS: How about you give him some kind of proceeding…
Hamdan
SCOTUS: Okay, you found him to be an enemy combatant, but now you’re trying to convict him of war crimes before a military commission, is there a reason you’re deviating significantly from court-martial procedures?
Government: Terrorism is bad.
SCOTUS: Okay, how about you ask Congress for permission to use the procedures you need.
(The government does so, and also gets Congress to effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus.)
Boumediene
May 10, 2010, 10:15 pmSCOTUS: Why did you try to suspend the writ?
Government: We hate you.
SCOTUS: sigh…
Max Power says:
I have to agree with you — I’ve never understood the mindset that our soldiers are heroic and brave enough to risk their very lives under enemy fire (which they assuredly are!), or to resist torture in an enemy POW camp, but yet fragile enough to get the vapors and turn to jelly if a gay looks at their pee-pee in the shower. It makes no sense.
May 10, 2010, 10:17 pmRandy says:
Prof: “Even more importantly, the military’s unjust policy in this one area has to be weighed against the many good things the armed forces do, including their vital role in protecting our lives and freedom against outside enemies.”
Why must it be weighed?
First, I disagree that the ban helps us fight our enemies — in fact, I (and a great many people, including over 70% of Americans) believe it *hurts* our ability to fight our enemy. We have a shortage of qualified personnel, and so we dismiss thousands of qualified personnel? That’s insanity.
Second, your argument is that a little discrimination is okay, if the organization is doing a lot of good. Well, if that’s your position, then the ban will never be lifted. Why should it? It’s okay to ban segregate blacks back in the 40 and 50s, so why shouldn’t it be still okay? According to you, if the military wanted to prevent all blacks from serving, that would be fine — because, after all, it’s just a little discrimination.
I find that deeply offensive. Why stop with gays? And if open gays can suffer, why not the closeted ones too? After all, it’s just a little bit more discrimination. And it’s always easy to approve of discrimination when you aren’t the one whose career is ruined.
My point is that the military does such awesome work, your argument stacks the books in favor of them doing anything, however harmful, illegal, or immoral. It’s okay for them to spy on Americans — after all, it’s just a small infringement upon our rights, and they do such good work.
How much discrimination will you allow the military until you say, no – that discrimination outweighs all the good that military does. At what point does the balance tip the other way? If you actually believe that, then the balance can never actually tip, right?
May 10, 2010, 10:25 pmRandy says:
Max : ” It makes no sense.”
It makes sense if you understand that it reveals more about the insecurities of the proponents than any concern about military effectiveness.
May 10, 2010, 10:27 pmBeldar says:
This apologia for Solicitor General Kagan is based on wishful thinking and a determination to ignore the significance of what’s factually obvious. Perhaps she secretly signs the Marines’ Hymn every night before bedtime and she’s the one of the rare hard-core liberals who actually appreciates our armed forces. But I think that’s nothing more than a ridiculous supposition, and it’s inconsistent with her most high-profile ACTION.
May 10, 2010, 10:28 pmGI Jane says:
Randy,
There are and have always been gays in the military and everybody knows it, especially the military. Recently, the Obama administration was asked to extend DADT *for some reason*, by the reckoning here, perhaps because the military is all bigots.
But I know better, having met a lot of wonderful military personnel at posts, to include West Point. Society is morphing, but there is still the problem of young testosteroned buff guys living intimately with one another. Honestly, from what I know most gay recruits and officers are tolerated and respected unless overtures are made within ranks, and lesbians are least problematic, for some reason.
Apoplogies if what I’ve said isn’t a beautiful fair construct, but it’s what seems to be for the most part. I imagine some of the problems with integrating avowed same-sex comrades in arms into the fold will lessen in time, but now we’re at war and it’s not easy to socially re-engineer young buck/ warrior identity and also regulate buddy sex in the barracks.
A gendered integrated military has posed a number of personal conflict, sexual and pregnancy problems as it is, and military readiness suffers as a result.
May 10, 2010, 10:28 pmMax Power says:
Oh, I agree with you that the Clark-Kagan policy imposed some added inconvenience or burden on military recruiters. But it all depends on how much. I mean, obviously if the added burden on the military recruiters as a result of the policy were truly de minimis, like having to reserve an extra day in advance or having to walk 100 additional feet to a different interviewing room, the symbolic value of the policy would be worth enough to justify imposing the added burden on the recruiters. It’s just a question of how much actual burden was imposed — somewhere between none and a total ban from campus. I suspect it’s closer to the former: the NYT, for one, described the recruiters as “me[eting] with students in the same classrooms, just under different sponsorship.”
May 10, 2010, 10:34 pmB-Rob says:
You slay me, dude!
May 10, 2010, 10:35 pmMax Power says:
Like the Justice she’d be replacing?
May 10, 2010, 10:36 pmTatil says:
Nazi Germany and Japan alliance was a big threat with a reasonable chance to actually win the war. Not so for the present situation even though we call it a war. Drug smuggling gangs have a better chance of winning the war on drugs. Hence, the urgency is much less. Besides, governments usually offer fewer avenues of getting out if there is a draft or conscription.
May 10, 2010, 10:42 pmElliot says:
Correct. But as commander-in-chief he has incredible authority to define how the military will comply with DADT. They have detailed guidelines for dealing with DADT. He is responsible for them.
I guess I have to ask how you or the other 70% have a clue what makes the military work well. In what branch did you serve?
I oppose DADT because I did serve as a low ranked enlisted man, slept in the squad bays, went out on patrol, knew the gay guys, bla, bla, bla. Gays simply don’t matter.
But the general and overwhelming ignorance of the military I encounter in 90% of people, and the snobbish disdain for it that prevails in many universities and much of the degreed population gives me no confidence they have any idea what they are talking about.
May 10, 2010, 10:45 pmRicardo says:
Way to assume your conclusion. When did you stop beating your wife?
Perhaps so. See, it is possible to criticize and take a stand against military policy without hating on the armed forces?
May 10, 2010, 10:46 pm^_____^ says:
….Am I really the first to point out that it’s pretty much irrelevant whether Kagan loves or hates the military? Unless FAIR gets reconsidered–and it won’t be–the Court doesn’t exactly spend much of its time policing what the military can and can’t do. Are you all worried that she’s going push for aggressive review of the CAAF or something?
By comparison, she seems much more comfortable with executive power in general, so war-on-terror stuff isn’t a good counterexample.
May 10, 2010, 10:46 pmGuy says:
So you’re arguing that DADT is supported by the lack of military exigency? That even though it harms our military’s effectiveness, it doesn’t really matter because the situation isn’t serious enough? I think I must misunderstand you.
May 10, 2010, 10:47 pmRandy says:
GI Jane: “Apoplogies if what I’ve said isn’t a beautiful fair construct, but it’s what seems to be for the most part. I imagine some of the problems with integrating avowed same-sex comrades in arms into the fold will lessen in time, but now we’re at war and it’s not easy to socially re-engineer young buck/ warrior identity and also regulate buddy sex in the barracks.”
I understand, and thanks for your intelligence and experience on the matter. I’m not saying it will be all roses and sunshine — some people really ARE that immature that they can’t handle it. But experience with our allies, of of which allow open gays, including Israel, Britain, Canada, and many others, indicate that the problems are actually far less than feared.
Perhaps it wasn’t easy to socially re-engineer the young bucks back in the 50s when the army was integrated, and I’m sure there were problems. Perhaps there are even today. The answer, as always, is to deal with the problem people and discharge *them*, not the people who are actually serving our country properly.
I am always struck from a study conducted by the Army Navy War College on this very issue. They looked at all our allies who changed their policies to allow open gays. Before the change, many officers swore they would quit, that they would refuse to enforce the new policy, that there would be lots of problems. But, as one officer in Australia said, the army implemented it as professionally and smoothly as you would expect them to carry out any order. And the number of problems are so few, there is no hint of changing the policy back.
May 10, 2010, 10:47 pmB-Rob says:
Do you actually have a quote anywhere from her where she expresses some loathing of the military? If not, then from whence do you draw this conclusion?
In addition — let’s assume she does loath the military. She has not been nominated to be Secretary of Defense. She’s been nominated for the Supreme Court. Since when is some kind of supplication to the military a pre-requisite for the court?
In fact, how in the hell would that make any sense, that a juducial candidate is required to satisfy some “I <3 the Army" litmus test? If she declared her undying devotion to the military (a pledge asked of no other SCJ nominee that I know of), how could anyone ever get a fair shot on a case involving the military?
I think this is just a conservative talking point. The decision will be made, for political reasons, that they will oppose Kagan because she is anti-military. No matter what she says or does will convince these all-knowing, soul-insightful conservatives that "deep down inside" she doesn't hate the military. That will be the rallying point in 2010: "Obama placed an anti-military judge on the Supreme Court." So go ahead and start printing up the anti-Obama buttons right now. Because nothing that she says or does will change the talking point: it's probably already been copyrighted . . . .
May 10, 2010, 10:48 pmGI Jane says:
Randy,
Racial integration was a matter of adjusting for skin color and some sub-culture in the armed forces, and has proved a boon and blessing to our readiness and society at large, imo.
Homosexual integration is a matter of adjusting for behavior, attraction, sex and corps/ core discipline. It’s more problematic, not unsurmountable most likely, but I trust most mil leaders have a reason to want to keep DADT just now.
I try to keep in mind that most of us are asking of our GIs that they live, eat, shower and get shut-eye with each other and under stressful circumstances. Women have added wonderful “man”-power, know-how and perspective to the military, but also problems which are still being ironed out.
It does chafe me to see Harvard refuse the military recruiters “on principle” when its principles and asses are ultimately safe-guarded by our men and women in uniform. Message: Harvard law students are too moral and elitist for JAG.
May 10, 2010, 11:06 pmreality check says:
If you think she really hated the military so much, then explain the regulation haircut…
May 10, 2010, 11:10 pmTatil says:
I did not say I agree with the position, but that is the reason we don’t have a problem with stopping the enforcement of such policies during a real crisis. The only other NATO member that bans gays from the military apparently requires a difficult to obtain report from a medical commission to prove one’s homosexuality if one desires to get out of the 12 month compulsory military service. I am pretty sure they are enforcing the policy more strictly for their professional soldiers compared to the conscripts. Therefore, I don’t see military’s disdain for gays while allowing them to serve during WW2.
May 10, 2010, 11:15 pmSteve says:
It does chafe me to see Harvard refuse the military recruiters “on principle” when its principles and asses are ultimately safe-guarded by our men and women in uniform.
Conversely, why do our men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend a principle if it’s so anti-American to actually exercise that principle?
May 10, 2010, 11:19 pmSuperSkeptic says:
This is what we should be talking about.
May 10, 2010, 11:20 pmSaul says:
I disagree for several reasons. First, the military policy was discriminatory. Boycotting an outfit that has discriminatory policy is not wrong.
Second, Kagan and HLS used the power they had (access to campus) to attempt to change a discriminatory policy.
Third, Kagan and HLS’s view seems to enjoy pretty widespread support among military personnel who disagree w/ DADT. In short, there is a good chance that they are right.
I think most of your arguments are red herrings. Here are my thoughts – summarizing your argument first, then offering my two cents.
(A) The HLS policy targeted helpless military who were simply following orders. The military communicates with those who set their policy and vice-versa. There frustration with a policy can be communicated in a hope to change the policy. If HLS did not prevent military access b/c they would be punishing the wrong people, they are missing an opportunity. Communicating to the people who take the orders was a way to communicate their belief, and I doubt the military has simply shrugged and moved on. I bet people in the military have pointed out the handicapping of the policy.
(B) Preventing access to HLS in a time of conflict deprives the military and the comparison to blacks during WWII. Comparring the current conflict to WWII and the discrimination of blacks in the US to gays in the military is a reach. WWII was much more serious than the current conflict, and had blacks not served in the military there would have been a much greater effect than if the military cannot recruit at HLS today. Keep in mind, HLS is simply saying no recruitment, not asking gays to boycott the military. Also, blacks could enter the military and continue being black. Gays cannot enter the military and keep being gay.
(C) Depriving the military of minds or HLS students of opportunity. This is HLS – where students who still want the military will probably have no problem joining, and where the students are not lacking opportunity. The prestige of the school allows them to be selective while not foreclosing opportunity.
(D) HLS did not prohibit executive branch, legislative branch, or other gov’t agencies who either promoted DADT or had state laws prohibiting sodomy. None of these groups have as clear a policy as the military – and many have none at all. And regardless, I don’t like the argument that if you disagree with X, you are obliged to protest X in all forms and on all occassions where X is present, even if X is present only in a small way. Any group is free to choose to target the most egregious offenders, to make decisions how to use the power they have in the most effective way possible, or to recognize the other benefits of an opportunity and (regretfully) set aside disagreements.
(E) Recognize the other good things military does. Hell yes – and thankfully yes. But again, the policy did not dissuade students from going into the military, it just did not grant privileged access. And in light of the good things the military does, but prevents people from joining only b/c sexual orientation, all the more reason for HLS to do what they can do to end the practice soon.
May 10, 2010, 11:22 pmTatil says:
In other words, no patriot would question the military.
It does chafe me to see the military personnel have this “us versus them”, “we are victims”, “we get no respect” attitude towards the people who have attended any number of popular universities. The students attending these universities are among the our engineers, lawyers, doctors, managers of world class companies etc. Why don’t any of you seem to be appreciating them for what they contribute to society as much you want to be appreciated? Oh, by the way, the disdain might actually be much worse coming from self appointed patriotic conservatives than the other way around. I’d rather people play the “us versus them” more towards our real enemies, instead of invented internal ones.
May 10, 2010, 11:25 pmGI Jane says:
Steve,
Our men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend the US and American principles, to include free speech, because they believe in your right to throw eggs at them (if you miss) or cast aspersions, and in my right to be chafed.
“No patriot would question the military”? Offensive strawman, Tatil. I never said any such thing. Garbage argument and name-calling.
May 10, 2010, 11:25 pmTatil says:
Sorry, I meant to say “Therefore, I don’t see a contradiction in military’s disdain for gays while allowing them to serve during WW2.”
May 10, 2010, 11:27 pmzuch says:
What’s this nonsense of “We’re at war?!?!?” This is not like WWII, where the freedom of the world was pretty much at stake. Any “wars” we’re in (and we’re not in any war from a legal standpoint) are of a voluntary nature, both as to prosecution and as to participation. And not existential threats that warrant some lapse of principles. Do you really think that JAGs were hurting (I mean, in terms of recruitment, not in terms of having the Dubya maladministration pay any attention to them; they seem to have been superfluous in being ignored…)?
