SEXUAL ORIENTATION INTEGRATION IN THE ARMY1

David R. Segal University of Maryland

Background

In 1973, at the dawning of the current all- volunteer military force (AVF), I took a leave of absence from my faculty position at the to direct the sociology program at the recently established Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). Many of the recent and current social issues regarding the military, including gender, sexual orientation, and military families were not on the army’s research agenda at that point. My research program was largely social problems oriented, focusing on racial tensions, drug and alcohol abuse, and morale. However, two decades later, three elements of that early program were to play into policy discussions on lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the military. First, the racial integration of the army was seen by some as a model for sexual orientation integration. Second, I had instituted a research program on comparative military institutions, and in the 1990s, some policy-makers were interested in how other nations were dealing with the issue of sexual orientation. Third, I had a long conversation with then-Secretary of the Army Howard (Bo) Callaway in 1975 regarding the World War II research that purported to show that cohesion had an important impact on military effectiveness. That discussion led to a major research program on cohesion in the 1980s in which I participated as a guest scientist at the Walter Reed Institute of Research (WRAIR). Cohesion had been interpreted as showing that socio-demographic homogeneity was an important factor in achieving cohesion. This research had served as a basis for resisting racial integration in World War II, resisting gender integration in the AVF, and resisting sexual orientation integration in the 1990s. In 1976 I had returned to the academic world, this time at the University of Maryland. I continued to conduct research on military personnel and organization issues with my academic colleagues and graduate students. I also maintained ties to the military research and personnel communities.

The Clinton Iteration

My involvement in the issue of sexual orientation was triggered by a series of telephone calls. First, in 1992, after President-elect announced that he intended to honor his presidential campaign promise to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, Dr. Paul Gade, then director of basic research at ARI, called to ask if I would accompany him and Dr. Edgar Johnson, the ARI director, to a meeting of European military sociologists to be held in Beverly, UK, in early April 1993. This group, a residual of ARI’s program in comparative , had been meeting periodically, with ARI support, to discuss organizational and personnel research in the military. The 1993 meeting was to discuss national variations in policies and practices

1 Invited paper prepared for the National Science Foundation Workshop on “Bringing Research into the Policy Process,” Arlington, VA, Nov. 21-22, 2014. 1

regarding gays in the military. I had participated in earlier meetings of this group and I agreed to go. Second, after the trip to Beverly had been scheduled, I received a telephone call from Sen. John Warner (R-VA), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was interested in the issue of gays in the military, was sending a member of his staff to meet with European experts to discuss the issue, and inquired about my availability to meet with his staff member. I discussed the request with Drs. Johnson and Gade, as we decided that it would be more appropriate for the government scientists who were sponsoring the trip to speak to the senator’s aide than for me to do so. However, Sen. Warner’s call put me on notice that people on the Hill were aware of my involvement. Third, I received a telephone call from Carla Howery, then associate executive officer of the American Sociological Association (ASA), inviting me to lunch. Over lunch, Carla told me that the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) had asked ASA to persuade me to testify on how our allies were dealing with gays in the military at hearings that the committee was scheduling. Charles C. Moskos, a sociology professor at , was going to testify, he was known to be opposed to lifting the ban, and Carla did not want his to be the only sociological voice on record. I told Carla that I was not an expert on gays in the military, and whatever I was going to knew, I had yet to learn in the course of my UK trip. She reminded me that if nobody else knows anything about an issue and you know a little bit, you become the expert. She also pointed out that I had been an advocate for racial and gender equality in the military, and that this issue was one of equality as well. I agreed to testify. Fourth, I received a telephone call from a staff member for the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) saying that they had heard that I was going to testify to the SASC, and asking if I would testify to the HASC as well. However, they did not only want me to testify on the cross-national experience. In addition, they wanted me to take a position on lifting the ban, what strategy to follow if the ban was lifted, and the possible impact on cohesion of lifting the ban if openly gay service personnel being were allowed to serve. To prepare for my testimony, in collaboration with my ARI colleagues, we prepared a synthesis of what we had learned from the conference in the UK and other international conferences (Segal, Gade, & Johnson 1994; Gade, Segal, & Johnson 1996). I also undertook, with colleagues at Maryland, an analysis of the relationship between gender integration and sexual orientation in foreign military forces (Segal, Segal, & Booth 1999). There tended to be a strong positive relationship, but the United States was an outlier, leading the way at the time in gender integration (along with Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway) but lagging in sexual orientation integration (with Greece, Turkey, Italy, UK, and Germany). During the early months of 1993, gay advocacy groups lobbied intensely for the lifting of the ban, and sometimes contacted me with questions. There were also extensive discussions in the Pentagon, in some of which Charles Moskos and I participated—he more than I. My sense was that the senior military were almost universally opposed to lifting the ban, although they were also mindful that a significant number of gay personnel were serving successfully. They moved toward a position of being willing to tolerate the service of gay personnel if those personnel remained in the closet, and under

