First, the ideological self-selection that underlies the all-volunteer force may be diminishing the propensity of African-Americans to serve in the military and creating sharp racial disparities in the reasons that young people enlist and in the military specialties they choose. Second, the political partisanship and social conservatism that defines the nature of the civil-military gap is substantially eroding the constitutional equality of women in military service, which imposes collateral effects on civilian women as well. Finally, and most fundamentally in a constitutional sense, the civil-military gap has contributed to a decline in the professional military ethic of subordination to civilian authority, the central ethic underlying civilian control of the military.

Even if we stop short of draft reinstatement, for the sake of maintaining a more independent military we might favor policy changes that make military careers more attractive to those in the middle and on the left.
Moreover, recruiting only the types who seek to be “manly men” is not working. The army is falling short of recruiting goals. Shouldn’t we think about ways to make the military more attractive to a wider array of citizens, rather than assume we must tailor policies to the (often assumed) prejudices of the personnel we currently have?

We had a semi-informal briefing when DADT was announced. Our CPT gathered us all in the “dayroom” and let us know how it effected us. Basically, it didn’t. We were already in the Army. If any of us were Gay they weren’t saying anything before the policy came out – and they weren’t going to afterwards.

As there is in every profession there are homophobic people (as well as folks who aren’t afraid, but just don’t like homosexuality) in the Army and they weren’t particularly effected by the DADT policy either.

I actually knew one semi-openly Lesbian and she didn’t let the policy effect her lifestyle either (or her career choices).

I’m not entirely sure what you would hope to accomplish by removing DADT. It isn’t the Army’s policy that needs to be changed – it is people’s perceptions of Homosexuality that need to be changed. Dropping DADT and having some sort of “opt-in” gay friendly unit policy would only make it easier for hatemongers to accomplish their mission – it definitely wouldn’t make life easier for Gay personnel. (or gay-friendly straight, or gay-apathetic straight people for that matter).

Should the Military stop discriminating against openly Gay people. Absolutley. However, even with a policy in place I can’t imagine too many Gay people in the Army would start walking around proudly proclaiming their Gayness. The environment would still be potentially hostile toward Gays (particularly males); just as it is toward different racial populations depending on the people in your unit with you.

It is a nice dream to think that proving equality via performance would make life better for Gay members of the military. But that is all it is; a dream. I experienced far more senseless bigotry in the Army than anywhere else I lived/worked previously or since. There was anti-white, anti-black, anti-hispanic, anti-gay, anti-asian, anti-you-name-it behaviour on a fairly regular basis.

Trust me when I say it isn’t the policies that need to change – but the people. If policy alone could fix the problem there would be no racisim or sexism in the country. I think, with the current state of affairs, DADT is about as good as your going to get; like it or not.

I don’t believe Mr. Lessig is particulary concerned with the number of “subscribers” he has – which is one reason why I think his work appeals to many.

I expect you may be right about the content Mr. Lessig produces. At question here is the content being produced by his current stand-ins. I don’t expect my own views to be universal. I only express them so that those who want the feedback can know the opinion of this reader on the current direction and depth of the commentary.

This is an excellent topic for examination. But the voices are so different from what I have come to expect here, the depth of examination of the subjects are not what I am used to finding here, even the frequency of posting is different. It is jarring; or was jarring.

I think I will retire from the field now. I did not mean to troll.

“I beleive Mr. Lessig is more likely to have fewer subscribers when he comes back to making his own entries.“

Besides thinking you are mistaken in that assessment, I don’t believe Mr. Lessig is particulary concerned with the number of “subscribers” he has – which is one reason why I think his work appeals to many.

“Again, I make the mistake of finishing a comment with what may be perceived as an insult. I’m sorry for the way I phrased my “response” to Peter Rock’s comments“

No problem. I have made similar mistakes. Thank you for catching yourself.

“I’m interested in why Profs. Ayres and Brown, and some commenters, might think that a preference for serving with or without gay soldiers would have anything to do with a unit’s combat-readiness.“

Keep in mind that “combat-readiness” involves a lot more than those who are involved in stressful situations under fire. There is usually a lot of communication, preparation, and planning that occurs before a confrontation or mission. I would imagine that personal views and prejudices often come to the forefront in subtle ways in the stages leading up to actual engagement.

I suppose I can see that an inclusive group of military personnel may not perform better than an exclusive. This is only due to the fact that the exclusive has been “rid of” their falsely perceived “weakness” (i.e. homosexuals) and therefore will not be distracted by their own bigotry. Although, military groups do not work entirely in a vacuum so even then I would give the inclusive group a slight advantage.

