MILITARY OUTREACH COMMITTEE Policy and Legal Team 23 June 2010

Polling the Troops: Getting it Right; Understanding the Results

The Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) Terms of Reference require it to devise research methods that include systematic engagement of all levels of the force and their families, analysis of current data and information, and review [of] the experiences of foreign militaries. Polling the troops on issues related to Dont Ask, Dont Tell (DADT) is a critical part of this engagement. In order to obtain useful information from these polls, it is essential to: 1. Design and conduct the polls in a manner that includes the opinions of all military members (including gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) troops); 2. Minimize bias in the wording and selection of questions; 3. Guarantee anonymity and confidentiality so as to avoid peer pressure and ensure truthful responses from poll respondents; and 4. Understand the meaning of the results: -- i.e. how do the responses relate to the actual experiences of the troops compared to mere opinion or conjecture on what might happen if GLB troops were to serve openly? An historical example of the pitfalls of improper troop polling can be seen in the British attempts in the mid-1990s to poll their troops regarding gay and lesbian issues.

The British Troop Poll on Gay and Lesbian Issues Until the year 2000, the leadership of the British military strongly opposed allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the British armed forces under any circumstances. In the mid-1990s, three service members who had been discharged under the then-current policy filed a lawsuit which eventually went to the House of Lords. The plaintiff service personnel lost at every stage, including the Law Lords, and an appeal was filed with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg. In preparation for that appeal, the British Ministry of Defence did extensive polling in an effort to convince the European Court of Human Rights that service by gays and lesbians would harm the fighting power of the British armed forces. Among other things, the Ministry: 1. Administered a written survey to 1,711 service personnel under examination conditions; 2. Conducted 180 in-depth interviews; 3. Conducted 36 focus groups; and 4. Conducted a mail survey of more than 13,000 Army, Navy, and Air Force members. On this basis, the Ministry of Defence concluded in a 240-page report that there was overwhelming support for the then-current policy of excluding gays and lesbians from the armed services. A summary of that report, prepared by the European Court of Human Rights, is attached as Appendix A.1 The Ministry also solicited letters from serving members of the British military. It received 639 letters, of which 587 (92%) favored retention of the ban on gays and lesbians. Despite these findings, the European Court of Human Rights struck down Britains ban on military service by gay and lesbian individuals. After that 1999 decision, Britain moved in the year 2000 to allow open service by gays and lesbians. Subsequently, the Service Personnel Board in the Ministry of
1

Both the printed and electronic versions of this report, as prepared by the British Ministry of Defence, are too large to attach to this memorandum. They are available on request to one of the authors of this memorandum by writing to tom@tomfield.net.

Defence conducted an internal review to ascertain the effects of this change. The Boards 2002 report concluded that overall the change has had no tangible impact on operational effectiveness, team cohesion or Service life. A copy of the Personnel Boards 2002 report is attached as Appendix B. In short, the elaborate polling of troops by the British Ministry of Defence in the mid-1990s produced utterly misleading results. This conclusion is discussed in a May 27, 2007 New York Times story which stated that Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears -- about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness -- have come to pass according to the Ministry of Defence, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. A copy of that news story is attached as Appendix C. Anonymity and Confidentiality To ascertain the actual, candid opinions of U.S. troops, it is essential to provide a confidential, anonymous means of response to the question of gays serving openly and honestly in the military. The reasons for this are twofold: 1. Peer-pressure must be eliminated. Since there is a well-recognized anti-gay sentiment in parts of U.S. society, especially in male dominated organizations, peer-pressure to conform to these attitudes is strong. This is particularly true among teenagers and young adults. Only by employing a survey instrument free from the perceived need to be accepted by ones peers (by expressing an anti-gay opinion, even when this is not the individuals true opinion on the topic) can peerpressure be eliminated; 2. Only an anonymous, confidential survey instrument can safely measure gay, lesbian and bisexual troops opinions. The dont ask, dont tell law and military regulations implementing the law puts at risk any service member who reveals his/her sexual orientation, even on a survey instrument administered by the Department of Defense. Previous Polls of U.S. Troops Two recent, scientifically valid polls of U.S. troops have been published. In 2006, Zogby International conducted a poll of current and recent military 3

service personnel who...served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations).2 The troops were asked their opinions about serving with gay and lesbian troops. In 2010, the Vet Voice Foundation conducted a similar study of U.S. troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan3, using some of the same questions used by Zogby International and thus allowing for a valid comparison of results. A copy of the Zogby poll is attached as Appendix D; the Vet Voice Foundation poll is Appendix E. An analysis of the Zogby poll is attached as Appendix G Significant findings from both polls indicate a majority of troops already know they are serving alongside GLB troops in their own units. 68% of the troops in the Zogby Poll said they either knew for certain or suspected there were gays in their own unit, and among those who knew for certain, 55% said that knowledge was widely known by others in their unit. In the Vet Voice Foundation poll, 58% said they thought there were gays or lesbians in their most recent unit. Also in that poll, 73% of the troops said that gay and lesbian personnel serving openly would be acceptable to them (although 31% indicated they would not like it). In both polls, 73% of the respondents indicated they were comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. These data indicate that the known presence of GLB troops is not degrading combat readiness, thus demonstrating that the entire philosophical foundation of the original DADT law is false. It is crucial for the CRWG to attempt to verify the above data by asking the question, as did the Zogby and Vet Voice polls, whether the individual respondent knows there are GLB peers in his/her own unit. This question touches on the issue of open service of GLB troops in a more direct and accurate way than simply asking an opinion about whether GLB troops should be allowed to serve openly. Responses to the former question demonstrate the reality on the ground in our current military force structure. Responses to the latter question are merely opinions, which can be influenced by political or religious viewpoints. Appendix F provides a more detailed discussion of the issue of peer knowledge of GLB troops. The data analyses demonstrate that knowing a
2

Opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military, Whitepaper by Zogby International, December 1, 2006
3

National Survey of 510 Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans, Poll by Vet Voice Foundation, February 8-23, 2010

gay person in a unit dramatically increases the favorable opinions about gays serving openly. This finding demonstrates that when there is a real, known fellow soldier, marine, sailor or airman considered in a question about GLB troops serving openly, attitudes of the troops are far more accepting compared to the situation where there is just the theoretical possibility of a GLB member serving openly. Lessons Learned At a minimum, the British experience when polling troops on gay and lesbian issues should inspire caution about jumping to conclusions on the basis of non-random polls of military personnel regarding the likely effects of open service by gay and lesbian personnel. In retrospect, it is clear that the British effort was seriously flawed. To do reliable polling, it is important to apply basic statistical principles, such as the need for random sampling when polling a large group. Without random sampling, there is no way to be sure that the answers of poll respondents are roughly representative of the views of the group as a whole. It is also critical that selection bias be minimized among poll respondents. The British Ministry of Defence fell victim to this source of polling bias when it tabulated the letters it received and found that 587 out of 639 supported the continued exclusion of gays and lesbians from the British armed forces. Conclusion Social science research is serious business, and we run big risks when we base military policy on flawed data. U.S. military planners deserve the best information possible. Scientifically designed polls, administered so as to remove selection bias, minimize peer pressure, and guarantee anonymity and confidentiality are essential. These polls should contain questions that measure the actual experiences of soldiers who are currently serving with gay troops -- as opposed to their opinions about what theoretically might transpire if GLB troops were to serve openly. Attention to these principles will guarantee that the CRWG has the best available data on which to base its implementation recommendations.