2

that condition, did not feel it necessary to ask potential recruits about their sexual orientation. Moskos captured this intent in the phrase “Don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT).” We both also met, usually separately, with members of the SASC staff in preparation for the nine hearings that the committee was to hold. In the early meetings, they pressed me for answers to questions I could not answer, such as what percentage of the U.S. population was gay, and what caused . Over time they focused on the international comparisons I had studied. My sense was that the committee chair, Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) and the senior minority members of the committee, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Senator Warner, did not want the ban lifted. The most outspoken advocate for lifting the ban on the committee was Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). The first hearings, on March 29, 1993, dealt with the historical and legal background of policy on gays in the military. Two days later hearings were held on the relationship between cohesion and combat effectiveness, during which there was frequent reference to three World War II studies that purported to demonstrate the importance of cohesion: S.A. Stouffer’s American Soldier studies (see Ryan 2013), Edward Shils’ and ’s (1950) paper on the Wehrmacht, and S.L.A. Marshall’s (1950) interviews with infantry companies after combat. A month later, both Moskos and I participated in hearings on “The Experience in Foreign Countries.” This hearing had been delayed to allow for the early April UK conference. The other two members of our panel were Professor Judith H. Stiehm (1993), a political scientist from Florida Atlantic University, who spoke primarily about the US experience, and Calvin Waller (1993), a retired African-American lieutenant general, who argued against the relevance of both the experience of foreign nations and the experience of racial integration in the U.S. Army. Moskos (1993), like LTG Waller, argued against the relevance of the experience of foreign militaries for the United States, and suggested that the American media painted a more positive picture of sexual orientation integration overseas than was warranted. I noted, among other findings, that Canada and Australia allowed open service by gays, that the UK regards homosexuality as incompatible with military service but has few discharges on that basis, that most of our NATO allies do not exclude homosexuals on the basis of policy, that France as a Catholic country regarded sexual behavior as a matter between a soldier and his priest, and that nowhere had there been major problems due to sexual orientation integration (Segal 1993a). Much to my surprise, on May 5 reported that Senator Kennedy, with whom I thought I agreed, had complained to Senator Nunn that my remarks were anti-Catholic (Evans and Novack 1993). The Post (or the Senator) misquoted what I had said (which in turn was a quotation from two French military sociologists). In any case, my offense was forgiven or forgotten. In May 2007, Senator Kennedy sponsored an ASA Capitol Hill briefing for the Senate Judiciary Committee on Military Recruitment and Retention, and I was invited to speak on “Cohesion and DADT”, after which I received a note of appreciation from the Senator. The panel on which I participated on May 5, 1993 for the HASC (the day the Post article appeared), like the SASC panel, was divided. Psychologist Gregory Herek, testifying for the American Psychological Association and the professional associations of other mental health disciplines, argued that there was no scientific basis for regarding gay men and lesbians to be unfit for military service (Herek 1993). I recommended lifting the ban as an acknowledgement of ongoing social changes that I believed were inevitable,