However, I’d be more interested in seeing a study that juxtaposes inclusive groups alongside DADT groups. In reality, even in the DADT group, the occassional homosexual will be “outed”. When (not if) this occurs, those that have a prejudice would be more likely to act in a way that will create conflict within the group and reduce morale. That is, when we carry false images in our minds of the way “those people” are, we will be more resistant to cooperating with “those people” and thus act in an uncooperative manner when possible. Perhaps in many instances, many an individual will be able to overcome their prejudice and still do an effective job. However, we are human and inevitably conflict (with some) will arise to the point of distraction from the teamwork needed to perform best as a whole.

“One could make the argument, as I think Peter Rock does, that those who would prefer not to serve with gay service members are likely to be weaker because intolerance (or, actually, a mere preference not to serve with gay servicemembers) correlates with slow-wittedness, obstinacy, or difficulty working with others, but I don’t think that it necessarily follows.“

Again, it does not necessarily follow for every individual, but I think it would be safe to say that significant instances of distraction would inevitably occur in some cases between personnel. And although the majority of members may be able to keep their bigotry at bay, it wouldn’t take many to rock the boat.

Nichomachus said:

“I don’t know if you’ve noticed the type of people the military is appealing to these days — young, barely educated youths who are seeking to “become a man.” This is the latest advertising campaign. You may not see the ads because they run on the TV shows and channels (bull-riding competitions, NASCAR, etc) that appeal to that demographic.“

Unfortunately, this is true. I am “blessed” here in Africa to know some who have access to the AFN (Armed Forces Network) as broadcasted by the American military. The commercials make my jaw drop. Twisting the word “freedom” has become an art. There are dark and serious commercials “reminding” troops that going AWOL is a crime and produces a possible jail sentence. The actual shows are produced for the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) of intellect. The other night was “The OC” followed by the WWF (World Wrestling Federation) and “Nick and Jessica Simpson’s Tour of Duty”. The whole schedule for that network pains me to watch – I can hardly believe the propaganda that is served up in order to justify the massacre still happening in Iraq. It’s so sad considering I think the United States (relatively speaking) is one of the most wonderful places in the world.

Anyway, I digress and have probably just ostracized myself from those who actually believe “freedom” is being protected/promoted with the bombing of baghdad. Saddam needed to be arrested – not have bombs dropped on the populous and tanks blazing with gunfire driven in – followed by an incredibly long and violent occupation.

Both volume and depth of content in these last few entries are inconsistent with what came before. I beleive Mr. Lessig is more likely to have fewer subscribers when he comes back to making his own entries.

I’m interested in why Profs. Ayres and Brown, and some commenters, might think that a preference for serving with or without gay soldiers would have anything to do with a unit’s combat-readiness.

One could make the argument, as I think Peter Rock does, that those who would prefer not to serve with gay service members are likely to be weaker because intolerance (or, actually, a mere preference not to serve with gay servicemembers) correlates with slow-wittedness, obstinacy, or difficulty working with others, but I don’t think that it necessarily follows. This looks to me like another strain of the “progressive people are smarter” argument, which I don’t think follows.

If we’re doing the loose correlations thing, one could just as easily argue that those who would prefer not to serve with gay soldiers are more likely to be deeply religious, and (on the loose correlations track) likely to be more focused, better at following orders, more disciplined, etc, but this is a gross oversimplification. I don’t see how the answer that one would give to that question would correlate with one’s skills as a soldier.

Another thought I had is that I can think of lots of different reasons why someone would answer yes or not to those questions.

One might say yes (would prefer not to serve with gay soldiers) because:

* the obvious answer — homophobia
* one supports greater rights for gays, but buys the arguments of the military about combat-readiness and fears being placed in a less competent unit
* one supports greater rights for gays, but has had little or no experience interacting with gay people and would prefer not to start with the military
* one believes that saying “yes” will result in placement in a unit that is overwhelmingly gay
* one has only a slight preference against serving with gays, and either does not believe that the military will necessarily honor the “preferences” of everyone who completes the survey, or does not consider the issue of gays in the military to be important one way or another
* one is gay, but fears that the test is a proxy for identifying gays for mistreatment or expulsion
* one is straight, but fears that “gay” units will be mistreated (sent on more dangerous missions, supplied less generously, etc) due to prejudice
* one is straight and fears being identified as gay

One might say no because:

* one supports social change in the military
* one is actually gay
* one is simply indifferent and reads the question literally (“no, I don’t have a preference one way or the other”)

Anon, this doesn’t directly answer your question, but I think that what most advocates of a repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell hope for is that an experiment would show that there is no discernible difference between integrated and exclusionary units, and therefore no rational reason for the military to cut itself from a pool of potentially talented soldiers for reasons of sexual orientation. The “benefits of integration” to me seem to be just a larger pool from which to draw soldiers, but I could be missing something.