INDEX TO APPENDICES
Appendix A - Opinion by the European Court of Human Rights in Smith and Another v. United Kingdom 27 September 1999 Page 8 Appendix B - U. K. Ministry of Defence Tri-Service Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality and Code of Social Conduct December 2002 Page 16 Appendix C The New York Times Sarah Lyall Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur 21 May 2007 Page 32 Appendix D Zogby International Poll Opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military 1 December 2006 Page 37 Continued

Appendix E Vet Voice Foundation Poll National Survey of 510 Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans 8-23 February 8 2010 Page 80

Appendix F RADM Alan M. Steinman, USPHS / USCG (Ret) Peer Knowledge of the Presence Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Troops and Its Relevance to the Issue of Dont Ask, Dont Tell Page 81

Appendix G - RADM Alan M. Steinman, USPHS / USCG (Ret) A New Look at the Zogby International Poll on Gays in the Military Page 82

Appendix A

Smith and another v United Kingdom

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (2000) 29 EHRR 493, [1999] ECHR 33985/96 27 SEPTEMBER 1999

EXCERPTS FROM OPINION

1. The case originated in two applications against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"). The first applicant, Ms Jeanette Smith, is a British national born in 1966 and resident in Edinburgh. Her application was introduced on 9 September 1996 and was registered on 27 November 1996 under file no. 33985/96. The second applicant, Mr Graeme Grady, is a British national born in 1963 and resident in London. His application was introduced on 6 September 1996 and was also registered on 27 November 1996 under file no. 33986/96. Both applicants were represented before the Commission and, subsequently, before the Court by Mr P Leech, a legal director of Liberty which is a civil liberties group based in London. 2. The applicants complained that the investigations into their homosexuality and their discharge from the Royal Air Force on the sole ground that they are homosexual constituted violations of Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14. They also invoked Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 in relation to the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces and the consequent investigations and discharges. They further complained under Article 13 that they did not have an effective domestic remedy for these violations. ***** 8

51. Following the decision in the case of R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith and others [1996] 1 All ER 257, [1996] 2 WLR 305, the Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team ("HPAT") was established by the Ministry of Defence in order to undertake an internal assessment of the armed forces' policy on homosexuality. The HPAT was composed of Ministry of Defence civil servants and representatives of the three services. The HPAT's assessment was to form the basis of the Ministry's evidence to the next Parliamentary Select Committee (as confirmed in the affidavit of Air Chief Marshal Sir John Frederick Willis referred to at para. 50 above). The HPAT was to consult the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces' personnel of all ranks, service and civilian staff responsible for carrying out the policy together with members of the legal adviser's staff. It was also to examine the policies of other nations (Annex D to the HPAT report). The report of the HPAT was published in February 1996 and ran to approximately 240 pages, together with voluminous annexes. The startingpoint of the assessment was an assumption that homosexual men and women were in themselves no less physically capable, brave, dependable and skilled than heterosexuals. It was considered that any problems to be identified would lie in the difficulties which integration of declared homosexuals would pose to the military system which was largely staffed by heterosexuals. The HPAT considered that the best predictors of the "reality and severity" of the problems of the integration of homosexuals would be the service personnel themselves (para. 30 of the report). 2. The methods of investigation used 52. There were eight main areas of investigation (para. 28 of the report): (a) The HPAT consulted with policy-makers in the Ministry of Defence. The latter emphasised the uniqueness of the military environment and the distinctly British approach to service life and the HPAT found little disagreement with this general perspective from the service people it interviewed (para. 37); (b) A signal was sent to all members of the services, including the reserve forces, requesting any written views on the issues. By 16 January 1996 the HPAT had received 639 letters. 587 of these letters were against any change in the policy, 58 of which were multiply signed. Only 11 of those letters were anonymous (paras. 46-48); 9

(c) The HPAT attitude survey consisted of a questionnaire administered to a total of 1,711 service personnel chosen as representative of the services. The questionnaires were administered in examination-type conditions and were to be completed anonymously. The results indicated that there was "overwhelming support across the services" for the policy excluding homosexuals from the armed forces. Service personnel viewed homosexuality as clearly more acceptable in civilian than in service life (paras. 49-59 and Annex G); (d) During the HPAT's visit to ten military bases in late 1995 in order to administer the above questionnaire, individual one-to-one interviews were conducted with personnel who had completed the attitude questionnaire. 180 interviewees randomly selected from certain ranks and occupational areas were selected from each of the ten units visited. Given the small number of interviewees, the responses were analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively (Annex G); (e) A number of single-service focus group discussions were held with randomly selected personnel from representative ranks and functions (Annex G refers to 36 such discussions whereas para. 61 of the report refers to 43). The purpose of the group discussions was to examine the breadth and depth of military views and to provide insights that would complement the survey results. The HPAT commented that the nature of the discussions showed little reticence in honestly and fully putting forward views; there was an: "overwhelming view that homosexuality was not 'normal' or 'natural' whereas women and ethnic minorities were 'normal'." The vast majority of participants believed that the present ban on homosexuals should remain (paras. 61-69 and Annex G); (f) One sub-team of the HPAT went to Australia, Germany and France and the other visited the United States, Canada and the Netherlands. The HPAT interviewed an eminent Israeli military psychologist since the Israeli military would not accept the HPAT visit (paras. 70-77 and Annex H). It is also apparent that the HPAT spoke to representatives of the police, the fire service and the merchant navy (paras. 78-82); (g) Tri-service regional focus discussion groups were also held to examine 10

the breadth and depth of the personnel's views. The groups were drawn from the three services and from different units. Three such discussion groups were held and overall the results were the same as those from the singleservice focus groups (paras. 83-84 and Annex G); (h) Postal single-service attitude surveys were also completed by a randomly selected sample of personnel stratified by rank, age and gender. The surveys were distributed to 3,000 (6%) of the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel, to 6,000 (5.4%) of the Army personnel and to 4,491 (6%) of the Royal Air Force personnel. On average over half of the surveys were returned (paras. 65-86 and Annex G). 3. The impact on fighting power 53. The HPAT report defined "fighting power" (often used interchangeably with combat effectiveness, operational efficiency or operational effectiveness) as the "ability to fight" which is in turn made up of three components. These are the "conceptual" and "physical" components together with the "moral component", the latter being defined as: "the ability to get people to fight including morale, comradeship, motivation, leadership and management." 54. The focus throughout the assessment was upon the anticipated effects on fighting power and this was found to be the "key problem" in integrating homosexuals into the armed forces. It was considered well established that the presence of known or strongly suspected homosexuals in the armed forces would produce certain behavioral and emotional responses and problems which would affect morale and, in turn, significantly and negatively affect the fighting power of the armed forces. These anticipated problems included controlling homosexual behaviour and heterosexual animosity, assaults on homosexuals, bullying and harassment of homosexuals, ostracism and avoidance, "cliquishness" and pairing, leadership and decision-making problems including allegations of favouritism, discrimination and ineffectiveness (but excluding the question of homosexual officers taking tactical decisions swayed by sexual preference), sub-cultural friction, privacy/decency issues, increased dislike and suspicions (polarised relationships), and resentment over imposed change especially if controls on heterosexual expression also had to be 11