Cheers,
May 10, 2010, 11:28 pmGI Jane says:
Your’re right, zuch. We’re not at war, such nonsense, and JAG shouldn’t have had any expectation of recruiting at Harvard when it could sign up law students from other universities.
Whatever.
May 10, 2010, 11:32 pmTatil says:
Sure, you did not. However, any outsider who actually dares to question the military policy, not the details of implementation, is immediately accused of hating the military. I guess that is just a coincidence.
May 10, 2010, 11:35 pmElliot says:
War is not a function of legal standpoints. War existed before those legal standpoints. War does not depend on law.
May 10, 2010, 11:36 pmrpt says:
And both are conspicuous for their aversion to military service. All talk. Ivy league elite for whom real public service is something to be strenuously avoided. Where’s Curt Levey?
May 10, 2010, 11:37 pmSteven Appelget says:
I must say I enjoy watching the conservatives rant and rave when exposed to a 99 & 44/00 % pure libertarian like Prof. Somin.
May 10, 2010, 11:39 pmTatil says:
Is that not a strawman as well? The restrictions seems to be symbolic and many people do disagree with DADT. Why is it such a big deal that some university is putting up an official, but symbolic protest? If supporters of DADT cannot even take that much of a criticism, how much of it can they actually tolerate?
Besides, are you saying the risk to our lives right now is as great as it was during WW2?
May 10, 2010, 11:41 pmrpt says:
Of course you know that they were never prohibited from recruiting at HLS?
May 10, 2010, 11:41 pmElliot says:
The military sure appreciates those folks. They try very hard to recruit them. Kagen and many students at Harvard Law School didn’t like that expression of appreciation.
May 10, 2010, 11:44 pmGI Jane says:
GI Jane: “No patriot would question the military”? Offensive strawman, Tatil. I never said any such thing. Garbage argument and name-calling.
Sure, you did not. However, any outsider who actually dares to question the military policy, not the details of implementation, is immediately accused of hating the military. I guess that is just a coincidence.
You know, the only hate I see is embedded in your comment. I’m not the basher here.
May 10, 2010, 11:44 pmzuch says:
Constitution, meet Elliot. Elliot, meet Constitution.
Cheers,
May 10, 2010, 11:55 pmRicardo says:
GI Jane, isn’t it problematic for you on the one hand to accuse others of “strawman” arguments and then, on the other, make a completely unsupported assertion like this? Can you point to a specific statement Kagan or any other person in a leadership position at Harvard has made that indicates that they think Harvard law students are too moral and elitist for JAG?
You don’t seem to like it very much when others question your good faith. How about showing the same respect to others with whom you disagree rather than assuming — without any evidence — that their objections to DADT are inherently motivated by elitism and a desire to tear down the armed forces?
May 10, 2010, 11:58 pmGI Jane says:
Ricardo,
With all due respect, Kagan and Harvard protesters did mount a “moral” objection to military recruitment on campus, did they not?
May 11, 2010, 12:02 amGI Jane says:
Also, Ricardo, where did I imply people’s objections to DADT are motivated by a “desire to tear down the armed forces”? Be specific, please.
May 11, 2010, 12:05 amOrenWithAnE says:
Interesting. In my attempts to calculate the libertarianosity of Ilya, I have always arrived at slightly lower figures, usually in the 98.7% range.
We should compare notes.
May 11, 2010, 12:10 amSteve B says:
If Kagan believed so strongly in her position on gender equality, she should have resigned instead of compromising for the sake of “win-win”. Here is my take on the Ivy-League defiance regarding the military: “stay home, make tons of money, write briefs, protest, debate, do whatever you want…there are still enough of us left who will deploy and fight America’s battles without engaging in high drama, pointless posturing or demanding a perfect, utopian USA.”
May 11, 2010, 12:19 amSally says:
I wonder why no one ever writes about how completely useless these boycotts were, that banning military recruiters from Harvard Law School or anywhere else did absolutely nothing to change DADT. This is probably because the vast majority of Americans couldn’t care less what the Dean of HLS thinks about anything and because let’s face it the military doesn’t need Harvard Law grads, most of whom wouldn’t be able to hack the military anyway so it wasn’t anyone’s loss. Kagan will now have a chance to be more effective, as one of The Nine. Here’s betting she becomes only slightly less a nonentity than Sotomayor will turn out to be. As to whether or not she’s anti-military, does it even matter? The Court’s not really a place to influence anything that happens with the military in any meaningful way.
May 11, 2010, 12:19 amGI Jane says:
“For decades, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps was an unwelcome sight ” on Ivy League college campuses like Harvard University, in part because of its ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) servicemembers.
Kagan: “her personal opposition to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ which she called ‘a moral injustice of the first order.”
May 11, 2010, 12:21 amTatil says:
Unless they are gay. :)
This is just a symbolic protest, not very valuable as it does not require much sacrifice on the part of Harvard, it is not like they gave up all federal funding over it. It is not the only university that protest DADT and it does not impede military recruitment much if at all, either, so why is it such a big deal to supporters of DADT or any other aspect of military policy? Why is it deemed such an insult or so wrong?
May 11, 2010, 12:23 amRicardo says:
Some of your previous quotes:
Implying critics of DADT were “throw[ing] eggs at them” or “cast[ing] aspersions” at the military and believe that “combat grunts is [sic] too stupid to understand social justice.”
If you think I am being unfair in summarizing these three quotes as “tearing down the armed forces” then by all means suggest some alternative characterization. Absent any such alternative characterization from you, I think “tearing down the armed forces” is both fair and accurate.
Yes, members of democratic society on all sides of the political spectrum frequently question the morality of certain government policies. You don’t get from here to the conclusion that Harvard thinks its law students are “too moral for JAG.” And you certainly don’t get to any conclusion concerning elitism.
May 11, 2010, 12:23 amRandy says:
GI Jane: “Homosexual integration is a matter of adjusting for behavior, attraction, sex and corps/ core discipline. It’s more problematic, not unsurmountable most likely, but I trust most mil leaders have a reason to want to keep DADT just now.”
I don’t. Remember: The *sole* reason for not allowing gays to serve openly is that it will affect “military cohesion.” And they reason that there are too many people in the military hostile to gays to allow them to serve openly.
That’s an assumption our leaders have made, but it’s based on their own prejudices, not the rank and file. The younger generation, as someone else noted, really doesn’t care much whether gays are in their ranks. So their assumption is getting wronger and wronger with each passing day. Of course, there will always be the idiot who can’t stand gays and makes problems, but seriously — what problems will an open gay have that a closeted gay doesn’t already present? Pregnancy isn’t an issue. Gays already exist, and many times people know about it. What behavior problems could possibly exist? Gays acting on their attraction to a straight guy? Sorry, but if people are going to complain that I understand the military, then I get to complain that people don’t know about gays: No gay man is attracted to every body that has a penis. We DO have standards! And most gay men aren’t really interested in guys who are straight — except the straight guys who don’t mind some sex from a gay guy (and that happens a lot more frequently than you think. And it also happens between two straight guys).
So, I have to disagree. Again, experience teaches us from all the other militaries that lifting the ban hasn’t created any more problems than having the ban in place, and in fact often makes things better. Nonetheless, of course, there will be a certain amount of education, regulation, and such in order to do so.
May 11, 2010, 12:23 amGI Jane says:
Ricardo, you didn’t make your argument.
May 11, 2010, 12:28 amRicardo says:
Sorry to pick on you, but this quote does not, in fact, come from Dean Kagan. It instead comes from someone named Rev. Irene Monroe who, we are informed through the link, is a doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School. In other words, she’s a grad student. Why are quotes from random grad students relevant in a debate about the Dean of Harvard Law School and the policies she put in place? Moreover, this quote does not support your conclusion, even if it was relevant.
May 11, 2010, 12:29 amConstantin says:
Still? And, so:
What battalion did that chickenhawk Obama serve in? He plays enough golf and basketball no matter what else is happening, you know he was healthy enough to enlist . . .
May 11, 2010, 12:29 amRicardo says:
I’ll let my comments speak for themselves. Nowhere did you provide any support for your strawman argument that supporters of Harvard Law’s policy think that “Harvard law students are too moral and elitist for JAG.”
May 11, 2010, 12:31 amGI Jane says:
Ricardo, where do I say that first quote comes from Kagan? You’re just making stuff up like :) Hit the link.
The second quote is attributed to Kagan.
I do know servicemembers who had all sorts of invective and paper thrown at them when on the Harvard and Columbia campuses, btw. But they were big boys and handled it just fine.
May 11, 2010, 12:34 amSFC B says:
I’ve got a little over 15 years in, and I spent three long years in recruiting. On a personal level I’m sick and tired of DADT. I think it’s a poor policy and should never have been implemented. I’m fine with 80% solutions, but DADT doesn’t get there. It was political pandering and half-assed back when it was implemented, and it’s still pandering and half-assed today.
That being said, on an impartial, professional level I question what practical benefit it will actually have.
I’ve recruited. I’ve spoken w/ young men and women who were likely homosexual, and probably enlisted a few as well. I don’t know for sure because I held up my end of the policy and didn’t ask or pursue, and they didn’t tell. I seriously doubt that there is a huge population of homosexuals who are 1) otherwise eligible to enlist, 2) not already serving but keeping their orientation to themselves as best as possible, and 3) willing to enlist if DADT were repealed.
DADT is a convenient excuse for someone to say they’d be willing to serve if it weren’t for that hateful policy, but knowing that they won’t actually have to follow through. I met enough people who’d tell me they’d join if not for *insert their problem here*, and have them suddenly remember another reason they couldn’t enlist when I’d tell that their problem wasn’t actually something that would keep them out.
So, in exchange for a small increase in the pool of people actually enlisting, the military has to take a likely not insignificant risk in disruption of good order and discipline during a time with a winding-down shooting war in Iraq, and a soon-to-be-hotter one in Afghanistan.
DADT =/= racial integration.
Finally, and this is a personal peeve, Randy, you have any idea how sick I am of hearing the “ZOMG! ARAB TRANSLATORS WERE KICKED OUT!!1!!11″ meme? 1) it was an incident of students at the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey being caught fraternizing. Some of them happened to have been gay. They weren’t fully trained translators, and they weren’t all Middle Eastern speakers. 2) they were students. In a training environment pre-IMT graduates aren’t allowed to have such relations with other trainees regardless of their orientation. If caught they were going to suffer punitive action, up to separation, no matter who they were sticking it to. 2a) It’s freaking training. A Soldier without the self-discipline to keep it in their pants and out of another Soldier for the duration of their class will probably lack the self-discipline to do some other unpleasant task, say perform tower guard all night. 3) the military has gotten far, far, far more bang for their buck by focusing recruiting efforts on people who are native speakers of the Middle Eastern languages the military needs. I’d trade openly gay service members for more Iraqis and Afghanis being able to enlist every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
May 11, 2010, 12:36 amrpt says:
Sorry, but Kristol and Whelan are mere free-riding kibitzers. Like it or not, Obama has responsibilities.
May 11, 2010, 12:38 amwhit says:
blaming the military, and especially the rank and file military for DADT is like blaming cops for the war on drugs.
they have to live with the policy/law. THEY did not make it.
legislators did.
May 11, 2010, 12:39 amjcp370 says:
How dare anyone attempt to impute any bias of any kind to Elena Kagan? Has she not spent the past 25 years conspicuously refusing to put her name to all but a handful of scholarly articles so that her opinions would not be on record and would not be thrown back at her? Has she not worked on her reputation as a consensus-builder, making friends of everyone she meets and being careful not to be disagreeable to anyone (except for those ROTC neanderthals and who could blame her) all in preparation for this big day? The fact that one teensy-weensy little thing is now being trotted out and blown out of all proportion by a bunch of neo-cons just shows how partisan conservatives are unlike liberals who practically automatically confirm Republican nominees without hearings. Ms. Kagan has no biases, she’s apparently a great all-around gal and she wants to stick it to the man on behalf of the little people. Dispense with the hearings and confirm her tomorrow.
May 11, 2010, 12:40 amRicardo says:
Since you did not attribute the quote I did it for you. I didn’t imply anything about the quote other than to say that since it comes from some random divinity school graduate student, it’s not particularly relevant.
May 11, 2010, 12:40 amGI Jane says:
Well, you were wrong, Ricardo, to assume an attribution. That quote, if you hit the link, was from the LA Progressive and it opened with how ROTC hasn’t been very welcome at Ivy League schools “for decades” and (only) “in part” b/c of DADT.
May 11, 2010, 12:45 amArthur Kirkland says:
I gather you refer to the firms that represented Oliver North, Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby. I also had no problem with those firms.
May 11, 2010, 12:51 amRicardo says:
1. I note how you would rather focus on side-issues like this rather than defend your original argument.
May 11, 2010, 12:53 am2. The author of the quote is Rev. Irene Monroe who is a graduate student at Harvard divinity school. If you are going to argue with me on this point (where you can verify I am correct by following your own advice and clicking the link), I don’t see further discussion being possible.
theBruce says:
Randy, while I tend to disagree with many of your comments on this site, I acknowledge that they are nearly always well-reasoned. As a service academy grad-turned-lawyer, I have particularly enjoyed the back and forth between you and GI Jane. I must say that I am disappointed you trotted out the tired canard that the military, or the government as a whole is responsible for “the enormous expense in training the people on the taxpayer dime,” or for the wasted expertise. I am not aware of a single individual who has been separated from the military as a result of DADT that did not know upon his or her enlistment that making homosexual conduct known or knowable to the chain of command would result in separation. Just as I have never blamed the near-zero tolerance policy on drug use or DUI for a waste of training expense while signing a discharge package on a Marine who violated either of those policies, I would not blame DADT while signing one for a Marine guilty of violating it. I would blame– and in the case of drug users, have blamed– the idiot who could not seem to comport himself in a manner consistent with the rules and regulations of military service. So instead of making martyrs of the selfish, let’s be consistent and blame them for the waste. Or fraud if you prefer.
May 11, 2010, 12:59 amGI Jane says:
Ricardo, honestly I don’t understand your belabored point. If you’re saying that Harvard and many Ivy League students don’t by and large eschew military service for “moral” reason or on account of better/more lucrative/less dangerous career opportunity, then fine. I don’t have the time to search for the stats. What do I care, the sky is lime green.