3

that there were no data to suggest that military effectiveness would be compromised were the ban lifted, and that the cross-national experience suggested that lifting the ban would have no impact on our armed forces (Segal 1993b). On the other hand, LTC William J. Gregor (1993) testified that lifting the ban would be disruptive, and COL William Darryl Henderson (1993) argued, on the basis of survey data, that lifting the ban would impact negatively on morale and unit performance. There was of course far more testimony presented to both Houses, but the divergence on the two panels on which I testified reflect the nature of the presentations to the Congress. It came as no surprise that the Congress and the Clinton administration agreed on a compromise between the exclusionary policy that had been established during the Carter administration and the complete lifting of the ban. That compromise was DADT. The ink was barely dry on the new policy before gay advocacy groups and members of Congress began to work toward its repeal. The number of discharges for homosexuality began to increase immediately after the passage of the policy, and continued to rise until the outbreak of the Afghanistan War, from 617 in 1994 to 1273 in 2001. The number declined after we went to war (De Angelis et al. 2013). Interestingly, although the 1993 debates had focused on threats to cohesion in ground combat units, most of the personnel discharged were women, who could not serve in these units. Most of the discharges in fact were Air Force women.

The Obama Iteration

Early in 2010 President Obama indicated that he would work with the Congress and the Pentagon to repeal DADT. There was still considerable opposition on Capitol Hill, but the support of the Chairman of the and the Secretary of Defense was crucial. In February, Secretary Gates established a Comprehensive Review Working Group, involving a 68 member team led by Army General Carter Ham and Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson. I was asked to testify to the working group on what social science research had taught us about gays in the military (Segal 2010). On August 30, I presented data on the overrepresentation of women among dischargees, the increase in discharges leading up to the war, and the distribution of discharged women by service. I presented comparative data showing that none of the nations that allowed gays to serve openly had reported the major problems that opponents of repeal had predicted: mass “coming out,” increases in gay bashing, retention or recruitment difficulties, or deterioration of cohesion, morale, or military effectiveness. I suggested that there were logistical problems that did need to be addressed, including gay marriage, housing for same sex couples, and partner benefits. Other social scientists who presented briefings to the working group that day agreed. Repeal of DADT was placed in the Defense spending bill by both houses, but it was stalled twice in the Senate by filibuster. It was finally passed in December, after the November release of the Comprehensive Review, stating that the risks of repeal would be minimal. My final contribution in this area was collaboration with social scientists from West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, the Marine Corps War College, Columbia University, and the Palm Center in an assessment of the impact of repeal a year

4

after the ban was lifted. This assessment, using a variety of methods, showed that in its first year, DADT repeal had no negative impact on cohesion, recruitment, retention, assault, harassment or morale, and seemed to have slightly enhanced discipline by improving trust and bonding (Belkin et al. 2013; Belkin et al. 2014).

Workshop Questions

1.What was the topic or purpose of your research? The cross-national experience with sexual orientation integration of armed forces, and the impact of such integration on cohesion and effectiveness.

2.Has it affected policy directly? If so, how? I would like to think that in 1993 it contributed to the compromise DADT policy, rather than a reaffirmation of the previous exclusionary policy, and that in 2010 it contributed to repeal of DADT. In both instances the contribution was marginal.

3.Has it affected policy indirectly? If so, how? I believe that my conference papers and publications increased awareness and interest in the behavioral science community, and that the broadcasting of my Congressional testimony on CSPAN and NPR, as well as numerous interviews with members of the broadcast and print media, increased public awareness and discussion.

4.Did you or others in your organization lobby for this research to be included in public policy? No. My participation was reactive.

5.What kinds of roles, relationships, networks and strategies were used to bring this research into the policy process? I believe that the social structural bases of both science and policy-making reside in social networks. My former role as an Army scientist and persisting relationships with my former colleagues, my relationships with a broad international community of military sociologists, my linkages with military officers, with some of whom I have collaborated and others of whom have been my students, my relationships with the ASA and COSSA executive offices, and my visibility as a professor directing a major graduate program in military sociology all contributed to the process. My willingness to work with Congressional staff members and members of the media and to testify also contributed.

6.Were any of these strategies successful? I would regard them as tactics rather than strategies. I believe they were successful in the sense that they gave me a seat at the table and a voice in the process and contributed to the discussion. I think that is the appropriate policy role for academic social scientists. As my favorite social theorist, Wayne Gretzky noted, 100% of the shots not taken don’t go in.