tightened (see section F.II of the report). 4. Other issues 55. The HPAT also assessed other matters it described as "subsidiary" (section G and para. 177 of the Report). It found that, while cost implications of changing the policy were not quantifiable, it was not considered that separate accommodation for homosexuals would be warranted or wise and, accordingly, major expenditures on accommodation were considered unlikely (paras. 95-97). Wasted training as regards discharged homosexuals was not considered to be a significant argument against maintaining the policy (paras. 98-99). Should the wider social and legal position change in relation to civilian homosexual couples, then entitlements for homosexual partners would have to be accepted (para. 101). Large amounts of money or time were unlikely to be devoted to homosexual awareness training, given that it was unlikely to be effective in changing attitudes. It was remarked that, if required, tolerance training would probably be best addressed as "part of an integrated programme for equal opportunities training in the military" (para. 102). There were strong indications that recruitment and retention rates would go down if there was a change in policy (paras. 103-04). 56. Concerns expressed about the fulfilment of the forces' loco parentis responsibilities for young recruits were found not to stand up to close examination (para. 111). 5. Medical and security concerns 57. Medical and security concerns were considered separately (ss H and I, respectively, and para. 177 of the report). While it was noted that medical concerns of personnel (in relation to, inter alia, Aids) were disproportionate to the clinical risks involved, it was considered that these concerns would probably need to be met with education packages and compulsory Aids testing. Otherwise, real acceptance and integration of homosexuals would be seriously prejudiced by emotional reactions and resentments and by concerns about the threat of Aids. The security issues (including the possibility of blackmail of those suspected of being homosexual) raised in defence of the policy were found not to stand up to close examination. 6. The experience in other countries and in civilian disciplined services 12

58. The HPAT observed that there were a wide variety of official positions and legal arrangements evolving from local legal and political circumstances and ranging from a formal prohibition of all homosexual activity (the United States), to administrative arrangements falling short of real equality (France and Germany), to a deliberate policy to create an armed force friendly to homosexuals (the Netherlands). According to the HPAT, those countries which had no legal ban on homosexuals were more tolerant, had written constitutions and therefore a greater tradition of respect for human rights. The report continued: "But nowhere did HPAT learn that there were significant numbers of open homosexuals serving in the Forces . . . Whatever the degree of official toleration or encouragement, informal pressures or threats within the military social system appeared to prevent the vast majority of homosexuals from choosing to exercise their varying legal rights to open expression of their active sexual identity in a professional setting . . . It goes without saying that the continuing reticence of military homosexuals in these armed forces means that there has been little practical experience of protecting them against ostracism, harassment or physical attack. Since this common pattern of a near absence of openly homosexual personnel occurs irrespective of the formal legal frameworks, it is reasonable to assume that it is the informal functioning of actual military systems which is largely incompatible with homosexual self-expression. This is entirely consistent with the pattern of British service personnel's attitudes confirmed by the HPAT." 59. In January 1996 there were over 35,000 British service personnel (25% approximately of the British armed forces) deployed overseas on operations, more than any other NATO country in Europe (para. 43). The HPAT concluded, nevertheless, that the policy had not presented significant problems when working with the armed forces of allied nations. The HPAT remarked that British service personnel had shown a "robust indifference" to arrangements in foreign forces and no concern over what degree of acceptance closely integrated allies give to homosexuals. This is because the average service person considers that those others"are not British, have different standards, and are thus only to be expected to do things differently" and because personnel from different nations are 13

accommodated apart. It was also due to the fact that homosexuals in foreign forces, where they were not formally banned, were not open about their sexual orientation. Consequently, the chances were small of the few open homosexuals happening to be in a situation where their sexual orientation would become a problem with British service personnel (para. 105). 60. Important differences were considered by the HPAT to exist between the armed forces and civilian disciplined services in the United Kingdom including the police, the fire brigade and the merchant navy which did not operate the same policy against homosexuals. It considered that: "None of these occupations involves the same unremittingly demanding and long-term working environment as the Armed Forces, or requires the same emphasis on building rapidly interchangeable, but fiercely committed and self-supporting teams, capable of retaining their cohesion after months of stress, casualties and discomfort . . ." (paragraph 203) 7. Alternative options to the current policy 61. Alternative options were considered by the HPAT including a code of conduct applicable to all, a policy based on the individual qualities of homosexual personnel, lifting the ban and relying on service personnel reticence, the "don't ask, don't tell" solution offered by the USA and a "no open homosexuality" code. It concluded that no policy alternative could be identified which avoided risks for fighting power with the same certainty as the present policy and which, in consequence, would not be strongly opposed by the service population (paragraphs 153-75). 8. The conclusions of the HPAT (paragraphs 176-91) 62. The HPAT found that: "the key problem remains and its intractability has indeed been reconfirmed. The evidence for an anticipated loss in fighting power has been set out in section F and forms the centrepiece of this assessment. The various steps in the argument and the overall conclusion have been shown not only by the Service authorities but by the great majority of Service personnel in all ranks." Current service attitudes were considered unlikely to change in the near 14

future. While clearly hardship and invasion of privacy were involved, the risk to fighting power demonstrated why the policy was, nevertheless, justified. It considered that it was not possible to draw any meaningful comparison between the integration of homosexuals and of women and ethnic minorities into the armed forces since homosexuality raised problems of a type and intensity that gender and race did not. The HPAT considered that, in the longer term, evolving social attitudes towards homosexuality might reduce the risks to fighting power inherent in change but that their assessment could "only deal with present attitudes and risks". It went on: ". . . certainly, if service people believed that they could work and live alongside homosexuals without loss of cohesion, far fewer of the anticipated problems would emerge. But the Ministry must deal with the world as it is. Service attitudes, in as far as they differ from those of the general population, emerge from the unique conditions of military life, and represent the current social and psychological realities. They indicate military risk from a policy change . . . . . . after collecting the most exhaustive evidence available, it is also evident that in the UK homosexuality remains in practice incompatible with service life if the armed services, in their present form, are to be maintained at their full potential fighting power . . . Furthermore, the justification for the present policy has been overwhelmingly endorsed by a demonstrated consensus of the profession best able to judge it. It must follow that a major change to the Ministry's current Tri-service Guidelines on homosexuality should be contemplated only for clearly stated non-defence reasons, and with a full acknowledgement of the impact on Service effectiveness and service people's feelings."

15

Appendix B
For official version, see PDF of this document available from the Ministry of Defence (THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT)

SPB 12/02

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SERVICE PERSONNEL BOARD TRI-SERVICE REVIEW OF THE ARMED FORCES POLICY ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND CODE OF SOCIAL CONDUCT
(A Paper by D SP Pol SC) This paper reviews the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality and the introduction of the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct in the light of thirty months experience since both were introduced in Jan 00. It concludes that there has been no discernible impact on operational efficiency and that the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct has been well received. It considers that no further review of the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality is currently judged necessary, as sexual orientation is now increasingly an integral part of the policy on diversity. However, Service personnel staffs will need to remain watchful for any reversal of current attitudes of toleration. It further recommends that the guidelines for applying the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct require some refinement. INTRODUCTION 1. Following the ECHR judgement against the MOD at Strasbourg on 27 Sep 99, and the subsequent change of policy on homosexuality in the Armed Forces, the lifting of the ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces was announced by the Secretary of State in Parliament on 12 Jan 00. AIM 2. The aim of this paper is to review the revised policy on homosexuality and the introduction of the underpinning Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct within the three Services, in the light of thirty months experience following the change of policy. SCOPE 3. The three Services were asked to examine and report on the following main areas: (a) To provide the views of COs on the change of policy on Homosexuality and the