May 11, 2010, 1:01 amSaul says:
There has been a fair amount of debate about DADT recently. And now, Kagan’s view will be debated on a national level as people debate her candidacy. Somebody is bound to point out that she was right. Also, we have a post with almost 100 contributers now – although you and your comment might be useless (don’t worry – just joking), I think everybody else is useful.
May 11, 2010, 1:03 amtrashhauler says:
Randy wrote:
Randy brings up a usually ignored point – the effect of sexual conduct within a unit. People forget that DADT was a loosening of rules, not a tightening. The law and policy before DADT required the removal of gays, whether they told or not, and for a reason.
The problem isn’t showering with gays, being around gays, or fear that a gay might hit on straight servicemembers. The problem is that once gays are accepted openly as gay, then the military will be faced with the same kinds of issues that are common between women and men in uniform.
One of the reasons why women are restricted from belonging to close combat units is the threat that sex presents to unit cohesion. Unlike race, sex is behavior common to all people. Despite stringent rules about sexual behavior in the military, inappropriate sexual conduct is still the one of the most common reason for courts-martial in the military. Why? Because sex between members of the same unit leads to jealousy, favoritism and suspicion. All of these things are injurious to unit cohesion, because they tend to destroy the trust between unit members. At the most basic level, it opens the question of why someone gets promoted, gets a good assignment, a good school, or any kind of preferred treatment. A unit so afflicted is less mission effective – which can mean that people die. Is it any wonder that commanders would just as soon not complicate their jobs more by putting gays into the mix?
Favoritism, jealousy, and suspicion already exist without sex. As a society, we have chosen to live with the problems inherent with mixed gender units, so long as such integration is not extended to close combat units. However, we won’t be able to do so with gay men, at least, quite so easily. People who blithely say, “Well, we can make rules governing such behavior” ignore that fact that such rules are routinely broken by men and women every day. The results are often ruined careers and broken unit cohesion.
May 11, 2010, 1:09 amSally says:
And none of that debate has changed anything. Harvard Law’s banning of recruiters on campus didn’t change it either. There are some –probably many who post here– who would like to believe that Harvard Law and similar institutions represent the best and the brightest among us and yet in almost 20 years those intellectual powerhouses have not been able to accomplish anything when it comes to DADT. I wonder if it ever occurred to Ms. Kagan that she had a better shot of influencing military policy if some of Harvard’s esteemed graduates actually joined the military and worked their way up to positions of importance. But that would have involved, to coin a phrase, “picking up a weapon and standing a post” as it were and that’s just so…plebian.
May 11, 2010, 1:12 amtrashhauler says:
Randy wrote:
The threat to unit cohesion is only partially caused by animus towards gays. The greater threat is that of sexually active people engaging in sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual. The Services have many rules against inappropriate sexual behavior and they are regularly broken, with jealousy and suspicion often being the results. Thus far, these dangers to unit cohesion have been kept out of close combat units by the prohibition of women in them. The presence of gays could create such troubles in close combat units, unless the gender prohibition was extended to include them.
May 11, 2010, 1:24 amKen Arromdee says:
If I refuse to go to a restaurant any more because the founder works for the KKK in his spare time, I’m immediately punishing the innocent waiters, cooks, etc. The guy who I actually want to punish is only affected by my activity indirectly, when he starts to see that his restaurant doesn’t quite get as many customers as he wants and figures it out. And he might never figure it out at all, since it’s indirect and since he doesn’t only have this one restaurant so things may get lost in the noise.
Still, I’m not going to go to that restaurant.
May 11, 2010, 1:26 amcomatus says:
I do not have an answer to DADT, and I can’t say whether Kagan harbors animus toward the military. However, using the “Jewish discrimination” argument in any discussion of Harvard must come under some corollary of Godwin’s law.
For hundreds of years, Harvard discriminated against Jews. It’s looking like they may do so again. Jews may forgive and forget if they wish; I consider Harvard’s position to pass judgement on discrimination issues to be permanently compromised. Voluntary association with such an organization ought to come under the same heading as a former membership in an exclusionary country club, or –let’s make this interesting– the Klan.
May 11, 2010, 1:27 amRicardo says:
Except that this is not necessarily true. As others have pointed out, DADT policy is pursuant to a law passed by democratically elected members of Congress and signed and signed by a democratically elected President. The Constitution enshrines the subordination of the military to the civilian branches of government. Now, military officials can influence policy but that influence is always going to be subject to political limitations and realities. Moreover, the JAG corps seems like a particularly bad position from which to influence policy. It’s like encouraging someone who opposes the war on drugs to become a federal prosecutor. The first obligation of the position is to participate in the enforcement of the law, not to enact or push for changes.
May 11, 2010, 1:37 amSynova says:
Which is, of course, why women and men shower and room together in the military all the time. Right?
Yup… all those co-ed showers and no problems at all.
DADT was supposed to solve the problem, actually. It was supposed to allow gays to serve by pretending they weren’t there… so they’d be in the shower with the other guys but everyone would just pretend they weren’t. Because before DADT the military asked and made it their business to know.
I’m wondering if anyone all up in arms about this has actually thought this through? I’m pretty sure they haven’t. Taking away DADT, for all of it’s inequities and problems, and having homosexuals serve “openly” means that the military (which absolutely micromanages personal affairs… trust me on that) will have to determine who is and who is not. They will ask. Homosexuals will be required to declare. And just like being a woman in uniform there will be limits on assignments according to which stations/bases/forts/whatever are able to accommodate the necessary facilities.
The military has one response to a PITA issue demanded by Congress and it’s to follow absolutely the letter and fudge the margins in order to get the least impact on operations.
I’ve seen some of the stupidity this has resulted with for women (and directly cost a significant number of lives of those who didn’t need to die over it) and it’s foolish to think that the concerns and contortions made necessary by women serving will not be made pale in comparison to homosexuals serving in a situation where official notice isn’t just tolerated but is utterly required.
There is a surprising amount of wiggle room in the margins between everyone knowing and having to take official notice. You never want to get official notice. It’s always bad. And here’s people without the sense god gave a bunny rabbit demanding official notice.
May 11, 2010, 1:44 amSteve says:
I wonder if it ever occurred to Ms. Kagan that she had a better shot of influencing military policy if some of Harvard’s esteemed graduates actually joined the military and worked their way up to positions of importance.
Since it’s a matter of record that she repeatedly “encouraged students seeking military careers,” you need wonder no longer.
May 11, 2010, 1:46 amSteve says:
I’m wondering if anyone all up in arms about this has actually thought this through? I’m pretty sure they haven’t.
If only the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the numerous generals and other senior figures who support DADT repeal had thought it through. Nope, you’re the only one who gets it. There is no option for the military other than to require gay soldiers to declare their orientation and to restrict their activities based upon their declarations.
May 11, 2010, 1:51 amKen Royall says:
“…the military’s unjust policy”
Says who? You? Leave the military matters to the experts. There are very good reasons to prohibit open homosexuality in the military. It is not a forgone conclusion that changing that policy will be successful.
It wasn’t Kagan’s job to prohibit recruiters from being on campus, she went out of her way to do so. She will be a down the line far left lib for the simple reason Obama wouldn’t have nominated her if that weren’t the case.
May 11, 2010, 2:01 amSynova says:
The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, etc., don’t care at all if homosexual members of the military are limited to jobs Stateside or at major overseas bases where those homosexual members housing and privacy needs can be accommodated.
A whole bus load of female soldiers were killed in Iraq because of the rules they were under to ensure they were housed in a situation that did not put them together with men. Thank you Congress. I’m absolutely certain that the military knows better, but they have to serve that other master even if it means putting those women in a situation that was too risky for the men. And they died.
Do you really think that Congress is going to let the military just throw everyone together? That’s bull. And what we’ve got now is at least a stone throw away from Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Care.
Do you really think that when the official policy is that the military is required to care, that gay soldiers will be allowed in infantry units and other direct combat units any more than female soldiers are?
May 11, 2010, 2:03 amWJ Alden says:
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that one. Were any of these translators native speakers of Arabic? Did any of them have significant experience with Arabic prior to enlisting?
I’ll guess that few if any did. They voluntarily enlisted for the purpose of becoming translators, then received lots of expensive, taxpayer funded instruction in a pretty damn nice location (Monterey, California). They joined fully aware of DA/DT, and, presumably, fully aware of their sexual orientation.
The truth is that if these gay enlistees had not taken up these places at translator school it’s entirely likely that the military would’ve found perfectly suitable replacements, and national security would not have been compromised.
See here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
In other news, giving a speech at a military academy after suing to keep military recruiters off your campus does not prove you are not anti-military. Perhaps it just proves that Kagan was trying to cover her not insubstantial ass and help her with any future political nominations.
May 11, 2010, 2:08 amliontooth says:
That’s hilarious, as the USSR ended up on the “winning” side! How’d that freedom thing work out in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the Ukraine, Latvia Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, etc?
May 11, 2010, 2:20 amGuy says:
And then the military wasted the time and money spent on training when they were terminated, forcing them to expend more resources training replacements.
Are you calling her fat? Classy.
May 11, 2010, 2:20 amWJ Alden says:
Yes – time and money that was wasted because nine gay men enlisted in a military whose policy on homosexuals they were perfectly aware of.
Is that waste the fault of the military, or of the recruits? The miltary was clear and consistent in its policy.
May 11, 2010, 2:31 amRicardo says:
This is wrong, as several commentators have helped clarify already.
Kagan never banned a single military recruiter from campus. What she did do was continue Harvard’s 1979-era policy of prohibiting the military from using on-campus recruiting resources. She continued this policy until Harvard’s federal funding was jeopardized after which she discontinued it.
Kagan neither prohibited military recruiters on campus nor did she go “out of her way” to do much of anything on the issue.
May 11, 2010, 2:37 amRicardo says:
So since Kagan cannot prove she is not anti-military, logically that means she is. I’m convinced.
May 11, 2010, 2:40 amWJ Alden says:
It means that she cannot wipe away the consequences of her other actions with a single speech. And those actions: at a time of war, at a university receiving over $300 million a year in taxpayer funding, she refused full access to the military. It’s irrelevant that she made second-class accomodations for military recruiters. They and the 3 million men and women who serve alongside them, who risk their lives in our defense, were treated with contempt. Whatever I think of the military or its policies, given the sacrifices they make I would think twice before taking any action to treat them with disrespect. Kagan at Harvard had the opportunity to take a courageous stand on the issue. Instead she took the wrong one, then tried to make up for it with meaningless sentiments.
May 11, 2010, 2:54 amDougInSanDiego says:
Ilya
I fear you lack a good understanding of the military, perhaps because of lack of experience or exposure. You seem to be of the mistaken impression that one of the jobs of the military is to defend the country:
One of the critical issues you miss is that defending the country is the ONLY ‘good thing the military do{es}’. The job of individuals in the military is to kill other human beings – though that may be a very distasteful notion for you. Given this is the SOLE task assigned to the military, several conclusions can be drawn:
1. The entire set of criteria that should be used in evaluating any change to anything regarding the military is: Will the change likely make a marked improvement in the military’s fighting prowess?
2. Given that any change carries the possibility of unforeseen and unforeseeable results, no changes should even be on the table for consideration unless the answer to Question 1 is heavily biased toward “Yes”.
3. The military specifically is not “employment” in any sense in which we civilians think of it. None of us is asked to kill a human being or to likely die as part of our job. Employment law does not, and should never, be applied to military service.
4. The military specifically is NOT in the business of righting social wrongs, being “fair and balanced”, or helping the downtrodden feel better about themselves. While some of that may be a common outcome of military service, it is strictly an aftereffect and is coincidental to service.
5. There appears to be no definitive study(s) that show that fighting prowess will improve should gays serve openly. Conversely, there are plentiful anecdotal stories of how such a change might degrade fighting prowess by diminishing allegiance to one’s unit in favor of one-on-one allegiance (this applies to mixed gender units as well, of course).
Regarding Kagan, I would posit that the real concern is that she perhaps holds some of the same misconceptions about the military as do you. Having a singular focus on the ‘evils’ of DADT is quite troublesome. One would hope that a candidate for the Supreme Court would have at least a passing understand of items 1 through 5; she seem to not. Further, banning on-campus recruiting because of DADT clearly diminishes the quality and quantity of individuals available for service. Thus, the argument that “openly serving gays will increase the available pool of labor” is apparently not on her radar screen. Rather, she sought to punish military recruiting over her favorite social issue. THAT is more than troublesome; perhaps reprehensible.
I’ve discussed these issues with others here – most notably Randy, and am aware that others see a different mission for the military. Further, if we were not in 2 shooting wars, no doubt fewer would see the military’s one and only mission to be ‘maximum fighting prowess possible’. Still, I believe these are correct thoughts regarding the military, regardless of how distasteful or objectionable some may see them. Lying to ourselves about the mission of the military is not in anyone’s best interests, for any reason.
While it is impossible to discuss this aspect of Kagan’s makeup without arguing the DADT issue, that was not my point here. Rather, I am deeply troubled that Kagan – a Supremely powerful figure in our government, if confirmed, may not correctly see the military and her theories relating to it – and may be prone to use the military for social change. Since the military is the most black and white example of where that should NOT be done – yet she has shown a willingness to do so – her foibles here may be unsettling harbingers of her notions in other areas as well.
May 11, 2010, 2:54 am1040 says:
there is really no need to insult david bernstein in this manner!
May 11, 2010, 3:05 amGuy says:
Are we discussing the logic of the policy, or assigning blame? I don’t understand the relevance of this comment.
May 11, 2010, 3:36 amSteve says:
The job of individuals in the military is to kill other human beings — though that may be a very distasteful notion for you. Given this is the SOLE task assigned to the military, several conclusions can be drawn:
The assertion that the sole job of the US military is to kill people is almost certainly the most ignorant statement in this thread. Others can decide for themselves what sort of attitude towards the military it suggests.
May 11, 2010, 3:55 amRicardo says:
Harvard Law School’s complaint against the military is that the military discriminates against homosexuals in its hiring of members of the Judge Advocate General Corps.
