Frequently Asked Questions about Don't Ask, Don't Tell
What is the policy's history?
Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the stated policy of the U.S. military was that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." All recruits were asked about their sexual orientation before they were allowed to serve. Service members suspected of being gay, lesbian or bisexual were questioned, prosecuted and even threatened with court martial and prison if they refused to give up the names of other service members who were also gay. Many of the gay soldiers being discharged were dishonorably discharged, making them ineligible for military pension and other retirement benefits.
In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton declared his opposition to the military's exclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers. During Clinton's first year in office, a very public congressional and national debate ensued regarding the question of whether the military's practices were acceptable.
Advocates for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community proposed a policy of equal treatment, reasoning that sexual orientation has no bearing on a person's ability to serve. However, after hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee and much debate, a compromise now known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass" policy was reached in 1993.
What are the fiscal effects of the policy?
The policy's implementation has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of discharges based on sexual orientation as well as high costs related to the discharges. According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, more than 9,000 service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at a cost of more than a quarter billion dollars to U.S. taxpayers.
Has harassment continued?
Although gay, lesbian and bisexual service members have been held to the "Don't Tell" portion of the policy, reports show that the "Don't Ask, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass" parts of the policy are often ignored.
A 2000 Defense Department inspector general survey showed that 80 percent of service members had heard offensive speech, derogatory names, jokes or remarks about gays in the previous year, and that 85 percent believed such comments were tolerated. Thirty-seven percent reported that they had witnessed or experienced direct, targeted forms of harassment, including verbal and physical assaults and property damage. Overwhelmingly, service members did not report the harassment. When asked why, many cited fear of retaliation.
Anti-gay epithets and jokes are not the only forms of sexual orientation harassment that persist in the military. In July 1999, Pfc. Barry Winchell was brutally beaten with a baseball bat in his barracks at Fort Campbell, Ky. He died as a result of the attack. Fellow soldiers testified that the death came months after vile anti-gay name-calling and harassment, rumor-mongering and inquiries into his private life. An Army inspector general report in July 2000 found that before and after the murder, Maj. Gen. Robert Clark, the commanding general at Fort Campbell, had not provided required training on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Following the report, President George W. Bush twice nominated Clark for a promotion to lieutenant general, the Army's second highest rank. Due to controversy surrounding Clark's previous command at Fort Campbell, the Senate Armed Services Committee did not act on his promotion in 2002. In 2003, the committee is considering his nomination a second time.
Today, many service members continue to be interrogated, harassed and threatened about their sexual orientation. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy offers no safe space for service members dealing with such harassment, as psychotherapists, chaplains and doctors have all been known to report service members struggling with their sexual orientation or with harassment based on their perceived sexual orientation. Thus, confidentiality for service members facing these issues is almost nonexistent.
Are any groups particularly targeted under the policy?
Women and young adults ages 18 to 25 are disproportionately affected by the policy, according to SLDN. For example, while women made up 15 percent of the Army's forces in 2002, they represented 36 percent of the discharges under the law. Women constituted 7 percent of the Coast Guard in 2002 and 34 percent of the discharges. Overall, SLDN reports that women made up 15 percent of the armed forces in 2002 but accounted for 31 percent of those discharged under the law.
Women are affected in part due to a phenomenon known as "lesbian baiting." Lesbian baiting occurs when women are identified as lesbians for a variety of reasons, often in retaliation to poor performance reviews, after refusing a man's sexual advances or after reporting a man for sexual harassment.
In 2002, 83 percent of those discharged from the Air Force under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were 18 to 25 years old, although they accounted for only 35 percent of the force. While they constituted only 10 percent of the Coast Guard in 2002, service members under 26 accounted for 86 percent of the discharges under "don't ask, don't tell.". The 2002 Defense Department inspector general survey also found a "substantial" difference in responses according to level of service, which typically corresponds with the age of the service member. Seventy-eight percent of respondents stated that enlisted service members were harassed in violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Only 2 percent said the same for officers.
Has anybody avoided a discharge under the policy?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" leaves a great deal of discretion to military commanders. There have been many instances in which lesbian, gay or bisexual soldiers have made statements regarding their sexual orientation that, under a strict reading of the policy, should have resulted in their discharge. For various reasons, including opposition to the policy by individual leaders, mission requirements, personnel shortages or skepticism regarding the veracity of the statements, some service members are not discharged for expressing their sexual orientation.
One well-known case of a service member avoiding discharge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that of Lt. Steve May, an Army reservist. May, an openly gay member of the Arizona Legislature, made a public statement about his sexual orientation. His military commanders were aware of the comments, yet they allowed May to serve the duration of his tour in the Reserve.
Although service members are not always discharged in accordance with the rules set out by the policy, in most cases if a service member is determined to be gay, he or she is discharged. Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, government officials publicly complained about the shortage of qualified linguists - especially those fluent in Arabic. However, several Arabic linguists and Korean linguists from the Army's Defense Language Institute were discharged for being gay in a highly publicized case in the fall of 2002.
What are the Human Rights Campaign's policy recommendations?
HRC calls on the Department of Defense to hold military commanders accountable for violations of the policy and for allowing anti-gay harassment. HRC also urges the department to provide thorough guidance and training on anti-gay harassment and the policy's limitations on investigations. HRC also urges the implementation of the department's own Anti-Harassment Action Plan, which was developed to address anti-gay discrimination in July 2000.
HRC supports the repeal of the ban on service by openly lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans and its replacement with a standard of appropriate conduct to which all military personnel, regardless of their sexual orientation, are held accountable. Every day that the policy is in place is another day that the military loses the talents and dedication of gay, lesbian and bisexual soldiers.