16

Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct. (b) Single-Service reactions to the policy change. (c) Identify the most commonly held concerns. (d) To highlight any practical difficulties and details of any alleged cases of redress, victimisation or harassment following the policy change. (e) Single-Service handling and reaction to homosexual re-enlistments. (f) Offer feedback from the Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Centre. (g) The implications for diversity policy. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW 4. The change in policy was reviewed in the light of experience in the Services during the first six months of operation. The conclusions of the review were reported to Ministers1 and the House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) and are included at Annex A for ease of reference. Although the handling of the announcement and the subsequent change in policy was generally hailed a success, and no real problems of harassment or victimisation were reported following its introduction, it was acknowledged that this may not have fully reflected that the change in policy did not command the universal approval of all Service personnel. It was recommended that there should be second review to reflect a further two years of operating the change in policy, which would be reported to Ministers and the HCDC. VIEWS OF COMMANDING OFFICERS (COs) ON THE CHANGE OF HOMOSEXUALITY POLICY HOMOSEXUALITY 5. COs views for each Service are as follows: a. The Naval Service. When first announced the change in policy was not openly welcomed by many, but reaction was generally muted. Since then it has been widely agreed that the problems initially perceived have not been encountered, and for most personnel sexual orientation is a non-issue. It is thought that such changes were inevitable and logical as they reflect the society in which Armed Forces serve.
b. The Army. The general message from COs is, that there appears to have been no real change since the new policy was announced. It appears that few homosexuals have decided to declare their sexual orientation and that they would prefer to keep their orientation private. However feedback from focus groups is that this may well be a subject that is dormant at present, but may need to be further considered when personnel are on operations. 1 D/SP Pol SC/50/1 dated 24 Aug 02.

17

c. RAF. The overwhelming view of RAF COs is that the change in policy was overdue and represented recognition of the diverse culture in which we all live. All COs agreed that there had been no tangible impact on operational effectiveness, team cohesion or Service life generally. There had been no pink crusades or rushes of coming out. One CO commented that same sex relationships had caused some initial concern, but that the situation had been ably managed. THE ARMED FORCES CODE OF SOCIAL CONDUCT 6. The Naval Service. The revised code has been well received and it is considered that it puts homosexuality neatly into context, as it does not just cover homosexual relationships but instead provides clear guidance on all forms of relationships. 7. The Army. There has been a varied response from the COs and can be summarized as being: a. The Code has been welcomed by all. b. While the Code provides useful and balanced criteria against which to assess social conduct, concern was raised at how the policy is implemented. The need for consistency is viewed as essential. This may be difficult to achieve given that each incident will need to be judged on its own merits and the likelihood that different parts of the Services may apply different emphasis. The need for equity in enforcement is seen as a particular challenge. c. A lack of understanding and education, mainly with those who have transgressed, of why Values and Standards are necessary. 8. RAF. Whilst the majority of comments were positive, they ranged from the negative (caused problems in interpretation, highly subjective, not prescriptive enough), through the neutral (little impact at Station level), to the positive (excellent tool that ensures parity of treatment, a sensible and pragmatic approach and an identifiable baseline against which to measure social conduct). It should be noted that the RAF uses the Service Test as a yardstick for all types of personnel casework, not just for social misconduct. SINGLE-SERVICE REACTION TO THE CHANGE IN ARMED FORCES POLICY ON HOMOSEXUALITY THE NAVAL SERVICE 9. Officers. The majority view is that the new policy has not made any significant change to

18

Service life. It was thought that, if asked, some would express disapproval of the change but many, particularly younger officers, would be neutral or positively welcoming of the change. 10. Senior Rates and Warrant Officers and SNCO. This stratum of naval society is considered to be one of the most traditional and, correspondingly, there remains some disquiet in the Senior Ratings Messes concerning the policy on homosexuality within the Service. This has manifested itself in a number of personnel electing to leave the Service, although in only one case was the policy change cited as the only reason for going. Nonetheless, homosexuality is not a major issue and, to put the effect of the policy change into context, the introduction of Pay 2000 and pay grading caused a far greater reaction. 11. Junior Rates and Ranks. The general feeling is that Junior Rates and ranks are more accepting of homosexuality, as the majority have friends/acquaintances who are homosexual, although some were polarised in their views. There was a mixed reaction as to whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve; some cannot understand why homosexuality is an issue at all, whilst others feel that the Service has created a difficult and volatile situation for them to deal with. THE ARMY 12. Officers. There is general acceptance of the change amongst officers with many agreeing that the impact of the policy will have no significant impact upon units. There is a view that officers who have attended university have developed a more tolerant attitude to homosexuality and some officers also expressed a view that the effect of the changes introduced will only be noticed over a prolonged period. 13. Warrant Officers and SNCOs. Some reluctance amongst Warrant Officers and SNCOs to accept the change has been noted and there has been one recent incident of a homosexual WOs & Sgts Mess member coming out and this generated much discussion. A general view is that most soldiers still have very little direct experience of working alongside, or socialising with, homosexuals, and find the notion distasteful. However, the general attitude is that social acceptability is more dependent on character and personality rather than sexual orientation, and those with direct experience of serving with homosexuals are more inclined to be tolerant. 14. Junior Ranks. Views amongst Junior Ranks were more diverse with some reluctant to accept the policy change whilst the majority recognise the need to adapt. In general, Junior Ranks tend to be more liberal than their older colleagues although many have expressed particular concern over room sharing. One CO expressed a view that there is a resigned acceptance amongst Junior Ranks concerning the Armys homosexual policy, though there remains a continued sentiment across Junior Ranks that homosexuality undermines unit/team cohesion. This view was particularly prevalent within the Infantry.

19

15. General Reactions. The overwhelming consensus is that this policy change appears to have had little impact. The general impression is that there has been little change in attitude with those who were homophobic remaining so, albeit less overtly, whilst the views of more tolerant individuals is unchanged. Regardless of policy, homosexuals are not yet readily accepted by all, and this may influence an individual in deciding whether to expose his or her sexual orientation. More senior groups felt that the policy had little practical impact and was not a contentious issue; team dynamics are much more dependent on personality than on the sexual orientation of the individual, whereas more junior groups were more likely to feel threatened by the change in policy. Overall there is recognition that the change in policy is a response to European law, and there is little (or nothing) that can be done about it although the policy change is unlikely to change peoples views on homosexuality. It is interesting to note that at a recent Infantry COs' Conference, the message came out clearly that 18 year olds joining the Infantry, whilst not accepting homosexual behaviour, were largely indifferent to it. RAF 16. Officers. Represented by COs views above (see Para 5.c.). 17. Warrant Officers and SNCOs. There was some evidence that a small minority of individuals mainly SNCOs privately believed that homosexuals had no place in the Service, but that they nevertheless adhered to the guidelines. The majority of COs believed time and education would resolve this minor issue. 18. Other Ranks. The issue of homosexuality is old news and a non-issue with other ranks. This group tends to be younger and reflects greater societal acceptance of homosexual issues. 19. General Reactions/Key Observations. The general reaction to the change of policy was muted. There remains a small minority who have not been receptive to the change in policy, most of whom appear to be senior NCOs. This is not unexpected given their age and length of service. Younger personnel of all ranks have apparently accepted the change easily. Most of those consulted during this review agreed that acceptance would improve with time and that Equal Opportunities (EO) and Diversity training would play a significant role in the process. SERVICE REACTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ARMED FORCES CODE OF SOCIAL CONDUCT THE NAVAL SERVICE 20. Officers. Comments received were mostly positive and the Code has been welcomed as a positive benefit. Its introduction was seen as a timely, considered and sensitive change to address a new climate in terms of relationships and issues of personal behaviour and sexuality. It has created an overall understanding of the importance of all relationships, especially in the need to respect, value and protect the rights of others. The