As far as the U.S. Army is concerned, it seems you can sign on to be an Army JAG attorney with no prior military experience as most do. While in theory, I’m sure the Army reserves the right to send its JAGs into combat, in practice, there’s reason to believe that is pretty rare. The Army’s own description of the job seems to confirm that. JAGs have to pass certain physical fitness and training requirements to become Officers but the real emphasis of the training is on legal knowledge and being assimilated into military culture.
I’m sure it is different for other services (Marine JAGs seem to be chosen from their existing pool of officers all of whom are supposed to be combat-ready) but given this set of facts, discriminating against homosexuals in the Army JAG Corps doesn’t seem justified.
I disagree with the way Kagan and other Law School deans went about their protests of this policy but they certainly have the right to voice their concerns as they regard the recruitment of legal professionals in the armed forces. I don’t have strong opinions on the wider DADT debate but whatever justification there is for discriminating against homosexuals in combat units, that justification seems much weaker for the JAG Corps.
May 11, 2010, 4:01 amTristan Phillips says:
Not to mention the fact that she violated the law (Solomon Amendment – 10 U.S.C. § 983) by denying the recruiters and still taking Federal money. IIRC Harvard and a bunch of other Universities lost their free speech claim to violate the Solomon Amendment when standing in front of the USSC. And the topper is not one penny of Federal money was returned after they lost.
Taking tax money, telling recruiters to get off your campus, and then keeping the money after being told you’re wrong is not much of a moral stand in my book. Shows more of a lack of morals and ethics than anything else.
May 11, 2010, 6:15 amSDN says:
Except for the simple fact that under the law, the recruiter COULDN’T ASK that question.
Kamal is a liar.
May 11, 2010, 6:43 amGuy says:
Tristan, I’m sure whether Harvard hay to pay back money was governed by law or agreement, either of which would be enforceable by a court. Are you seriously arguing that she should have volunteered money (on behalf of Harvard, not herself) that she was not obliged to pay?
May 11, 2010, 6:50 amDennis says:
Having spent 20 years in the military we handled having gays in the military with few problems. We do not make the rules and in a republic, not democracy, that we have I would think most citizens would welcome that.
May 11, 2010, 7:31 amI would have to say, given some of the comments on this blog, that the enlisted “men in their barracks” were and are far more intelligent and capable at meeting the every day challenges than happen than I see demonstrated here by “the supposed best and brightest.”
When you have to keep telling yourself that you are “the best and the brightest” then you are not. I am amazed at the simplistic and superficial logic and dare I say thinking that exists in what are supposed graduates of institutions of higher learning.
Since casting aspersions seems to work as dialog let me say that it is interesting that behind most of the problems we face in this country is a graduate of Harvard or some other prestigious ivy league university that is making it worse.
ern says:
The fact that many opponents of DADT (including Kagan) focus their ire on the military rather than the responsible agents (primarily, Congress), does say something about the biases of the opponents. Indeed, it seems rather silly to think otherwise. But it doesn’t say everything about it. Certainly there are some reflexive biases on the Left (and no one doubts Kagan is on the Left) that often manifest without conscious thought, and anti-military bias is one of them. So it is natural to suspect that anti-military bias is at least partially in play when someone like Kagan acts as she has in her position at Harvard.
That no significant effort was made by her to actually deal with the problem directly, and that she went to work for Clinton after DADT was instated, shows a typical contradiction when people of principle get into politics. Weighing her position against DADT against an advantageous career move, she chose the one that benefited her most–the career move. It is easy for an outsider to conclude that her principle must therefore not be that important, and her career more important. But she’s human. Ideologically, it’s easier to put the onus on the military than members of Congress (in one’s own party). That she went that route is entirely predictable. All this shows is that she is, in the end, no different than the average person.
I disagree with her opinion about military recruitment, even as I agree with her opposition to DADT. And it would have been nice for a change if she had actually turned her principle into something other than easy political rhetoric popular with her political peers. That she took the easy road on this doesn’t make her anti-military. It does demonstrate, I think, that she has been (at least in this instance) not reflective on this issue. Typical, I think, for many liberals, and a point against her, I think, concerning her nomination. But nothing earth-shattering.
May 11, 2010, 7:37 amExNavy says:
Having read through the post and all the comments, I’m fascinated that this focused on the substantive issue of gays in the military. As a vet, I have my own (flawed) opinions on this, but Kagan was a highly-trained lawyer and dean of an excellent law school. Where was her understanding that the discrimination was forced on the military by elected officials? Shouldn’t we be questioning her analytic capabilities, her ability to grasp the key elements of a conflict, working her way through to a just conclusion, and then communicating her opinion clearly?
I hope she is confirmed. I hope that most (even all) Republican senators vote for her. Obama has the right to have the justices he wants, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
But I hope that some senator asks her to clearly explain how she arrived at her position.
May 11, 2010, 7:42 amKagan'sGirlfriend says:
Kagan banned military recruiters and ROTC students who had zero to due with the DADT policy. YET! She willingly worked for President Bill Clinton in the White House, a man who created the DADT policy. How’s that for logic.
May 11, 2010, 7:52 amthirdeblue says:
Ilya,
If everyone took your attitude in regards to segregation in the military, it would never have been integrated, ever.
May 11, 2010, 7:54 am~aardvark says:
Has anyone noted that there is at least one faulty premise here? Military recruiters were never “banned from campus”. They were allowed to recruit, just not through the primary Career Office. So they were clearly given secondary status and restricted, but not banned. And Kagan only allowed even that to happen when explicitly permitted by a court decision.
May 11, 2010, 8:23 amMax Power says:
Once gays are allowed in at all (and that horse has left the barn), what’s the difference whether they are allowed to serve openly or not? You’d think that open service with mandatory discharge in the event of fraternization would not result in a drastically higher level of gay sex in the ranks than the current policy. Either way, you’re kicked out if you’re caught having gay sex. The only difference is, under the current policy, you’re punished for just for *saying* you’re gay, or for letting someone find out you have a gay spouse back home — which has nothing to do with creating sexual jealousies among the ranks. In other words, if the main reason for the policy isn’t hatred of gay people per se, but rather the negative effects of gay sexual relationships on unit cohesion, what’s the point of letting gays into the service but prohibiting them from merely saying they’re gay?
May 11, 2010, 8:24 amKagan'sGirlfriend says:
Just a reminder for the revisionist liberals trying to sugar coat Harvard’s anti-military history: This story is from 1993.
“Several schools, including Brown, Yale and Harvard, no longer allow ROTC units on campus, but participate in the “officer accession program” through agreements with local universities. At Harvard, radicals have gone further, arguing that the university should no longer accept ROTC scholarships.”
“Harvard University and the ROTC have had a turbulent relationship since the late 1960s. In 1969, the arts and sciences faculty voted to force ROTC units off campus to register “disapproval of the military” in response to the strong pacifist sentiment of antiwar activists. Harvard has since participated in a crosstown agreement that allows students to commute to the ROTC unit at MIT for drills and classes. But even this limited connection has proved too much for those opposed to the idea that any Harvard student should serve his or her country in the military after graduation.”
“This past spring, what began as crusade by a vocal minority serious issue for Harvard ROTC cadets and midshipmen. In May, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, was invited to speak at graduation. His support of the homosexual ban angered faculty and student radicals and ignited a fresh round of debate over Harvard’s relationship with the military
In response, the arts and sciences faculty voted to endorse a report of the Harvard University Committee on the Status of ROTC, which recommended phasing out Harvard’s relationship with the ROTC if the military did not lift the ban unconditionally and allow homosexuals to serve openly. The committee decided that because the armed forces does not countenance homosexuality, military service is “inconsistent with Harvard’s values,” and that there is “no principled basis for permitting [the ROTC] to continue.”"
May 11, 2010, 8:31 amMax Power says:
This point would resonate much more if DADT did not require the discharge of soldiers whose gayness comes to light through no choice of their own, such as by the vindictive statements of third parties, or the retaliatory action of police officers who find a gay-marriage certificate in your house when they execute an unrelated search warrant:
So let’s at least acknowledge that this isn’t all about gay servicemembers voluntarily “making homosexual conduct known or knowable” — unless by “making . . . knowable” you mean not remaining celibate, such that there’s a theoretical possibility, however remote, that someone could find out somehow. And even then, you can be discharged without ever engaging in “homosexual conduct”; the mere propensity to do so (whatever that means) is sufficient.
May 11, 2010, 8:32 amKagan'sGirlfriend says:
The controversy over military recruiters began even before Kagan became dean of Harvard Law in 2003. Harvard was one of several top-tier law schools that attempted to ban military recruiters because of the policy that prevented gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
In 2003, Kagan penned a letter to the law school community expressing her thoughts on the issue:
“I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy. The importance of the military to our society — and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us — makes this discrimination more, not less, repugnant. The military’s policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country.”
Kagan is stupid if she can’t figure out that her former boss created Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, not the Pentagon.
May 11, 2010, 8:40 amMax Power says:
@”Kagan’sGirlfriend”: What does that article have to do with Kagan? It describes pre-Kagan goings-on at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (i.e., Harvard undergrad and several adjunct liberal-arts grad school programs), an entirely separate school that has nothing to do with Harvard Law School other than that they both share the Harvard name and ultimately report to the same President. Unless you mean to imply that each Harvard institution’s faculty must necessarily harbor the same attitudes toward the military, always and forever, which is a fairly weak argument.
May 11, 2010, 8:45 amMax Power says:
@”Kagan’sGirlfriend”: Yes, Clinton was the one who signed DADT, but if you recall, what existed before was an outright ban on gay service whatsoever. When Clinton first took office, he wanted (or at least claimed to want) to open the military to gay service, unconditionally. Congress, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the pre-existing total ban. So Clinton agreed to DADT as a “compromise.” Perhaps he could have done better, perhaps not — but to claim that DADT is entirely his fault, when he was dealing with a Congress that wanted a total gay ban, distorts history. And I’d hazard a guess, though I have no hard evidence right now, that one of the reasons why Congress was so hell-bent on maintaining the gay ban was because of Pentagon lobbying. I’d be shocked to find out otherwise.
May 11, 2010, 8:55 amKagan'sGirlfriend says:
If Clinton was such a champion of freedom, why did he continue with the ban on gays in the military and why didn’t Kagan show her repugnance for such a policy and resign from the Clinton Whitehouse? Oh, yeah.. it’s called Hypocrisy. “It’s okay when we do it” Syndrome
May 11, 2010, 9:13 amMike says:
A lot of the theoretical “good things we should make the military do” have had a detrimental overall effect on the military. You should live on a large base sometime and note the gang-fights (unreported in the MSM), the fights over girlfriends, the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and so on. While it’s nice academically to pretend that having gays openly in the military and their “culture” protected, in reality it’s just one more inefficiency that a military should not be burdened with (no matter what the spin).
Along those same lines, there is a silly spin that gays are only attracted to gays. BS. Like anyone anxious to get his rocks off, the typical gay hits on possible targets whimsically. So that’s an exposure for a lot of lonely, young men that is not really necessary, except in the eyes of liberal theoreticians.
May 11, 2010, 9:34 amMax Power says:
Are you gay? If not, do you have any basis for this stereotypical claim? I am gay (although perhaps not a “typical gay” — who knows), and I take pains to keep my eyes fixed on the floor in locker rooms and showers just to avoid any appearance of impropriety and consequent risk of physical injury to myself. I’d imagine that most “typical gays” in the military are, if anything, more concerned with not getting assaulted and would be less likely to go around making passes at random. The notion that the “typical gay” just goes around blithely “hit[ting] on possible targets” anywhere other than in a gay bar is just absurd — in real life, most gays’ first priority in such situations isn’t seducing “lonely, young men,” but rather, not getting bashed.
May 11, 2010, 9:51 ammemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
Shorter Somin:
Kagan. Either duplicitous or an imbecile. News at 11.
May 11, 2010, 9:54 ammemomachine says:
Hmmmm.
My personal favorite is having women aboard ships and particularly submarines.
Naval ships in general aren’t built for co-ed. Leaving that aside the practical downside of having women aboard ships is that it results in quite a few pregnancies. Thus female sailors end up having to spend months on shore while the ship has to transfer someone else to fill that gap. That someone else who might be just off a return cruise with the prospect of another year at sea.
Then there are the submarines.
…
Gives the term “silent running” a whole new flavor. Seamen … I’ll just leave that one alone for now.
May 11, 2010, 9:59 amspook says:
Since Kagan fought to keep military recruiters and ROTC of the Harvard campus, how can she honestly take the oath of office…I will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic… Forget you “jew” strawman argument that is bogus. Actions speak louder than works. Yes, I am questioning ethics and patriotism. We aren’t thought arguments against military policy..we ARE talking about ACTIONS.
May 11, 2010, 10:05 amtrashhauler says:
Max Power asks:
Again, it’s not the sex, per se, that can damage unit cohesion – it is the presumption of sex and favoritism. It is difficult without going into case law, but not every sexual act is considered inappropriate and not every inappropriate sexual act is discovered or prosecuted.
With women in the unit, the situation is complicated but more obvious – mere friendship or mentoring can be taken for more than they are because an inappropriate mixed gender sexual relationship usually hides as on or the other. A commander who suspects something untoward still needs proof beyond mere rumor and the subjects are usually given the benefit of the doubt at first, especially if they had not previously given trouble. No commander wants to be unfair, which is why widespread rumor is followed by casual observation, followed by subtle warning, followed by straightforward questions, followed by denial, followed by orders to knock it off, followed by sudden exposure and formal investigation. Sometimes a transfer settles things, if within a commander’s options. Sometimes the only option is courts-martial and ruin all around.
In the meantime, the commander has much more on his or her hands, especially in a war zone, and dealing with the fallout from inappropriate relationships is both distracting and distasteful.
In a men-only unit, such inappropriate relationships are far less likely to occcur. Sex is presumed to not happen between unit members and jealousies and perceived favoritism occur less often and are generally less intense. Sgt Smith might be helping Pvt Jones get promoted, but that can be assumed to be simple mentoring. Major X might put Lt Y up for advanced training, but that could be a simple judgement call. But if Sgt Smith or Major X (or even Pvt Jones or Lt Y) is openly gay, then the presumption about motivation becomes else, even if untrue.
No unit commander wants to be faced with such complications, if they can be avoided. Especially, in a combat unit.
May 11, 2010, 10:19 amGuy says:
Same here, if one of my straight male friends gets drunk and tells me “I love you, man” it makes me profoundly uncomfortable, and I go out of my way to avoid being perceived as hitting on or checking out a straight man, but maybe we’re the two exceptions that prove the rule.
