Please, Mr. President, No More Studies
By Aubrey Sarvis
Cross-posted on Huffington Post
Published Feb. 2, 2009
A story in Sunday's Boston Globe asserts that the Obama Administration is telling the Pentagon and gay rights activists that "it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress" before trying to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The sources cited for this information are "people involved in the discussions" -- in a word, that well known and ever useful reporter's friend "anonymous."
A study on the position the President articulated just last year? That's a bit odd, even for Washington. However, the Globe's unknown sources are quite correct when they say the Administration wants more support in Congress for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." So do I. As the Duchess of Windsor once observed, one can never be too rich nor too thin. Likewise, one can never have too much support for what is honorable, right, and just.
Senator Kennedy is now looking for Republican co-sponsors of the bill he plans to introduce in the Senate later this month that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and replace it with provisions to ban discrimination in the armed forces based on sexual orientation. He has a powerful supporter in Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said last week that he has consistently opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and is exploring ways to get rid of it in the current legislative year. In the last Congress 149 House members from both parties signed on to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act to end the ban. But there is always room for more. We have a big tent. Come on in.
What we don't welcome -- what we strongly oppose -- is yet another "study," which is Washington-speak for saying "let's just kick this down the road a ways." Out of sight, out of mind. You see, we're for repeal but don't really want to take a public stand right now (or we're bigots but don't have the guts to say so, outright bigotry being pretty unfashionable these days). So let's appropriate money for a commission or a study, maybe both. We'll have to appoint some members. That alone could take months. Of course the commission will need a staff. And offices. It could easily take a year before they get down to actually studying the issue (that's already been studied to death). Eventually -- and it could be a very long "eventually" -- we may see a report, the most recent in a long line of reports that began in 1988. That's 21 years ago!
Let's be clear: A commission or a study group is not about change. That's business as usual. We do not need another report to tell us what we already know and what earlier reports have long since concluded: the sexual orientation of a service member is irrelevant. What is relevant is how well he or she does the job.
So let's just skip another study. Let the new Administration display the courage of its convictions instead. Let them match their campaign promises with timely action. We'll continue to hold the President's feet to the fire but not in it -- yet. I'm optimistic that Congress and the Administration, without resorting to yet another study, can throw out the single remaining law that permits, indeed demands the firing of someone because of his or her sexual orientation. Despite the fears of some, sexual orientation is not contagious nor is it a choice. Tinky Winky the Teletubby never made anyone gay -- or straight, for that matter. As mounting evidence suggests, we're born that way.
In this country, we don't fire people because of the genes they're born with. We've come to understand that to protect the rights of the minority is to protect the rights of the majority as well. We're all in this together, folks. Put those outdated fears aside and just do it. Yes, you can. Yes, we can.
02-02-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |






6 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.David Heatherington in Iraq on February 06, 2009 at 05.43 am
“It focuses the issue away from the extent to which homophobic service members may rebel, undermining order and morale, and reframes the issue as whether gays undermine national security, which will assuredly be answered with a definitive “no.””
To all of the homophobes….there is the door after your enlistment is over….good luck.
Tom Carpenter in Los Angeles on February 03, 2009 at 12.40 pm
This issue had been studied thoroughly starting with the RAND Study of 1993 (http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7537/index1.html) which was stonewalled during the debate in Congress leading to the law commonly known as DADT. This report, paid for by the government and completed by an independent think tank, concluded there was no danger to unit cohesion, readiness and morale by allowing honest service. At that time this conclusion was something conservative members of both parties and members of the JCS didn’t want to hear. Over the years there have been numerous academic and peer reviewed studies done on the effect of repeal. Many are available on line. The University of California at Santa Barbara’s Palm Center has a wealth of these available at: http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/topic/all
Books have also been written on the topic starting with the late Randy Schilts- Conduct Unbecoming (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993). Serendipitously, one of the researchers at the Palm Center, Nathanial Frank, has just published a book which will likely be viewed as the best work on the issue of gays in the military to date- Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America ( New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009).
Commissions and study groups can be effective tools in the search for the truth. The results of such an undertaking will only have credibility if the members represent all view points and not just one side of any given issue. Clearly, when faced with a calamitous and recent crisis, such as Hurricane Katrina and 9-11, this course of action makes sense because the knowledge base is incomplete and requires study, investigation and research. This is not the case with DADT. This injustice has been going on for 16 years. The time for research is over. The data is available in many forms. Now is the time for leadership and action.
Spread the Word in Cincinnati, OH on February 02, 2009 at 08.45 pm
The idea that another study is being considered is obsurd. No new information can be derived from another study. We should look and learn from the other NATO countries who dispite there religous belief understand that national security and protecting all freedoms come above your personal bias. We are suppose are trying to lead with deaf ears, blind eyes and closed minds; these are not the qualifications of a leader, and if we persist with these attributes those who follow shall fall with us.
How can we fight and stand against injustice when we uphold it.
“As long as there is injustice We will continue to Spread the Word.
Calen C. Chrzan in Texas on February 02, 2009 at 08.00 pm
I think DADT has been studied enough. Fifteen years experience under DADT is enough of a STUDY in itself . The experience being that of gay’s and lesbian’s proudly serving their country under this corrupt law is a STUDY. The experiences of veterans who have served prior to DADT and under DADT is a STUDY. It’s time for REAL CHANGE not to STUDY CHANGE. It’s time for this Administration and Congress to end DADT.
Jeff Hersh in Austin, Texas on February 02, 2009 at 05.50 pm
My immediate reaction to the call for another study was visceral—we’ve had enough studies.
But as I thought more about it, the request for a study on national security implications may be politically shrewd. It focuses the issue away from the extent to which homophobic service members may rebel, undermining order and morale, and reframes the issue as whether gays undermine national security, which will assuredly be answered with a definitive “no.” It also shows Obama wants to hear from JSC before making his final decision, despite his campaign pledge to repeal DADT, the mark of leadership without arrogance and heavy-handedness.
Perhaps we should consider embracing Obama’s call for a study if and only if Obama sets a strict timeline for its completion, say by this summer? And we must pressure Congress to move forward on MREA contemporaneously with any new study.
Let everyone have their say, but without further delay.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, Ohio on February 02, 2009 at 04.49 pm
Amen. Very eloquent, Mr. Sarvis.
Could I humbly and respectfully make a suggestion? Get together with Joe Solmonese of HRC and the other heads of Gay organizations, walk over to the White House, ask to meet with Obama or one of his aides, and ask directly: specifically, when and how will you repeal DADT. Find out what Obama has been telling the Military brass on this issue. Let us all know where we stand with President Obama. If Obama has time to have a Super Bowl party, he certainly can meet with you Gay leaders for ten minutes and tell you the real deal.