20

Code is seen as a good guide and regulator for all relationships, and brought maturity to personal behavior across the board. It has created a climate within which harassment, exploitation and sexism can be challenged and dealt with. 21. Senior rates and Warrant Officers and SNCO. No substantive comment. 22. Junior Rates and ranks. No substantive comment. THE ARMY 23. Officers. Officers have a more active role in the application of the Code of Social Conduct and in the main considered it a positive development. The Service Test is regarded by most as a valuable clarification, although some officers did, however, express concern that the Service Test might be too vague and open to broad interpretation. They felt that this might result in its effectiveness being undermined. This applied particularly to issues of social misconduct. 24. Warrant Officers and SNCOs. Warrant Officers and SNCOs considered the guidance, sanctions and criteria to be helpful. There were strong feelings amongst this group that young soldiers should be taught the Armed Forces view on values and standards, as they are not inherent within the pool from which the Armed Forces recruit. There is a perception that commanders are not applying the Code with sufficient confidence and this could undermine its effectiveness. 25. Junior Ranks. Junior ranks generally accepted the Code on the basis that the Armed Forces needed to have values and standards that are more prescriptive than those in civilian society. Many JNCOs reflect the attitudes of society today, though they display greater understanding of the needs of the Service than might be assumed. This group did not necessarily reflect Armed Forces standards when joining, but they do have an awareness that a firm framework of conduct exists and that it should be maintained. A perception does exist that officers and WOs/SNCOs frequently breach the Code without action being taken against them. RAF 26. Officers. Represented by CO views above (see Para 8). 27. Warrant Officers and SNCOs. No substantive comment. 28. Other Ranks. No substantive comment. 29. General Reactions. The introduction of the Code of Social Conduct was generally considered to be a positive step by all levels of RAF personnel. Nevertheless, there was some concern expressed that the guidelines were open to interpretation and subjective decision making, resulting in inequitable application across the Service of the policy and any resulting sanctions. This view was, however, in the minority and the RAF already has

21

in hand a review of the administrative system of warnings and special reports to ensure equitable treatment irrespective of rank. MOST COMMONLY HELD CONCERNS 30. The Naval Service. There are a few commonly held concerns, and none that is significant in the minds of naval personnel. The most important concern is the lack of privacy on board a ship or submarine, particularly in the confined living conditions in single sex messes, and anxiety over having to take communal showers. 31. The Army. Generally, there has been an acceptance of the need for change and, notwithstanding the fact that so far there has been no strong test of the policy, it is simply no longer regarded as a major personnel issue. One unit commented on the fact that the policy had given serving homosexuals more confidence, in that there was not a culture of harassment and unacceptability with regard to their lifestyle. Nevertheless, many COs commented that homosexuals would not necessarily come out. There are some commonly held concerns, which include: a. Heterosexuals do not want to share rooms with homosexuals. b. Privacy should be mutually respected and soldiers should not be compelled to share accommodation with persons of a different gender or sexual orientation. c. There is a strong feeling that toilets and showers should be separated as per male and female arrangements (a concern that should be overcome with Single Living Accommodation). d. A perception that operational effectiveness might be undermined if living in close proximity with homosexuals on operations. e. The eventual policy on partners entitlement (with the homosexual dimension) to pensions and quartering is viewed as more socio-political, rather than a military initiative, and will require careful management if it is not to be divisive. 32. RAF. It was generally felt that concerns over change would continue to fade over time. However, the greatest concern expressed by married personnel was the possibility that, at some stage, same sex couples would occupy SFA and gain access to the same benefits and entitlements as married personnel. To a certain extent, these concerns (impressionable children growing up next door to a same sex couple and the erosion of family values) has been brought to the fore by the debate on unentitled partners. By way of balance, it was also recognized by some personnel, however, that this reflected the diverse society from which the RAF seeks to recruit. Nevertheless, given the number of Stations that have raised the issue of same sex partners and their inclusion in the wider RAF community, it was felt these concerns should be highlighted in this review. The RAF Chaplaincy Services have suggested that, whilst there may be some heterosexuals expressing discomfort about the change in policy, there has been a decrease in

22

homosexual personnel presenting with problems. There is a strong impression that life is now easier for homosexual personnel. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND DETAILS OF ANY ALLEGED CASES OF REDRESS, VICTIMISATION OR HARASSMENT FOLLOWING THE POLICY CHANGE ON HOMOSEXUALITY THE NAVAL SERVICE 33. No practical difficulties have been encountered, although it has been suggested that training in interrogation involving strip-searching might cause difficulties. There has been a low level of incidents investigated by the SIB that involved activity that might be regarded as homosexual (in the context of assaults and threats), but this has not caused any statistical increase compared to earlier years. THE ARMY 34. There have been no practical difficulties experienced by most COs; nearly all observed that the policy had yet to be fully tested. The lifting of the ban was generally unwelcome at the time, however it has now been accepted that it has made little or no impact. There have been isolated incidents with accommodation; prior to the policy soldiers asked to be moved to different accommodation for personality clash reasons but since the change of policy there has been greater openness. For example, there has been an incident where a soldier asked to be moved because he did not get on with a known homosexual in a two man room. When he moved to another room, the unit was faced with seeking another volunteer to share the room. To have placed another homosexual in the room would have given rise to partner issues and leaving the homosexual in a room on his own would have been seen as preferential or discriminatory treatment. 35. Bullying/Victimization/Harassment. Other than one serious case in 2001 concerning sexual assault, the unanimous response to the question on bullying was that it has not occurred, though one CO did make the point that this is a subject that soldiers will not readily discuss. RAF 36. The general issue of accommodation was of some concern within the RAF, but comments related also to mixed sex accommodation, which was felt to be of equal importance to mixed sexuality sharing. 37. There had been one complaint of an unwanted homosexual approach that had been swiftly and effectively dealt with at unit level. There had also been one instance of complaint, following the breakdown of a same sex relationship, but this was resolved amicably. There had been no reported instances of harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.

23

SERVICE HANDLING/REACTION TO HOMOSEXUAL RE-ENLISTMENTS 38. The Naval Service. It is known that two officers and one rating have rejoined the RN, and all are now progressing well. Another application from an officer is currently being staffed. Shortly after the Lustig-Prean decision, staff recalled several telephone enquiries from personnel who had been discharged. The focus of these enquiries appeared to be to gain information to assist in a loss of earnings claim. Those who did make an application to rejoin, were generally more concerned about the effects of their previous service, whether their seniority would count, training and their future employment. Their sexual orientation was a very minor issue, and has been a non-issue from the appointing drafting perspective. It was suggested that, provided individuals are fit and able to carry out their duties in full, they should be encouraged to rejoin or remain in the Service. 39. The Army. Although COs reported no known re-enlistments, the Army Personnel Centre were able to report that up to a dozen homosexuals who were discharged during the ban on homosexuality had applied for re-enlistment. Of these, only one had actually accepted the offer to rejoin, and it can be concluded that the others were simply testing the policy. 40. The RAF. The RAF set out to treat re-entrants to the Service after being discharged on grounds of homosexuality in exactly the same way as all other candidates for entry and reentry. Sexual orientation was not an issue in considering applications, unless the applicant raised the subject. There is, therefore, no formal record of such re-entrants and such knowledge as exists is based on collective corporate memory. It is known that two individuals successfully applied to re-join the RAF; also that another individual was refused entry because his former trade was in surplus. Min(AF) directed that this criterion for reentry should be waived, but it was subsequently discovered, during the normal recruitment process, that the individual was below the required medical standard for reentry. Min(AF) therefore accepted a recommendation that he should not re-enter the RAF. Those units that have received re-enlisted personnel reported no adverse reaction. TRI-SERVICE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES TRAINING CENTRE (TSEOTC). 41. The MoD policy on homosexuality is discussed during Senior Officers Seminars and EO Advisers courses. The overwhelming majority of attendees now see homosexuality within the Armed Forces as a non-issue and are content with the policy and the management implications. Occasionally, personal reservations are expressed in discussion, but such views are not representative of the majority. There have been very few management or disciplinary problems highlighted by attendees, and it is evident that in the vast majority of units across the services, sexual orientation is viewed as irrelevant. The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct is regarded as a sensible and pragmatic management tool and the concept of behavior, rather than sexual orientation, being the key factor is a widely accepted principle. IMPLICATIONS FOR DIVERSITY POLICY