May 11, 2010, 10:25 amGI Jane says:
Good people can and do disagree about how or even whether to openly accomodate gays in the military. But, seriously, Max, straight guys and gals get hit on by gays in civilian life and in the military. I know a few officers who’ve been grabbed or ogled by other men without invitation. It’s not the biggest deal in the world, but it happens on account of the close quarters, extreme physicality and male bonding that are part and parcel of military service, and unwanted advances *can* and often do lead to a disruption of discipline and good morale.
Same holds true for consensual liasons, whether homosexual or straight. Would you barrack men and women together everyday, all day, and tell them to behave or else? In some limited circumstances this is done, and not with wonderful results.
I don’t oppose Kagan’s confirmation and, furthermore, I support gay civil unions and marriage (if they don’t leave the door open to sanctioned polygamy), but I don’t respect her position on this issue, which smacks more of Harvard-style political posturing than it reflects sound legal analysis, real-world understanding or even personal journey in the open. “Don’t ask don’t tell” is an imperfect but feasible response to a difficult accomodation issue, and appears to be the official policy of the current WH both wrt to the military and Kagan’s personal life upon press queries.
May 11, 2010, 10:28 amMax Power says:
OK, I see your point — it’s not just about the actual sex, but rather, about the presumption that sex is or is not happening. But I still don’t understand how maintaining DADT really makes a difference on that score. If there were no gays allowed at all, and the military asked and pursued preemptively, then I agree that it could be presumed that no same-sex pairing was going on, and everyone could assume that all mentoring relationships and whatnot were on the up-and-up.
Currently, however, gays are allowed in the ranks, but secrecy is encouraged and even mandated. Servicemembers obviously know this, and consequently know that secret gays exist in the ranks somewhere. Ergo, how can they presume under DADT that all close relationships of the type you describe are platonic? It seems to me that once the military is letting gays in at all, mandating closetedness and duplicity just increases suspicion all around and makes every same-sex mentoring relationship inherently suspect. On the other hand, if the gays were allowed to be open, and openness were encouraged rather than prohibited, then it appears to me that servicemembers would have much less reason to suspect that sexual favoritism was going on, at least among the avowed non-gays. As for the open gays, well, they might have to work harder to avoid an appearance of impropriety, but I suspect that’s a burden they’d be happy to incur.
May 11, 2010, 10:42 amMax Power says:
Ah, this is a whole different issue! In fact, I think the WH has gone beyond DADT with respect to Kagan’s personal life, and appears to be outright denying the lesbian rumors.
Let’s just say I’m not 100% convinced by this off-the-record, unattributed denial that she is “a lesbian” (not, I note, an affirmative claim that she is “a heterosexual”). It will be interesting to see what happens if they pose the question to Kagan or the WH on the record.
May 11, 2010, 10:50 amGreg says:
It’s both about the sex and the presumption of sex, else why the troubling number of pregnancies among female GIs and STDs all?
May 11, 2010, 10:50 amMax Power says:
I wasn’t denying that this happens. I’m sure it does. I was merely taking issue with the claim that “the typical gay hits on possible targets whimsically.”
May 11, 2010, 10:51 amElliot says:
The history of the world demonstrates war does not depend on the Constitution.
May 11, 2010, 11:01 amGuy says:
Not that this is terribly relevant, but Supreme Court justices take no such oath, 28 U.S.C. section 453 reads:
Presumably the “So help me God” can be dropped in accordance with the Constitutional mandate that there shall be no religious test for office.
May 11, 2010, 11:06 amElliot says:
The showers issue is a fun topic. Who here favors coed open barracks and open showers? (For the Harvard folks, open barracks are the ones with about thirty beds in one open space. Showers are for washing.)
May 11, 2010, 11:15 amzuch says:
OIC. The Nazis were on the side of freedom there, eh?
But FWIW, that “freedom” thing is working out reasonably well. Every once in a while, they do elect RWers there in the former “communist” countries (bad habits die hard), but they’re learning.
Cheers,
May 11, 2010, 11:15 amtrashhauler says:
Max Power asks:
They don’t, which is why DADT is less than enthusiastically supported. We follow DADT because it’s the law, not because it is the perfect solution. There is no perfect solution.
Servicemembers have been dealing with gays since the invention of armies, with varying success. Stories such as, “We all knew old Smitty was gay, but at least he was our gay” are legion. But old Smitty was always careful or he was soon gone. The fiction that he was straight was an open conspiracy unless it became a problem.
What the advocates of open gay membership suggest is that the same technique can be applied all the time and in all cases. It cannot. There’s a world of difference between the occasional tolerated gay and a policy of open toleration. Such official sanction would come with a host of complications – sensitivity training, religious accomodations, transfer requests, bogus complaints, real complaints, as well as support for non-servicemember gay partners. All that, as well as, the jealousies and presumed favoritism already mentioned.
That’s the argument, in any case. Most people who advocate removal of DADT won’t have to live with the consequences. Commanders will and most do not relish the challenge.
Society may decide otherwise. The removal of DADT will be a political decision in the end. If it comes, then the military will adapt to it. But no one should ignore the probable impact on unit cohesion and effectiveness. We can decide it’s all worth the trouble, but we should not pretend there won’t be a price to pay.
May 11, 2010, 11:18 amSFC B says:
Tsgt Newsome made her homosexual conduct knowable when she got married. DADT is very clear on what constitute “telling”. Attempting to enter, or entering, a same sex marriage is a bright, flashing light accompanied with a blaring siren of “telling”. What did Tsgt Newsome think was going to happen when she got married to another woman? A marriage certificate is a public record which will pop to most any search of public records. The sort of search the military conducts when performing a background check on an individual for a security clearance. She was an armament specialist, she had a clearance, and eventually they were going to do a reinvestigation.
Tsgt Newsome did not follow DADT. She got married which is probably the stupidest thing you can do when violating DADT because it comes complete with a freaking entry into the public record.
May 11, 2010, 11:20 amzuch says:
Republicans, after their slime job on Kerry and Cleland (not to mention their attacks on military veterans who dared to criticise “Champagne Unit” Dubya’s policities), have lost their standing to pretend to be the champions of the military.
As for the epithet “chickenhawk”, that applies to someone who supports a war that they won’t fight themselves.
Here’s your “chickenhawk” rundown.
Cheers,
May 11, 2010, 11:23 amGuy says:
trashhauler,
Is there any evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military has harmed the effectiveness of the Israeli army? Given that Israel is not a country that can afford to burden its military, I doubt the effect could be fairly substantial.
May 11, 2010, 11:24 amKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
Fortunately, the military gets along fine without Harvard lawyers. Let them go to al-Qaeda, or Covington and Burling — same thing. It may be a shock to the attorneys here, but if you make your career defending John Gotti and his made guys, reasonable people will think of you as a mob lawyer. Same is true of Holder, Katyal, and the rest of Osama’s made guys at the bar. These al-Qaeda lawyers are heroes at Harvard, but I don’t see much sign Kagan has weighed in on them.
The military recruiting ban at Harvard does not date to DADT, but to 1968, when the Covington and Burling type wannabees of the day were sucking up to the enemy of the day, whether it was the murderous Black Panthers or democidal Ho Chi Minh.
Kagan has been extremely circumspect about what she actually believes. This is letting people of all sides project their opinions on her. Perhaps she has no opinions, or perhaps she’s so ambitious that she’s been hiding them all. Who knows? Not me. But you can’t infer much about her from the actual evidence, whether you use those inferences for or against her, really.
I can, however, testify from personal experience that the atmosphere at Harvard is poisonous towards the military, and has been for many years, and that this has nothing to do with Harvard’s newfound pursuit of one narrow band of equality. Harvard is, however, good at sucking grants out of the military its administrators so despise, particularly for the Kennedy school as well as the med and public health schools mentioned above. Some of this money is earmarked by Mass. pols… all of it is wasted, a drain on the DOD budget. MIT actually delivers useful product for the grant money.
May 11, 2010, 11:33 amGuy says:
More realistically, the ban on gays is pretty much a 20th century phenomenon (having been instituted in 1942), before then, people “[had] been dealing with gays” in the military in the same way that people “[had] been dealing with gays” in school, or at church, or at the market.
Though your reference to history is interesting; we could always try Sparta’s approach, seemed to work pretty well for them.
May 11, 2010, 11:40 amtrashhauler says:
That’s a fair question. I don’t know the particulars about Israel’s gay policies.
Each nation’s military is different. Most of Israel’s military is reservist and don’t live with their units, except when deployed. Likewise, Israel doesn’t typically deploy large units for extended periods of time outside their borders (at least, on the same scale as the US).
Some countries with official toleration of gay servicemembers have unofficial policies of discrimination against those same gays. We would not allow that in the United States military. Once the policy is changed, it will be all in.
May 11, 2010, 11:42 amMax Power says:
But the fact of the matter is, the military did not find out by doing a public records search. They found out when the police executed a totally unrelated search warrant on her home. If you like, instead of the marriage certificate, let’s imagine instead that the police had seen a copy of “Girlfriends” magazine, or a book called “Coming Out as a Lesbian,” or an Indigo Girls box set, and told the military about that. She’d be just as vulnerable to discharge, and not because of any public act she took or statement she made.
May 11, 2010, 11:50 amElliot says:
Is that a new affirmative action definition?
May 11, 2010, 11:55 amtrashhauler says:
Before the 20th century, mere social convention was enough to make official rules about gays a moot point. Most gays stayed hidden, both in society and the military. And were treated as outcasts in both, when found.
As far as historical precedents goes, I don’t think Sparta is the one we want, if we include the other aspects of it – infanticide, excessive militarism, extreme patriarchy. Not the one I’d choose.
Perhaps we could try the Zulu model, where the younger impi cohorts were all encouraged to engage in gay sex and could only take wives when the entire impi reached age 30.
Well, on second thought, maybe not. ::grin::
May 11, 2010, 12:01 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Wow, so according to you the Services are a cesspool of willful disobedience, hence we need DADT and therefore it’s Kagan that’s hostile to the military. I mean, how dare Kagan (in her anti-military bias, no doubt) assume that our Services are well-disciplined?
This is one of those arguments where merely reciting it is refutation.
Indeed, hence repealing DADT and allowing the Services to make their own rules is the best course. Surely you don’t think Congress is more expert than the JCoS, right?
May 11, 2010, 12:07 pmtrashhauler says:
Max Power wrote:
That’s where the judgement of the commander comes in. Faced with an official call from the police, he or she is not dealing with more easily dismissed rumor. The commander might choose to ignore it, but he or she also has a commander and there’s no telling who else the police might call. It might all blow over or it might not.
With the repeal of DADT, the commander is not dealing with an isolated case where discretion is available, but official policy that will extend into every aspect of the unit. Acceptance of gays won’t remove the problems, just make them harder to resolve.
May 11, 2010, 12:14 pmPaul A'Barge says:
Let me be blunt: you’re blind.
Throughout the history of the DADT controversy at Harvard Law, Kagan repeatedly described DADT as “military policy” when in fact it is legislative policy. Want proof? Try to change it. Guess what. You don’t go hector the military. You hector the US Congress to pass/repeal a law. Either Kagan knows this and is dissembling or she’s a moron. Either way she does not belong on the USSC.
When Kagan made her comments about “the horrible military policy” known as DADT, she used terms to describe the military that were incendiary and insulting.
Now, for her speech in 2007 … well gee dude … it was, you know, like in 2007. You know, when she and her profile became more prominent and she began to be touted as a potential candidate for the USSC under a Democrat administration.
No to Kagan.
And No to You sir, for your naive sophistry. Shame on you.
May 11, 2010, 12:15 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Can you cite problems from the Israeli experience — in which both gays and women serve in combat units?
May 11, 2010, 12:16 pmGabe says:
“the military has gotten far, far, far more bang for their buck by focusing recruiting efforts on people who are native speakers of the Middle Eastern languages the military needs.”
you mean more bucks for the opium?
May 11, 2010, 12:24 pmMax Power says:
@Paul A’Barge:
Yes. And until very recently, the Pentagon and all of the top military brass were uniformly and publicly against repeal. Given Congress’s general deference to the military in military matters, do you really think that the ultimate responsibility for the policy’s continuing existence lies with Congress alone? After all, the vast majority of Americans (and thus, of Congress’s constituents) support repeal of DADT, and even majorities of Republicans, churchgoers, and conservatives do. Top military brass, in general, does not. Who is Congress ultimately listening to on the issue, then?
May 11, 2010, 12:24 pmtrashhauler says:
OrenWithAnE wrote:
Not at all, though, people being people, inappropriate relationships is already the single largest source of courts-martial in the military. The repeal of DADT is will greatly complicate the commander’s job. Our politicians might think that repeal is worth it, given political realities. In which case, we’ll salute and carry on. It won’t change the nature of the problems we will face or the potential damage to unit cohesion that might result.
May 11, 2010, 12:25 pmGuy says:
It varies with the culture, even in the United States, the conception of gays as a class (rather than a conduct) is a fairly recent phenomenon, but I’ll concede it’s not terribly illuminating one way or the other.
Paul A’Barge:Now, for her speech in 2007 … well gee dude … it was, you know, like in 2007. You know, when she and her profile became more prominent and she began to be touted as a potential candidate for the USSC under a Democrat administration. (Your quote button doesn’t seem to be working)
Your recollection of history and the order of events leaves much to be desired. Also, Democratic (wouldn’t want you to think your attempts to harass and annoy went unnoticed).
May 11, 2010, 12:27 pmGuy says:
I still don’t understand, why would it be more burdensome than before, aren’t currently existing disciplinary procedures sufficient to handle the problem? No matter what ends up happening, I would expect it to be a drop in the bucket at worst with respect to sexual harassment or inappropriate relationships. Also, is it really easier to discharge someone for being gay than to discharge someone for an inappropriate relationship or for sexual harassment?
May 11, 2010, 12:33 pmOrenWithAnE says:
There are astoundingly few courts-martial in our military in the first place.
May 11, 2010, 12:33 pmtrashhauler says:
No, I already said I don’t know the particulars of the Israeli situation with regard to gays. However, it is not true that Israeli women serve in combat units. As in the US military, they serve in combat support units, in which unexpected combat is possible, but not done by design.
May 11, 2010, 12:34 pmElliot says:
“Who is Congress ultimately listening to on the issue, then?”
Strange the Commander-in-Chief is in his bunker.