5

REFERENCES

Belkin, Aaron, Morten G. Ender, Nathaniel Frank, Stacie Furia, George R.Lucas, Gary A. Packard, Jr., Steven M. Samuels, Tammy S. Schultz, and David R. Segal. 2013. “Readiness and DADT repeal:Has the new policy of open service undermined the military? Armed Forces & Society 39 (4): 587-601.

Belkin, Aaron, Morten G. Ender, Nathaniel Frank, Stacie Furia, George R.Lucas, Gary A. Packard, Jr., Steven M. Samuels, Tammy S. Schultz, and David R. Segal. 2014. “One year out: An assessment of DADT repeal’s impact on military readiness.” Pp. 329-373 in Evolution of Government Policy Towards Homosexuality in the US Military: The Rise and Fall of DADT, edited by James E. Parco and David A. Levy. London: Routledge.

De Angelis, Karin, Michelle Sandhoff, Kimberly Bonner, and David R. Segal. 2013. “Sexuality in the military”. Pp.363-382 in International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, edited by Amanda Baumle. New York: Springer. 2013.

Evans, Rowland and Robert Novak. 1993. “Kennedy vs. Nunn: Squaring off over gays.” The Washington Post, May 5, p. A21.

Gade, Paul A., David R. Segal, and Edgar M. Johnson. 1996. “The experience of foreign militaries.” Pp.106-130 in Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military, edited by Gregory M. Herek, Jared B. Jobe, and Ralph M. Carney. : University of Chicago Press.

Gregor, William J. 1993. Statement of Lt. Col. William J. Gregor, U.S. Army (retired). Pp.262-265 in Policy Implications of Lifting the Ban on Homosexuals in the Military. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. House of Representatives.. One Hundred Third Congress, First Session.

Henderson, William Darryl. 1993. Statement of Col. William Darryl Henderson, U.S. Army (retired). Pp.265-270 in Policy Implications of Lifting the Ban on Homosexuals in the Military. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. House of Representatives.. One Hundred Third Congress, First Session.

Herek, Gregory M. 1993. Statement of Gregory M. Herek. Pp.244-270 in Policy Implications of Lifting the Ban on Homosexuals in the Military. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. House of Representatives.. One Hundred Third Congress, First Session.

Marshall, S.L.A. 1950. “Why Men Fight.” Ch. 10 in Men Against Fire. New York: Morrow.

Moskos, Charles C. 1993. Statement of Dr. Charles C. Moskos. Pp.349-365 in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. United States Senate. One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session.

6

Ryan, Joseph. 2013. Samuel Stouffer and the GI Survey: Sociologists and Soldiers in the Second World War. University of Tennessee Press.

Segal, David R. 1993a. Statement of Dr. David R. Segal. Pp.354-365 in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. United States Senate. One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session.

Segal, David R. 1993b. Statement of David R. Segal. Pp.270-279 in Policy Implications of Lifting the Ban on Homosexuals in the Military. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. House of Representatives. One Hundred Third Congress, First Session.

Segal, David R. 2010. Research on Homosexuals in the Military. Presentation to the Comprehensive Review Working Group. The Pentagon. Washington DC.

Segal, David R., Paul A. Gade, and Edgar M. Johnson. 1994. “Social science research on homosexuals in the military.” Pp.33-51 in Gays and Lesbians in the Military, edited by Wilbur J. Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley. NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Segal, David R., Mady Wechsler Segal, and Bradford Booth. 1999. “Gender and sexual orientation diversity in modern military forces: Cross-national patterns.” Pp.225-250 in Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture edited by Mary Katzenstein and Judith Reppy, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.

Shils, Edward A. and Morris Janowitz. 1948. “Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II.” Public Opinion Quarterly (Summer):280-315.

Stiehm, Judith H. 1993. Statement of Dr. Judith H.Stiehm. Pp.365-399 in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. United States Senate. One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session.

Waller, Calvin. 1993. Statement of LT. GEN. Calvin Waller, U.S. Army (Retired). Pp.399-403 in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services. United States Senate. One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session.

7