24

42. Recognition of the Armed Forces Lesbian and Gay Association (AFLAGA). The Services are agreed that there is no harm in engaging with organizations such as AFLAGA in a Centre-led dialogue when the need arises. However, official Departmental recognition of AFLAGA would set a precedent and potentially open the door to a range of other minority and special interest groups to seek similar recognition. The Services feel, therefore, that official recognition for such groups should be resisted. 43. Positive Recruitment in the Gay press. Service attitude varied as follows: a. The Naval Service. The Naval Service consider that current recruitment policies and practices are adequate. In view of the general press interest in Armed Forces issues, and the activities of certain pressure groups, homosexuals are now generally aware that the three Services are fully committed to diversity and that they are welcome to apply for recruitment. A greater recruiting profile in the pink press might run the risk of upsetting the generally balanced attitude towards recruitment within the Naval Service and generate unhelpful coverage in the more salacious newspapers. b. The Army. In terms of recruitment, the Army feel there is a need to target resources for the greatest impact. The Army are intending to conduct a wide-ranging scoping study to determine the size of the potential recruiting pool and the general attitudes prevalent in society towards service in the Armed Forces before deciding whether it would be worthwhile actively recruiting from the homosexual population. The issue remains sensitive, and the Army would have to consider the wider ramifications of adopting such a policy. c. RAF. The RAF feel there may be some merit in placing recruiting advertisements in the gay press just as, for example, they advertise through various media aimed at ethnic minority communities. On balance, there is muted enthusiasm and little need to target male or female homosexual personnel in recruitment efforts. The Services diversity policy sends a clear message that the Armed Forces do not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Provision of Specialist Welfare Support 44. Service views are as follows: a. The Naval Service. The change in policy had not been an issue for the Naval Personnel Family Services (NPFS), and the transitional arrangements went remarkably well. NPFS observes non-discriminatory practices, and co-operated in distributing and displaying AFLAGA posters. Since the change in policy, of 4000 general referrals to NPFS(West)s office, there has been only one approach from a serving person who sought advice about the policy on homosexuality. The Naval Support Line also receives very few calls from personnel seeking advice about homosexual issues. Of the 2952 questions dealt with by staff since the service began in May 1999, only 14 related to gender issues, a category under which questions about homosexuality would have been

25

recorded. However, this category is not restricted to homosexual issues, and it is not possible to provide data specifically about questions relating to homosexuality. In light of this evidence, it is considered that there is no requirement for specialist welfare support purely for homosexual personnel. b. The Army. It is assessed that there is no requirement to provide any additional welfare support for homosexuals. The Army are confident that existing provision is adequate, without the need to single out any minority group. c. RAF. In the recruiting context, there have been no reported instances of candidates asking for advice on welfare support available to homosexual personnel. Within the Service, there is no data available to confirm or deny a specific need for any social support provision over and above that which already exists. The RAF has adopted a socially inclusive view of its community and, as such, the provision of social support is for everyone regardless of sexual orientation or status. As part of the overall support package, the Community Support Website has a direct link to the AFLAGA Website. The general view is that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no requirement for specialist welfare support for homosexual personnel. SUMMARY OF SERVICE VIEWS THE NAVAL SERVICE 45. The overall response appears to be a positive one, particularly to the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct. Initially, there was a mixed reaction to the change of policy, but the change has been accepted with few problems experienced. The personal experiences of Service homosexuals, however, is that in general they still feel isolated and unsupported by an organization which has no real understanding of their particular needs and no conviction to reinforce policy by providing practical support to homosexual personnel. It is believed that continued education and time will resolve these issues. THE ARMY 46. Homosexuality. The change in policy on homosexuality has been accepted by the majority of ranks, although many remain suspicious of homosexuality in general. The actual impact of the change has been very low, due largely to maintenance of the status quo, and the anticipated consequences of change being exaggerated. Accommodation is a sensitive subject and causes concern amongst those in vulnerable situations, and in units where combat teams may operate in isolation, such as the Infantry, whereas units from the supporting Arms seem more able to tolerate the inclusion of homosexuals. Many feel that the policy has still to be fully tested, and that there is a possibility of greater problems arising during High Intensity Operations. Some officers have suggested that homosexuality should be discussed as part of the EO programme if we are to gradually increase the willingness to integrate homosexuals into the Army. The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct has provided timely assistance in dealing with issues associated

26

with homosexual misconduct, while ensuring that they are judged on the same criteria as any other form of unacceptable social behaviour. 47. Introduction of the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct. The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct has been welcomed by all as the line in the sand that is there for all to see. Everyone is in agreement that the practical and common application of the Code is critical to the maintenance of operational standards and Service ethos in the face of changing social conditions. The inherent strength of the Code is its application too all with complete diversity whatever colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Not all see its application as equitable or consistent. RAF 48. Within the RAF, the general view was that the change in policy was inevitable and is yesterdays news. The response to the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct and its Service Test was mixed, but the amendments to the RAF system of warnings and special reports should rectify a number of underlying concerns. A small minority of staff remain unconvinced about homosexuals serving in the RAF, but are not overt in their views and this is felt to be largely a generational issue. Finally, the need to highlight the concerns of the wider RAF community with regard to the possible future integration of same sex couples into Service Families Accommodation (SFA) was a strongly held opinion. This could be a major source of concern when the partners issue is openly debated and there is a need to be prepared for a reaction if same sex couples are included. CONCLUSIONS 49. COs of all three Services generally concur that there has been no tangible impact on operational effectiveness, team cohesion or Service life as a result lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. 50. The Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct has been well received. Some concerns were expressed that guidance notes for COs may not be prescriptive enough and may, therefore, lead to some inconsistency in its application. 51. All personnel have accepted that a change in policy was inevitable and has had little impact on Service life. Whilst sexual orientation remains a private matter, little difficulty for the future is foreseen. Team dynamics were deemed to be more dependent on personality than sexual orientation. 52. Reported cases of bullying or harassment involving activities that might be regarded as homosexual are very rare. 53. Those few personnel previously discharged because of their sexual orientation who have since rejoined the Armed Forces have been re-assimilated into Service life with little difficulty.