May 11, 2010, 12:45 pmtrashhauler says:
Guy wrote:
I don’t want to repeat my earlier posts, but it’s not a matter of whether existing rules can’t handle the problem. It’s a matter of further complicating the commander’s job, especially when that job includes life or death decisions in a combat unit. Keeping unit cohesion saves lives, things which threaten cohesion are to be avoided, if possible.
I don’t think it is any easier discharging a gay that it is anyone in an inappropriate sexual relationship. Both could be lengthy affairs, taking up valuable time and effort. We’ve chosen to deal with that in mixed gender units and try to eliminate the issue in direct combat units. It’s simply a matter of why go there if we don’t have to.
May 11, 2010, 12:47 pmSynova says:
The Israeli Army is also stationed at home rather than a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is one of the problems with saying “Oh, hey, these guys do it without problems.”
US National Guard units responding to natural disasters are likely to face billeting and privacy issues without ever leaving the country, where in all likelihood the Israeli Army won’t have much of an issue even during combat operations.
May 11, 2010, 12:53 pmGuy says:
Then I really don’t understand, how does DADT deter inappropriate relationships if it poses no greater risk of discharge?
May 11, 2010, 12:58 pmtrashhauler says:
Really? Of what type – summary, special, or general? There are hundreds of courts-martial every year. Not to mention the other actions such as administrative reprimands, Article 15 nonjudicial punishment, involuntary transfers or administrative separation.
May 11, 2010, 1:04 pmRPT says:
Not new at all. Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Liz Cheney, et al, have been long recognized as affirmative action beneficiaries.
May 11, 2010, 1:11 pmSynova says:
Why in the name of heaven were the police searching her home?
You know what this was? This wasn’t anything to do with being gay or a marriage certificate. This was a big red flashing PITA alert. Get rid of the potential Pain In The A** now… hey, look, a convenient excuse. Win. Win. It doesn’t matter if the police were justified or not, it’s enough that there was police contact. It doesn’t have to be fair. The military doesn’t care about being fair. The military cares about covering their buns.
May 11, 2010, 1:11 pmMax Power says:
According to the article, the police “showed up at her home . . . with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.” So I was incorrect — it wasn’t a search warrant, it was an arrest warrant. Either way, though, it wasn’t because of anything she herself did.
May 11, 2010, 1:20 pmtrashhauler says:
Guy asks:
It does so by making any sort of known gay relationship inappropriate. Relationships between men and women become inappropriate when they become the potential source of favoritism, jealousy, or other conduct deleterious to good order and discipline. DADT tells gays “don’t even go there” and assumes they won’t. Repeal of DADT will acknowledge that gays are present and assumes they will engage in sexual relations, some of which will, inevitably, be inappropriate.
Like I said, society has dictated that we will put up with the hassle and problems in mixed gender units. Most commanders would prefer to reduce the potential for such problems in direct combat units.
May 11, 2010, 1:23 pmSynova says:
That makes sense.
It’s still the case, though, that her superiors, particularly if she had any sort of security clearance or access to sensitive information or materials would view her as an unacceptable risk for being in a relationship with someone who steals things. It makes her vulnerable and a security risk.
Making her discharge (and an honorable one?) about capricious enforcement of DADT doesn’t work for me. It may have been the grounds for her discharge, but it most likely wasn’t anything like the only reason for her discharge.
May 11, 2010, 1:32 pmSynova says:
You know… I’ve known guys who were told “unofficially” to ditch their wife or give up their military career. This isn’t something that heterosexuals don’t deal with. Your spouse can sink you and that’s a fact.
May 11, 2010, 1:36 pmtrashhauler says:
And I recall a well-liked, very competent female instructor pilot being told to either marry that male sergeant or get out.
May 11, 2010, 1:40 pmSFC B says:
Okay, so the local PD shouldn’t have told the local military installation that one of their airmen was breaking military law. Got it.
Having homosexual… paraphenalia (for the life of me I can’t think of a better description)… is not grounds for separation. A commander couldn’t even begin an inquiry or investigation based upon the discovery of something like a book named “coming out as a lesbian”.
THe commentary of the other activly serving members, prior service, and myself should indictae that there is an awful lot of practical tolerance of homosexuality within the ranks, and some very gray areas about when, and for what, commanders need to act. The act of getting married though is not one of those ambigous areas. It’s clear cut. Can’t do it. The Tsgt enlisted 9 years ago. DADT had been the policy for… what… 8 years when she enlisted? She knew it and chose to ignore it. That she was outted at 9 years in because the police were trying to arrest her wife sucks for her. It would have sucked even more when she got put out at 15 years when she had to get reinvestigated.
May 11, 2010, 1:49 pmGuy says:
I would have thought that any sexual or romantic relationship would be inappropriate, hence, any relationship that could be identified as “gay” would be inappropriate. Am I wrong here? Maybe they should tighten prohibitions on heterosexual relationships if I’m wrong.
May 11, 2010, 2:19 pmlarry says:
On December 21, 1993, the Clinton administration issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which banned the military from asking applicants if they were homosexual. (Don’t ask). Gays are still banned from military service and are discharged if they admit or are found acting homosexually. (Don’t tell). It’s a puzzle to me why so many conflate DADT and the ban when DADT greatly improved the lot of gays. A defense directive, while having the force of law, like an executive order, is only a law by its codification in the succeeding defense authorization bill. To say that the Obama administration cannot counteract it is false.
May 11, 2010, 2:57 pmOrenWithAnE says:
That’s funny, I have a number of (female and male) cousins that were front line combat. But I’m sure if you say it’s impossible then they must have been lying to me.
Hundreds in an army of ~150k is an amazingly low number!
In fact, you don’t get it — she wasn’t breaking military law so long as she didn’t “tell” anyone about it. Hence the “don’t tell” part of the law. Got it now?
May 11, 2010, 3:16 pmContributor X says:
I think this is imprecise. Congress and the President actually required other employers to discriminate. While there are are man employers that might fit the former category, I think there is only one organization or institution that has the authority to do the latter. In other words, the latter “category” seems to contain only one member (U.S. Gov’t).
May 11, 2010, 3:31 pmtrashhauler says:
Well, the Services are not populated by plaster saints, nor by celibate monks. It might not be fair (if such a word applies) that heterosexual acts are judged by the potential harm they cause and homosexual acts are presumed to cause harm, but politicians decided there was no other legitimate way to officially restrict gays from being in direct combat units where such potential harm is deemed to be especially injurious.
However, be of good cheer. In the case of heterosexual servicemembers, adultery has long been considered a potential danger to good order and discipline, even if the other participant was not in the Service. Courts-martial have been used to punish that act. At least under DADT, unmarried liaisons outside of Service boundaries isn’t a cause for asking about sexual orientation, much less punishment. That would probably change if DADT were repealed. Then gays too will be liable for prosecution for the crime of screwing the neighbor’s spouse.
May 11, 2010, 3:36 pmjosil says:
Weren’t there some Harvard Business School grads involved in Wall St hijinks?
May 11, 2010, 4:03 pmwhit says:
i find this non-compelling for one simple reason. empirical evidence. gays serve openly in many other countries, and th epolicy works. what is so different about US, that it works in israel, etc. but wouldn’t work here?
your argument kind of reminds me of the predictions that the anti-RKBA folsk made about the horrors that would ensue if florida, etc. passed right-to-carry laws. well, simply put – none of them came true. sure, florida is different from other states, just like countries are different. but when RKBA worked JUST FINE AND DANDY in florida, that was powerful evidence that the speculation was simply wrong. and that;’s been proved in state after state that followed.
instead of all those wild speculations about what would happen, let’s look at what DOES happen when gays serve in militiaries that allow them to openly serve
May 11, 2010, 4:03 pmGuy says:
trashhauler,
So you explain the ban as military necessity, but excuse the sexual relations of heterosexuals because they are not “plaster saints” or “celibate monks”. I fail to see why heterosexuals can’t be held to the same exacting standards as homosexuals. If any gay relationship is impermissible, then why not any straight relationship? I don’t have any problem with a either a strict standard or a lenient standard as chosen by the military to maximize military efficiency, so long as it’s not a double standard, and implemented uniformly. Hell, you can make it a rule that anyone who reveals their sexual orientation – gay, straight, bi, asexual – is discharged. If you discharge gays for getting married, then I don’t see why you can’t have a per se rule that anyone who gets married shall be discharged. If you think that would cause military harm by reducing recruitment and retention, then presumably the same balance of factors is present for gays as a subclass. If this suggestion sounds silly to you, its only because you don’t appreciate its precisely what you suggest to govern for others. But I’m not being facetious I honestly would consider such a standard to be acceptable, so long as the military finds it practicable. I have faith that the military is able to ensure the necessary level of discipline in its troops.
May 11, 2010, 4:06 pmtrashhauler says:
OrenWithAnE wrote (regarding Israeli women soldiers):
Well, if I were you, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. Military definitions are hardly standard between armies and one army’s combat support unit might well be called a combat unit in another. In any case, as many “support” soldiers have learned, warfare is no respecter of job descriptions. But the fact remains that the vast majority of Israeli women soldiers are not in combat positions.
For that matter, the US military has many women assigned to combat units, but not as combat soldiers. A woman in the 82nd Airborne can serve in a number of division units without coming close to the line regiments. Or, if in a line regiment, not be assigned to an infantry battalion or company. The closer one gets to the sharp end, the less chance of a woman being assigned directly to the unit.
May 11, 2010, 4:29 pmFuture Script says:
In the firefight trooper Q covered and protected trooper Q1 in an exclusive and un-typical and biased way, as such both Q and Q1 were unavailable to correctly support platoon close assault tactics general standard operating procedures during the fight. As a result of Q & Q1 unresponsiveness during the fight, troopers A, B, C, were seriously wounded while trooper D was KIA. Troopers Q and Q1, who survived the fight unscathed, become isolated by fellow platoon members while platoon morale breaks down. In the after combat report it was reported by platoon leader Z that it was common knowledge Troopers Q and Q1 were homosexual lovers and this fact was identified by platoon leader Z as a primary reason for breakdown in combat tactics leading to the 3 wounded and 1 KIA. Platoon leader Z is later found deficient in the next fitness report and reassigned to a desk position and passed over for promotion and Z Opts not to re-enlist at the end of his service.
May 11, 2010, 4:39 pmSFC B says:
She violated DADT when she got married. As far as the military is concerned entering in to a same-sex marriage is a very clear “tell” that someone is engaging in homosexual acts. That the local police found out about it when serving an arrest warrant for her wife doesn’t change the fact she did the one “tell” which leaves a Goddamned certificate signed by a government official.
May 11, 2010, 4:48 pmRandy says:
the Bruce: “I am not aware of a single individual who has been separated from the military as a result of DADT that did not know upon his or her enlistment that making homosexual conduct known or knowable to the chain of command would result in separation.”
That’s probably true. But not everyone is aware of their *own* sexuality when they sign up for the military. And sometimes they are, but they figure they can hide it because the desire to serve is much greater. Furthermore, as many people can attest, coming out doesn’t always lead to separation — it depends upon the commanding officer or some other higher up. Lastly, some people are separated even when they follow DADT — sometimes the military violates the “don’t pursue” part of the policy and actually pursues rumors or mere allegations.
For any gay person in the military today, they cannot have any relationship with another person of the same sex, get married, date, even go to a gay bar, for fear of being outed. They have to be careful about emails and letters home, the photos that they post in their locker — every waking moment they have to be careful they don’t say something or do something that will give them away. It isn’t fair or good for morale to burden any soldier with these issues. None of these restrictions apply to straights.
Trashhauler: “Favoritism, jealousy, and suspicion already exist without sex. As a society, we have chosen to live with the problems inherent with mixed gender units, so long as such integration is not extended to close combat units. However, we won’t be able to do so with gay men, at least, quite so easily.”
REally? You really think that out gay men are going to be promoted more often than straight men because he gave a bj to an officer? That’s really stretching things, especially when the whole rationale for keeping gays closeted is because all these great men run scared at the sight of a homo. As others have noted, there have been gays in the military since whenever, and people get along fine. Are there problems? Sure. There always are, whatever the make up of the military.
Again, if these problems were so endemic, then we need to look at all our allies who are fully integrated. Can you point to these sorts of problems in the British, Canadian, Australian or Israeli armies?
Synova: ” They will ask. Homosexuals will be required to declare.”
Or they can lie, like they do now.
” And just like being a woman in uniform there will be limits on assignments according to which stations/bases/forts/whatever are able to accommodate the necessary facilities.”
Really? So all the other militaries that allow open gays to serve do this? Any cite for it? Or just pure speculation?
WJAuden: “Yes — time and money that was wasted because nine gay men enlisted in a military whose policy on homosexuals they were perfectly aware of. Is that waste the fault of the military, or of the recruits? The miltary was clear and consistent in its policy.”
Thanks WJ! You have just provided proof that for supporters of DADT, it is far more important to kick out the gays than it is to win a war.
Doug: “There appears to be no definitive study(s) that show that fighting prowess will improve should gays serve openly. Conversely, there are plentiful anecdotal stories of how such a change might degrade fighting prowess by diminishing allegiance to one’s unit in favor of one-on-one allegiance (this applies to mixed gender units as well, of course).”
Actually, not true. The Army Navy War College concluded that there is absolutely no degredation of fighting prowess by any military that allow opens gays, and they even asked the people who were against changing the policy. If you have any evidence other than anecdotal, please present it. But the fact that so many militaries are fine with gays belies anything to the contrary.
Mike: “Like anyone anxious to get his rocks off, the typical gay hits on possible targets whimsically. So that’s an exposure for a lot of lonely, young men that is not really necessary, except in the eyes of liberal theoreticians.”
This one wins the thread! At least Mike admits that hetero men like to get their rocks off and hit on possible target whimsically. All those lonely, hot, young men — I guess we should segregate the straight men from the straight men so insure that no one gets a bj anywhere in the military.
That will surely improve morale.
Trashhauler: “What the advocates of open gay membership suggest is that the same technique can be applied all the time and in all cases. It cannot.”
Except of course it does. Show me anywhere where in other militaries it’s a problem. I am struck again and again about how people speculate that the military just won’t be able to handle a few openly gay people. It’s really ridiculous.
May 11, 2010, 4:56 pmRandy says:
SFC B: “That the local police found out about it when serving an arrest warrant for her wife doesn’t change the fact she did the one “tell” which leaves a Goddamned certificate signed by a government official.”