27

54. No specific homosexual issues have been raised by Senior Offices or students attending EO briefings or courses at TSEOTC. 55. Concerns have been registered that, should same sex couples be granted the same entitlements as married heterosexual couples (in particular to SFA), there may be significant educational and presentational issues to be addressed to avoid a homophobic reaction from other SFA residents. 56. No further formal review of the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality is currently judged to be necessary as sexual orientation is increasingly part of Armed Forces diversity business. However, Service personnel staffs should remain watchful for any reversal of current toleration. 57. No special welfare provisions are required for homosexual personnel the existing welfare infrastructure provides an inclusive service for all. RECOMMENDATIONS 58. It is recommended that the SPB: a. Notes the conclusions of the Review. b. Agrees that tri-Service work is put in hand to review the guidance notes to COs in applying the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct. c. Agrees that the conclusions of the Review are reported to Ministers and the HCDC. ANNEX A TO SPB PAPER 12/02 CONCLUSIONS OF THE AUG 00 REVIEW OF THE ARMED FORCES POLICY ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND CODE OF SOCIAL CONDUCT 1. The results were reported to be encouraging. The principal conclusions were as follows: a. The change of policy has been introduced smoothly and with fewer problems than might have been expected. b. Commanding officers have not reported any significant issues and the revised policy has been assimilated into Service life without any perceived adverse impact or effect on operational effectiveness. c. The new Code of Social Conduct for the Armed Forces, with its associated Service test, has been well received and is proving a useful tool for commanders in dealing with issues of personal behaviour.

28

d. The success of the Departmental communications strategy re-affirmed the need to treat the presentational aspects of potentially controversial policy decisions or announcements as an integral part of the overall policy process. e. No changes to the revised policy on homosexuality or the Code of Social Conduct are considered necessary at the present time. f. No further action is required on the content of the Service education or training courses at the present time. g. A further low key review, based on tri-Service management assessments, is recommended to take place in two years time.

29

Appendix C

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur
By SARAH LYALL Published: May 21, 2007 The officer, a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force, felt he had no choice. So he stood up in front of his squadron of 30 to 40 people. ''I said, 'Right, I've got something to tell you,' '' he said. '' 'I believe that for us to be able to work closely together and have faith in each other, we have to be honest and open and frank. And it has to be a two-way process, and it starts with me baring my soul. You may have heard some rumors, and yes, I have a long-term partner who is a he, not a she.' '' Far from causing problems, he said, he found that coming out to his troops actually increased the unit's strength and cohesion. He had felt uneasy keeping the secret ''that their boss was a poof,'' as he put it, from people he worked with so closely. Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears -- about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness -- have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue. The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them.

30

''What we're hoping to do is to, over a period of time, reinforce the message that people who are gay, lesbian and the like are welcomed in the armed forces and we don't discriminate against them in any way,'' a Defense Ministry official said in an interview, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the ministry's practice. Nonetheless, the issue is extremely delicate now. The military does not want to be seen bragging about the success of its policy when the issue can still cause so much anguished debate in the United States. This is particularly true in light of tensions between the allies after a British coroner ruled in March that a British soldier who died four years ago was unlawfully killed by an American pilot. For this article, the Defense Ministry refused to give permission for any member of the forces to be interviewed, either on or off the record. Those who spoke did so before the ministry made its position clear. ''We're not looking to have quotes taken out of context in a way to imply that we're trying to influence the debate in the United States,'' the British official said. ''There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we've handled it and how it's gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.'' The debate in the United States was rekindled in March when Gen. Peter Pace, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the country's topranking military official, told The Chicago Tribune that he believed that homosexuality was immoral. In January, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who until his retirement in 1997 held the same post in the Clinton years, when the Pentagon adopted its ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy, said in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that he now believed that the military was ready to accept gay men and lesbians. A military already stretched thin, he said, ''must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.'' At least 24 countries -- many of them allies of the United States, and some of them members of the coalition forces fighting alongside Americans -now allow gay soldiers to serve openly in their armed forces.

31

It is hard to avoid comparing the British and American systems, gay soldiers in the British forces say. One major, an openly gay liaison officer in the British Territorial Army, told of an exchange he had in the southern Iraq city of Basra with an American staff sergeant, far from home and eager to confide. ''He privately let me know he was gay,'' the major said in an interview. ''Not in a romantic way, but in a matter-of-fact way. He found it difficult, because he clearly had a whole part of his private life that he had to keep separate and distinct and couldn't discuss with people. He was in his mid-30s, with no girlfriend and no wife, and he had to use all these white lies.'' Some Britons said they could not understand why the United States had not changed its policy. ''I find it strange, coming from the land of the free and freedom of speech and democracy, given the changes in the world attitude,'' said the gay squadron leader, who recently returned from Afghanistan. ''It's just not the issue it used to be.'' Until its policy changed, the British military had deep misgivings about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in its armed forces. But it had no choice. It was forced to by a European court, which ruled that its policy of excluding homosexuals violated the European Convention on Human Rights. ''There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,'' the Defense Ministry official said. Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. ''But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven't materialized,'' the official said. To the extent it becomes an issue, it is usually within the context of the relentlessly rough give-and-take that characterizes military life, particularly at the lower ranks, said Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Michael D. Palm 32

Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied the British experience. ''The military is a proving ground, and the first thing people do is find your weakness and exploit it,'' Mr. Frank said in an e-mail interview. ''If you're gay, that's your weakness, and guys will latch on to that. But frequently this is no more significant a weakness than any other based on your accent, body type, race, religion, etc.'' The British military actively recruits gay men and lesbians and punishes any instance of intolerance or bullying. The Royal Navy advertises for recruits in gay magazines and has allowed gay sailors to hold civil partnership ceremonies on board ships and, last summer, to march in full naval uniform at a gay pride rally in London. (British Army and Royal Air Force personnel could march but had to wear civilian clothes.) Speaking at a conference sponsored by the gay advocacy group Stonewall last year, Vice Adm. Adrian Johns, the second sea lord, said that homosexuals had always served in the military but in the past had had to do it secretly. ''That's an unhealthy way to be, to try and keep a secret life in the armed services,'' said Admiral Johns, who as the Royal Navy's principal personnel officer is responsible for about 39,000 sailors. His speech was titled ''Reaping the Rewards of a Gay-Friendly Workplace.'' ''Those individuals need nurturing, so that they give of their best and are, in turn, rewarded for their effort,'' he said of the Royal Navy's gay men and lesbians. ''Nurture includes the freedom to be themselves. Our mission is to break down barriers of discrimination, prejudice, fear and misunderstanding.'' Once the news is out there, the gay Royal Air Force squadron leader said, the issue gets subsumed by the job at hand and by the relentless immediacy of war. At one point, his squad was working with a British Army unit. ''I wouldn't go into a briefing room and face them and say, 'By the way, I'm gay,' '' he said of his British Army counterparts. ''Frankly, I don't think they were worried, because we were all focused on doing a very, very hard job.''

33

He recalled something his commander had said, when advising him to come out to his squad: ''The boss said, 'I think you will be surprised that in this day and age it will be a complete anticlimax, because as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals in the military are yesterday's news.' ''

34

Appendix D

OPINIONS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL ON SEXUAL MINORITIES IN THE MILITARY

Publication Type: Whitepaper Research Topic(s): Polls And Surveys | Recruiting Source: Zogby International Publication Date: December 1, 2006 Please click here to download this document as a PDF. This survey of current and recent military service personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations) sought to explore the issue of sexual minorities in the United States military, specifically within the context of three key areas.