No, she didn’t tell. If the purpose of DADT is to keep gays closeted because it might hurt morale, then the military had no reason to release that information to anyone. If the purpose of DADT is to find and root out gays no matter what, then you are right — find ‘em and kick ‘em out. Your own argument proves that this has nothing to do with unit cohesion or any other stated reasons.
Furthermore, your contempt for any serviceman who is honorably serving our country — who just happens to be gay — is appalling. Gays have the right to marry in several states, and there is nothing wrong with getting married. In fact, it’s very good to have that support stateside, isn’t it? Isn’t that why the military tries to accommodate married servicemen where possible? Except for gays, of course.
So when a gay servicemen is killed or wounded in action, it’s perfectly okay for the spouse to not get any benefits, or be ad the bedside of the injured or provide any support to their spouse, because it would “out” them.
May 11, 2010, 5:02 pmGuy says:
I should certainly hope so, he knowingly failed to deal with the fraternization? I fail to see how DADT would have resolved the situation, since the leader apparently wouldn’t have acted on it regardless.
May 11, 2010, 5:03 pmtrashhauler says:
Guy wrote:
Well, I hope I was explaing one rationale behind DADT accurately. The Services do not excuse any inappropriate sexual relations at all if such are harmful to good order and discipline. I personally don’t expect anyone to remain celibate, straight or gay.
Guy also wrote:
Well, it might get kinda tough filling the ranks that way. We certainly could have such a rule – if it served a good purpose.
Look, I know where you’re coming from – you think one basis for Service rules ought to be fairness. You couldn’t be more wrong. The military has no obligation to “be fair.” In fact, the act of joining the military means accepting what some have called the “unlimited liability” of service. Meaning that a person agrees to anything the Service might require, up to and including death. That the Service usually doesn’t require such sacrifice turns out to be a plus. But that doesn’t entitle us to anything better.
Like any large organization, the military is chock full of stupid rules. DADT may be one of them. But it isn’t stupid just because it make people feel bad. Making everyone feel good might be a political requirement, but it is not a military requirement.
Guy finished with:
I do, too. But one good rule of command is never to give an order you know won’t be obeyed. If DADT is repealed, we can make all the rules we want about what is allowed in the way of homosexual behavior. What we cannot do is eliminate the possible jealousy and suspicion of favoritism that might come from such behavior.
May 11, 2010, 5:09 pmGuy says:
No, I’m not talking about some intangible “good” of fairness, I’m talking about arbitrary and capricious government action, which is always wasteful and inefficient, and not acceptable in any context. plus to the extent arbitrary and capricious action furthers no goal, there simply is no justification for the substantive harms they cause, no matter how slight, even without regard to whether one is similarly situated to but treated differently from another. It’s not hard to not be arbitrary and capricious, If gays are held to one standard, and straights to another, the government need only have a rational basis for distinction, I can’t understand why a general rule saying that any romantic or sexual entanglements between two servicemembers is to result in discharge doesn’t adequately address all the concerns that DADT attempts to accomplish without subjecting gays to conspicuously disfavored treatment. DADT itself essentially says “we’re not going to enforce it, but sometimes we just can’t pretend”, in other words, it was intended to be as close to a repeal of the ban as was permissible without formally getting rid of it. All the anomalies that survive- such as having to discharge when a marriage is discovered – are not intended results of anyone’s policy, but rather an unfortunate consequence required by law because the executive and legislative positions on the matter are diametrically opposed and incoherent. I merely propose eliminating the anomalies.
May 11, 2010, 5:21 pmtrashhauler says:
Randy wrote:
I have no expectations one way or another along those lines. I do know that one basis for DADT was the harm that inapproppriate relationships can have on unit cohesion. One thing DADT was not based on was the thought that anyone would run scared from the sight of a homosexual.
The military has had lots of experience in how sexual relationships can cause jealousy and suspicion of favoritism. I haven’t heard much in rebuttal.
May 11, 2010, 5:33 pmtrashhauler says:
Guy wrote:
Well, I’ve stated one rationale for DADT. Whether it is arbitrary or capricious is your opinion and your response makes my point – the Service is not required to fit into your personal definition of what is arbitrary or capricious. Though it probably does not apply to DADT, much of Service life is arbitrary and capricious. I’d advise anyone who cannot deal with that to not join.
However, as a point of discussion, the logic behind the unit cohesion argument for DADT is very clear – to avoid favoritism or the suspicion of favoritism. In order to demonstrate that this logic is capricious, one should have to show how its removal will better protect unit cohesion from favoritism or the suspicion of favoritism. You’ve yet to offer anything like that.
May 11, 2010, 5:53 pmgreg says:
Guy: I can’t understand why a general rule saying that any romantic or sexual entanglements between two servicemembers is to result in discharge doesn’t adequately address all the concerns that DADT attempts to accomplish without subjecting gays to conspicuously disfavored treatment.
Solution: Put men and women together in barracks, straights and gays together in bunkers and showers, and tell everybody that their sexual preferences don’t matter but they need to behave on long deployments and under stressful conditions… or else.
Reality: come on, people.
May 11, 2010, 6:05 pm~aardvark says:
It’s been fun reading all this nonsense, but let’s consider a few things here–at least one of the branches at this point in time has already suspended enforcement of DADT. That means that although DADT is “the law” its enforcement or nonenforcement is “military policy”. So Kagan was correct in describing it as military policy.
Now, take a look at Wiki description of DADT:
So Clinton’s directive was a step back from an “absolute ban” initially issued by Ronald Reagan (although, of course, the internal DoD policy has always banned homosexuality). So Clinton’s directive was an improvement of the conditions, although, of course, it was not considered perfect by anyone involved, including some old goats in the military.
Now, look up what Kagan’s job description was when she was in the White House.
The first part–’95-’96–she had an obligation to zealously represent her client. Of course, Kagan did not have to take the job in the first place. But it was essentially a rather prestigious side job and not many people would be willing to turn down such an opportunity because of principled stance on a single issue. And she left in 1999–we don’t know why and it really does not matter.
But that leads directly to information that was published today, not in 1993. And it appeared in WSJ, that bastion of liberal revisionism. This OpEd was written by Dean Clark, Kagan’s predecessor.
We can now put this “controversy” to rest, along with the “defective Constitution” nonsense. If you want to have a serious discussion on the subject, you’ll have to do better–and I doubt you will. All that’s left for Erik Ericksons and Sean Hannitys to argue, at this point, is that Kagan is “ugly”–and they’ve done that already. Of course, next to Scalia and Alito, she’ll look like a beaut–not that this has any bearing on the debate about her qualifications.
May 11, 2010, 6:15 pm~aardvark says:
I do want to reiterate that Somin was right to bring up the issue and he came on the right side in his conclusion. It still would have been helpful if he got his facts straight. The military never had an outright ban at Harvard–not for ROTC, not for military recruiters. Any decisions on policies toward military recruiters were made long before Kagan’s tenure. At worst, she might be accused of adhering to the university policy that was in place when she arrived. But that policy, as should now be clear, was not a ban on recruiters–in fact, following Clark’s description, it was not even any sort differentiation between the military and other recruiters.
May 11, 2010, 6:21 pmGuy says:
You both misunderstand my point, any situation in which there is no sexual relation can be concealed under DADT, therefore it provides no additional protection. If it is your belief that gays should be pre-emptively blocked, then, well, you should ask them if they are gay. That would be more acceptable, because at least it has a logical justification, trashhauler, if you think “much of Service life is arbitrary and capricious” that’s worrisome, because it means that the military is failing to operate effectively, I’m using “arbitrary and capricious” to essentially mean “without a purpose, goal, or justification”. No policy maker could possibly think DADT is a good policy except for those who attempt to rationalize it after the fact. This is because DADT is not the result of a policy consideration, it is the result of President Clinton refusing to enforce the ban to the greatest extent permissible given that he was bound by positive law. DADT is the product of two incoherent and mutually exclusive policies (one of banning gays only upon sexual misconduct, and one of banning gays while enforced by investigation) being rammed together, creating a nasty mess that nobody advocated, but is rather a political compromise that, because of its non-optimal status, produces perverse results that are harmful to the military.
May 11, 2010, 6:39 pmDuckDodgers says:
I’m really not surprised by Obama’s selection of Kagan for his nomination to the Supreme Court, given that she was his choice to argue his policies before the Supreme Court. When considering Kagan’s personal beliefs regarding military service and Obama’s apparent disregard of years of military experience and wisdom (and the findings that put the law in place), and considering Mr. Obama’s campaign positions regarding everything from holding banks in a permanent position of blackmail to support ACORN before they would be allowed to make other loans, to his statements regarding how the constitution is flawed in that is was not in line out his philosophical belief that it should support a justice system where social and economic justice should prevail, and his associations with nefarious organizations like the socialists and his coincidental associations with homegrown terrorists, and all the other questions that is associated with his policy decisions so far, I find it a natural and expected judgment for the president to attempt to insert such typical policies on the only military we have, Kagan is merely a means to an end..
May 11, 2010, 6:43 pmRandy says:
“The military has no obligation to “be fair.”
Great — so then there was no reason to integrate the military in the 1950s and allow blacks to serve with whites. And there was no reason to either, since there was no evidence whatsoever that segregation harmed military effectiveness. By your logic, Truman was wrong.
“The military has had lots of experience in how sexual relationships can cause jealousy and suspicion of favoritism. I haven’t heard much in rebuttal.”
But that makes no sense at all. If a straight man gives a bj to another straight man, why do you assume that *that* sexual relationship is perfectly okay? But when a gay man gives a bj to another man, gay or straight, then all these problems will occur. If it’s rebuttal you want, then look at the other militaries that have integrated gays.
If sexual relationships are the problem, then the answer is easy — prohibit ALL sexual relationships between all enlisted. That way, you get to have openly gay people, and you don’t have to worry about jealousies. If anyone violates the rule, you discipline them.
“One thing DADT was not based on was the thought that anyone would run scared from the sight of a homosexual.”
Not true. As you can see even from these comments here, people are afraid that gay men are sex crazed lunatics that will ‘get their rocks off’ indiscriminately. You can’t shower with gays because they might stare at you. Who knows what impure thoughts they might have? And if guys knew that another guy was gay, well, they wouldn’t be able to handle it — they wouldn’t trust him, and that leads to deterioration of unit cohesion.
Sorry, but being afraid of gays (or just merely hating them) is the whole basis of DADT. And that’s why the younger generation grew up around open gays and learned that there is nothing to be afraid of, and so they have no problem serving with open gays.
Greg: “Solution: Put men and women together in barracks, straights and gays together in bunkers and showers.”
Well Greg, if all the other militaries have figured out a way to do it, why is ours so stupidly incompetent that they can’t? I guess you haven’t figured out yet that gays are in fact allowed in the military today and do exist in fairly large numbers, and yet we are able to still fight a war. And as others have mentioned, they served and knew that there were gays in their unit, and somehow they were still able to shoot guns and blow up buildings.
Oh sure — gays are such sex crazed fanatics that we just have to jump all the really hot guys like you, who are just soooooo irresistable to any gay man, right?
I mean, come on….
May 11, 2010, 6:55 pmGuy says:
Let me explain it in a list:
(1)Full ban:
Prevents more relations than 2 and 3
Prevents gays from being open as much as 2
Symbolically stigmatizes gays as much as 2
Blocks qualified candidates
Uniform in application
(2)DADT:
Prevents as many relations as 3
Prevents gays from being open as much as 1
Symbolically stigmatizes as much as 1
Randomly rarely excludes qualified candidates in application
(3)Discharge upon relations:
Prevents as many relations as 2
Allows gays to be open
does not stigmatize
Uniform in application
Does not block qualified candidates (if you’re in an inappropriate relationship, you’re not “qualified” as I use the term here)
Whether 1 or 3 is better depends on the harm to unit cohesion, but 1 is politically off the table.
2 can only be better than 1 if
both
(I)
{
either
(a) you believe gays serving openly not in relationships harm unit cohesion (i.e. gays scare our straight soldiers)
or
(b) you believe stigmatizing gays is a military good
}
AND
(II) These harms outweigh the inefficiencies caused by the randomness in 2
Therefore 1 is the superior option.
May 11, 2010, 6:57 pmGuy says:
*meant to say “2 can only be better than 3 if”
May 11, 2010, 7:03 pmand “Therefore 3 is the superior option”
trashhauler says:
Guy wrote:
Yes, if nothing happens, then nothing need be protected against. However, our experience is that inevitably something always happens, even if it is completely innocent. The point is that unit cohesion can be harmed by rumor and innuendo as much as it can be by actual favoritism. You haven’t given a theory about how the absence of DADT will safequard unit cohesion either way.
As far as preventing gays from joining by asking them goes, that was the policy before DADT. I hardly think that a return to the old policy is in the cards. DADT at least let gays join, albeit under reasonably simple, if strict, guidelines.
I wouldn’t concern myself overly much about the arbitrary or capricious nature of the military if I were you. After over forty years involvement with the military, I’ve experienced both sorts of action many times. Usually though, what happens merely appears to be arbitrary or capricious from the individual’s perspective. Somebody always has a reason and a purpose for what happens, even if the individual disagrees with it. You can either put up with it or quit.
As far as DADT goes, one clear purpose is to protect unit cohesion. Regardless of how the policy came about, the logic in that particular purpose remains.
We seem to be going round and round on this point, so I’ll quit with this: The military can live without DADT and will do so if it is repealed. There will be inevitable damage done to unit cohesion in some units, but if the politicians decide that having open gays in the military is worth the damage, then it will happen. And we’ll press on with it, even at the cost of some effectiveness. That willingness to allow political action to subsume one’s opinion is necessary in any military under civilian control. To the extent that anyone, gay or straight, isn’t prepared to let that happen, then they should take up some other line of work.
May 11, 2010, 7:35 pmRandy says:
You know, it keeps coming down to fear of gays. Every time there is a discussion here about either gay marriage or DADT, it always comes down to this:
We don’t know what will happen if we give gays their rights, but we are totally 100% sure that whatever will happen will be horrible, terrible, destructive, and Change Our Way Of Life. No good could *possibly* come of it. Sure, things aren’t perfect now, but when you do something for the gays, it will only make everything worse. We are SURE of it.
Then you point out what has been worked in other places or other countries when gays are treated like everyone else, and prove that none of the dire horribles have occurred, and, well, that’s just ignored. Or we have to wait a few more decades to see the horribles.
It’s all based on a notion that gays are fundamentally different from so-called normal people, and we can’t trust them. That’s just fear, and time and time it has proven to be unfounded.
May 11, 2010, 8:06 pmRandy says:
Trash, you proved my point.
“As far as DADT goes, one clear purpose is to protect unit cohesion. Regardless of how the policy came about, the logic in that particular purpose remains.
We seem to be going round and round on this point, so I’ll quit with this: The military can live without DADT and will do so if it is repealed. There will be inevitable damage done to unit cohesion in some units, but if the politicians decide that having open gays in the military is worth the damage, then it will happen. And we’ll press on with it, even at the cost of some effectiveness.”
We now have many military leaders, both active and retired, who disagree with you, including the current Joint Chiefs of Staff and Colin Powell, who orginally supported DADT. Now, perhaps you know more about unit cohesion than they do, or how to run the military. Or perhaps you think that they really would put military effectiveness at risk merely to please some gays. But I don’t think so.
Instead, you pull out, without any evidence whatsoever, an assumption that unit cohesiveness will suffer. It’s an assumption based on nothing more than speculation. Of course, it might happen. But increasingly, people are saying that they don’t believe it will. And surely if gays were that disruptive, then all the other militaries that allow gays to serve openly would be reviewing the policy. But they aren’t.
And you consistently refuse to address this point.
May 11, 2010, 8:11 pmtrashhauler says:
Randy wrote:
No, that was a political decision, not one required by any military requirement. President Truman made a correct political decision and we followed orders. The fairness I was referring to was to the individual, to which the Service owes none. Anyone expecting complete fairness from their personal perspective is doomed to disappointment and should seek another job.
Randy also wrote:
Who said I assumed that a BJ from a straight man was okay? I didn’t. What I explained – at length, in several posts – was that sexual relations of any sort within a unit can cause jealousy and suspicion injurious to unit cohesion. This is particularly true between differing ranks, which is why we have so many restrictions on fraternization. But sex is one of the most powerful of human drives and no one yet has been able to suppress it entirely. We put up with the trouble this causes in mixed units because society has spoken in favor of it. Thus far, we’ve tried to limit the effects of jealousy and favoritism in direct combat units where unit cohesion is most important. If our politicians decide that society demands open gays in the military, then they’ll eventually go into such units and the potential for the perception of favoritism, real or imagined, will inevitably occur. If so, we’ll deal with it. But you still haven’t given an explanation of why this chain of events won’t happen.
Strict prohibition of any sex won’t work – it doesn’t work now in mixed gender units.
As far as gays getting their rocks off indiscriminately goes, I saw one post that mentioned that here. I know that is not true – my son is gay and though he was once quite indiscriminate, he no longer is – but it’s also beside the point. Eventually, some openly gay officer or sergeant will seek to help a gay subordinate, innocently or not. Even if properly done, i.e., with no sexual component, it can become the cause of jealousy or enmity. You can say it won’t ever happen. I say it will inevitably happen, as sure as people persist in thinking ill of their fellow human beings.
May 11, 2010, 8:33 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Randy – we have gone around on this before, but here you miss my point:
———————–
Doug: No change should be even discussed unless it is shown to IMPROVE fighting prowess. No study exists to show fighting prowess will IMPROVE.
Randy: Wrong. Studies have shown no degradation.
———————–
Perhaps; but anything to show IMPROVEMENT? Because ANY change carries the inevitable risk of unforeseen consequences; possibly adverse ~~~ and since the ONLY mission of the military is fighting prowess, NO CHANCES should be taken without evidence of likely improvement. Showing that no degradation might be the result is not adequate; for ANY change to be contemplated (DADT or anything else) a likely IMPROVEMENT should be indicated.
May 11, 2010, 8:56 pmtrashhauler says:
Randy wrote:
No one has an inherent right to join or stay in the military. This is a mistake civilians commonly make.
Similarly, no one mentioned such epoch-ending consequences caused by the end of DADT. At most, some unit or units can become less effective. In the worst case a less effective unit fails in a mission or loses a few more soldiers – nothing earthshaking about that, unless you’re in the unit.
I’ve tried to explain the logic behind one of the reasons for DADT and I’ve avoided argument by authority. It certainly wasn’t my theory, but that of sociologists. I assume that your resort to authority means you don’t care to make a response of your own. That’s okay, I’m owed none.
I didn’t say gays were disruptive, anymore than I’d claim heteros are. Whatever militaries allow gays, it’s next to impossible to find out the results of their policies. Any such re-examinations would typically come only after some disaster or extended problems and are hardly likely to be readily available in public. In any case, the US military goal is not to be equal to other militaries, it is to be superior in each and every case. So far, we still are.
May 11, 2010, 9:00 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Again, the issue of DADT’s righteousness – for the Kagan discussion – is irrelevant. Where Kagan is concerned, I believe, the troubling matter is her willingness to diminish the military’s recruiting to right what she sees as a social wrong. I contend that should NEVER be done within the military. Kagan did. This makes me worry she is likely to misuse other issues toward the goal of righting what she sees as a social wrong.
May 11, 2010, 9:07 pmDougInSanDiego says:
One of the less well known aspects to the DADT discussion is the rarity of DADT discharges.
Some (many?) people offer statistics showing significant discharges under DADT, but – generally – those are bogus claims. Here:
http://www.sldn.org/pages/sldn-reports
is a site (I think gay activist – Randy or Aardvark, maybe you are familiar) that tracks military discharges for reasons ‘gay’. In one discussion my debate-mate offered this site as evidence of the frequency of DADT discharges, and i (reluctantly) went through 3 or 4 of the “Annual Reports” to see what the collected facts actually told.
It turns out the vast majority – per recollection, it was in the vicinity of 90% – of ‘gay’ discharges had nothing to do with DADT since they were the result not of words spoken but of actions taken. In short, nearly all discharges were because, for example, 2 people had been caught in the shower. With or without DADT, this would result in discharge, which is intended to prevent such actions. But, if such behavior is seen, regardless of DADT, the individuals would be discharged.
Thus – the recently maligned DADT may, in fact, be a well functioning law with few consequences to individuals who spilled the beans. This would mitigate against a change.
May 11, 2010, 9:46 pmtrashhauler says:
Randy wrote:
Cite, please. Such a study would be important and I haven’t heard any officer of any Service mention such a thing. It would make interesting reading, to say the least.
Point of clarification: The Army War College is at Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania. The Navy War College is in Newport, Rhode Island.
I did find a report by the Palm Center, GAYS IN FOREIGN MILITARIES 2010: A GLOBAL PRIMER.
The report, as one might expect from an anti-DADT organization, is full of glowing testimonials to the lack of difficulties found in other militaries. The bibliography is full of secondary and tertiary sources and the report is totally without statistical data whatsoever. As such, the report is a review of the literature favorable towards gays in the military is includes no other meaningful research.
There is also a 1993 RAND Corp. study that covers the topic, but it was written in support of the effort to implement DADT. It is therefore unlikely to be considered valid by opponents of DADT.
May 11, 2010, 9:53 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Is our military such a fragile flower that such diminution would really harm it?
Woe is us, if that’s the case.
May 11, 2010, 10:00 pmRobert Doovall says:
Is our military such a fragile flower that such diminution would really harm it?
Woe is us, if that’s the case.
OrenWithAnE, you suave Elizabethan, you. Have you any idea the penalty for buggery in the days?
Clearly, you are smarter and less bigoted than the majority of our 21-century military brass and grunts, whilst conceding a gay “diminuition.”
May 11, 2010, 10:23 pmElliot says:
And now we have Obama, who never served a day in the military, bombing wedding parties in Afghanistan. I’d say he proudly wears the noble crossed chicken feet.
May 11, 2010, 11:07 pmElliot says:
I think the discussion usually revolves around the question of whether the rights exists, rather than giving rights which are recognized to exist.
Some say they exist, some say they don’t. Some states say they do, others say they don’t. Same sex marriage is a legal right in Massachusetts, it is not a legal right in Texas.
What has always surprised me is that gays haven’t stood up and married themselves. They sit around waiting for the master to say it’s OK. That seems an implicit admission the right doesn’t exist until someone else says it’s OK. Man up, guys. If you don’t thonk you have the right to marry, why should anyone else?
May 11, 2010, 11:39 pmRandy says:
” If our politicians decide that society demands open gays in the military, then they’ll eventually go into such units and the potential for the perception of favoritism, real or imagined, will inevitably occur. If so, we’ll deal with it. But you still haven’t given an explanation of why this chain of events won’t happen.”
“Thus — the recently maligned DADT may, in fact, be a well functioning law with few consequences to individuals who spilled the beans. This would mitigate against a change.”
” In any case, the US military goal is not to be equal to other militaries, it is to be superior in each and every case. So far, we still are.”
” Because ANY change carries the inevitable risk of unforeseen consequences; possibly adverse ~~~ and since the ONLY mission of the military is fighting prowess, NO CHANCES should be taken without evidence of likely improvement. Showing that no degradation might be the result is not adequate; for ANY change to be contemplated (DADT or anything else) a likely IMPROVEMENT should be indicated”
Okay — I’ve asked this before. Colin Powell, Admiral Mullen, Secy’ of Defense Gates, General Shalikashvili and many other officers, both active and retired, support gays serving openly. Additionally 22 countries allow gays to serve openly.
Please explain how they just don’t understand the culture of the military, or that they seek to degrade or put in harm our military and servicemen. Please explain why, if allowing gays to serve openly, is so harmful, so many countries fell into this. Please explain why Colin Powell changed his mind. Please explain why even Sam Nunn, the author of DADT, believes that it needs to be reveiwed and indicated he’s open to change.
Either they are all wrong, or perhaps they have looked into the issue and they just don’t see the objections that you guys have. It IS possible that allowing gays to serve will be a non issue, isn’t it?
May 12, 2010, 12:37 amliontooth says:
Did I say the Nazis were on the side of freedom? No, whereas you did equate the Soviets with FREEDOM.
And Freedom finally worked out 40+ YEARS after World War 2 WAS OVER. The war to those countries wasn’t about their freedom “being at stake”.
May 12, 2010, 2:22 amDougInSanDiego says:
I am filled with a sense of security that our most noble citizens have such respect and concern for our fighting forces.
By the way – the answer is “Yes”, as with any group activity: fragile is probably close to correct. Or, perhaps “Easily diminished”. You pick.
May 12, 2010, 2:41 amDougInSanDiego says:
Without a doubt.
It IS possible there might be significant unforseen consequences.
Why take the chance?
May 12, 2010, 2:45 amThrobert McGee says:
Dude, you rock! “Linguists” who haven’t even completed their two-year DLI training in Arabic (or any other language that presents a particularly difficult learning curve) are not irreplaceable assets — they’re beginning-to-intermediate students, as you say.
Bless you for saying that, and thank you for your service.
May 12, 2010, 7:55 amKagan on Military Recruitment | Think Tank West says:
[...] Elena Kagan has been getting a lot of flak from the right for her position on military recruitment at Harvard. While the military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy is unjust, Harvard’s position on recruitment was also misplaced—and, were the question ever presented to my faculty, I’d vote against barring the military from recruiting at my law school for the same reasons as Ilya Somin. [...]
May 12, 2010, 9:50 amSarcastro says:
There is no upside to allowing gays in the military at all! The military is only for killing people, and has no effect on society at large!!
Thus, however remote the possibility of something bad happening, it’s totally enough to keep gays out of the military.
Logic!
May 12, 2010, 10:29 amDougInSanDiego says:
Bingo!
May 12, 2010, 3:30 pmMark says:
HLS, like many schools, had a long standing policy of not allowing ANY recruiter to use HLS unless they certified that they did not discriminate. They made a special accommodation ONLY to the Military to allow them to recruit through another organization. They made this accommodation to no other prospective employer, and it fully permitted the military to recruit HLS students. It is irrelevant WHY the employer (in this case the military) could not so certify — I assume that the US Catholic Conference would be denied access on the same ground. In fact, the accommodation was very PRO military.
Moreover, Kagan and HLS did not substitute their judgment for that of Congress, and the Solomon Amendment does not mandate full access. The Solomon Amendment requires that schools receiving federal funds provide military recruiters with “equal” access. Arguably what HLS did provided military recruiters with “equivalent” but not “equal” access. So HLS could choose to (1) change its blanket nondiscrimination policy to provide a single exemption (special status) to the Military; (2) refuse federal funds; (3) challenge the law, or (4) ignore or violate the law. Under Kagen, they chose number 1 – grant the military full access and exempt them from the requirements of certification. HLS did NOT file a lawsuit challenging the Solomon amendment, although Kagan did file an amicus brief in the litigation. It was only AFTER a federal court declared that the Solomon Amendment violated the U.S. Constitution and that the STATUTE was unlawful that HLS reinstituted its old policy of requiring ALL employers to certify, but granting a special status to the military via the Law Students Veterans. When the District Court was eventually reversed by the Supreme Court, HLS went back to providing an exemption from the antidiscrimination policy to the U.S. Military.
If a foreign corporation was under a legal requirement in their country NOT to hire gays, blacks, Jews, Christians, etc., the fact that their legislature mandated the discrimination does not mean that they would be automatically granted an exemption from the HLS certification policy.
May 13, 2010, 1:04 pmSFC MAC says:
@GI Jane (ironically that’s MY moniker on RightNation.US.)
“A gendered integrated military has posed a number of personal conflict, sexual and pregnancy problems as it is, and military readiness suffers as a result.”
Whose readiness?? I served for 30 years in peace and war. I won’t tolerate being a scapegoat for misogyny and marginilization. One male Soldier screws up and no one blames it on his gender. One female Soldier screws up, and we all get the blame. I was a 96B40. When my unit got deployed to Iraq, all of us pulled our weight. I humped a ruck, carried weapons, set up hasty defensive positions and sectors of fire, was part of ground assault convoy ops, as well as my MOS of battlefield intelligence ops. Replace “gender integrated” with “racial integrated” and it’s the 1940′s all over again. I thought that after we served with distinction and bravery, we’d have been past the bullshit by now.
May 14, 2010, 11:53 amGeraldo Metevelis says:
This is an excellent blog here! I just added it to my favorites.
I have got a poker fan page over at Facebook. If you wanted to see: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Only/136818223026737
August 18, 2010, 6:58 pm