John Zogby, President and CEO John Bruce, Vice President and Systems Administrator Rebecca Wittman, Vice President and Managing Editor

Sam Rodgers, Writer

December, 2006

2006 Zogby International

35

Table Of Contents Subject Page

I. Methodology and Sample Characteristics...................................................2 II. Executive Summary...................................................................................5 III. Narrative Analysis.....................................................................................8

Tables 1. Intra-Unit Leadership And Cooperation....................................................12 2. Impact Of Gay/Lesbian Presence On Unit Morale ...................................17 3. Assumed Impact Of Gay/ Lesbian Presence On Unit Morale...................18 4. Arguments For Keeping Gays/Lesbians From Serving ............................23 5. Arguments For Allowing Gays/Lesbians To Serve ..................................24

36

I. Methodology and Sample Characteristics Methodology Zogby International conducted online interviews of 545 U.S. Military Personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel. The online poll ran from 10/24/06 through 10/26/06. The margin of error is +/- 4.3 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Slight weights were added to age and race to more accurately reflect the population. Data used in weighting was obtained from official Department of Defense (DOD) resources. The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles. The panel uses a double opt-in format through an invitation only method. Panelists are sourced through a variety of commercial enterprises and all recruitment methodologies fully comply with CASRO guidelines. Each panelist is defined by over 400 variables, therefore making the panel highly segmented and fully representative of the US and military population.

37

Valid

Sample Characteristics Sample size East South Central/Great Lakes West Did not answer state Veteran Active Reserve/Guard, mobilized Reserve/Guard, nonmobilized Air Force Army Marines Navy Coast Guard 18-29 30-49 50-64 Did not answer age White Black/African American Spanish/Hispanic/Latino American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other/Mixed Did not answer race Baptist Church of Christ Episcopal

Frequency

545 69 223 101 123 29 88 353 35 69 160 251 35 92 5 296 221 22 6 375 62 47 5 13 5 10 28 85 22 6

Percent* 100 13 43 20 24 -16 65 6 13 29 46 7 17 1 55 41 4 -73 12 9 1 3 1 2 -17 4 1

38

Sample Characteristics (continued) Jewish Lutheran Methodist Mormon Muslim Pentecostal Presbyterian Roman Catholic Seventh Day Adventist Atheist/Realist/Humanist Other/no affiliation Did not answer religion Democratic Republican Independent/Minor party Not sure of party Did not answer party Male Female Did not answer gender

Valid Frequency

6 35 26 6 5 16 11 148 1 17 120 36 101 241 103 32 68 451 80 15

Percent* 1 7 5 1 1 3 2 29 0 4 24 -21 51 22 7 -85 15 --

* Numbers have been rounded to the nearest percent and might not total 100.

39

II. Executive Summary This survey of current and recent military service personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations) sought to explore the issue of sexual minorities in the United States military, specifically within the context of three key areas the size and characteristics of the gay and lesbian population in the military, the views of service personnel regarding the subject, and finally, the impact of gays and lesbians on the military. Population Within Service Unit By interviewing military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (both those who have served and are serving currently), we were able to capture a snapshot of the current military environment with respect to this issue. Our survey included respondents from all service branches as well as Active Duty Personnel, Veterans and Reservists. The sample also included combat and non-combat units as well as enlisted men and officers. The overall attitude of these service members was optimistic. Large majorities report being well-trained, well-equipped and battle ready. Additionally, most respondents believe that their leadership (both NonCommissioned Officers and Commissioned Officers) was excellent and they report feeling a high level of teamwork exists within their unit. Regarding the presence of gays and lesbians in their units, a near majority (45%) states that they suspect a member of their unit is homosexual. Roughly one-third (31%) does not suspect a member of their unit. Higher rates of suspicion were found among Reservists (60%), Navy Personnel (59%) and Females (56%). The lowest rates were found among Air Force Personnel (38%) and Officers (33%). When asked how many unit members they suspected, two-thirds of respondents (68%) said less than three. Respondents were also asked if the knew of any members within their unit who were gay or lesbian. Here, less than one quarter (23%) said they were definitely aware. Of those who were, three-in-five (59%) report having been directly told by the individual. When asked how many they knew within their unit, the vast majority (75%) reported knowing two or less. A

40

majority (55%) also notes that the presence of gays and lesbians is wellknown within their unit. Opinions On Homosexuality Asked whether they agree that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military, respondents were closely split with a plurality (37%) disagreeing with the idea, and 26 percent agreeing they should be allowed. Of those agreeing with their inclusion, certain demographic groups represented higher than average support. Among those were Independents, African-Americans, Women, those aged 25-34, and Women. These subgroups were largely more supportive of gays and lesbians in every question, with Democrats and Hispanics also frequently representing more open views toward gays in the military. Within military subgroups, veterans and those having served less than 4 years were also more likely to support the idea of inclusion within the military, while Active Duty Personnel, Officers, and those having served 15 or more years were less likely to agree. There was slight variance among service branches, and this variance has been noted where applicable. Three-quarters of those surveyed stated that they felt comfortable around gays and lesbians and four-in-five (78%) noted that they would join the military regardless of their open inclusion. Additionally, a majority (52%) reports having received some form of anti-gay harassment training, with Air Force personnel representing the highest level of training (62%) and the Marine Corps the lowest (34%). Perceived Impact Of those who were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two-thirds did not believe that their presence created an impact on either their personal morale (66%) or the morale of their unit (64%). Approximately one-quarter of that group believed there to be a negative impact to both. In contrast, of those who do not suspect the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit, only half (49%) perceive no impact on personal morale, and only less than one-third (26%) feel there would be no impact on their units morale. Regarding their units morale, a majority of this group 41

(58%) believes if there were gays or lesbians within their unit, there would be a negative impact. Given a set of arguments both for and against allowing gays in the military, respondents were asked to choose those that were the strongest. The most widely selected arguments for keeping gays and lesbians from serving centered on the threat of their presence undermining the unit (40%) or the threat of harm befalling them (28%). When given the arguments in support of allowing their inclusion, the two most selected arguments were the irrelevance of sexual orientation to job performance (39%) and the morality of discriminating based on sexual orientation (30%). Additionally, one-in-five respondents (21%) believed there to be no strong arguments for the exclusion of homosexuals, while one-in-five (19%) believe there to be no strong arguments in their favor. Overall, this survey paints a mixed picture for the future of gays and lesbians in the military. While overwhelming majorities of those responding display tolerance and understanding of the rights and issues involved in the argument, there are still large obstacles that must be overcome.

42

III. Narrative Analysis 1. What is your current status? Active 65% Veteran 16 Reserve/Guard, non-mobilized 13 Reserve/Guard, mobilized 6 A majority of those surveyed (65%) indicated that they were currently classified as Active Duty. Almost one-in-five (19%) identified themselves as being in the Reserves 13 percent non-mobilized, 6 percent mobilized. The reaming 16 percent noted their status as Veterans. 2. In which branch of the military do you serve? (Vets: In which branch of the military did you serve?) Army 46% Air Force 29 Navy 17 Marines 7 Coast Guard 1 Respondents serving (or having served) in the Army composed almost half (46%) of the sample size. Three-in-ten (29%) noted their service in the Air Force, with another 17 percent affiliated or having been affiliated with the Navy. The remaining respondents were either members of the Marines (7%) or the Coast Guard (1%). 3. (Veterans only) How many years ago did you leave the service? One 35% Two 24 Three 17 Four 6 Five 19 More than two-in-three veteran respondents (59%) stated that they had left the military within the past two years. The remaining 42 percent left

43

within the past five years. All took part in operations in either Iraq and/or Afghanistan or were involved in combat support operations related to those two operations. 4. How many years have you served in the U.S. military? (Vets: How many years did you serve in the U.S. military?) Less than four 11% Four 9 Five 12 Six 8 7 to 10 20 11 to 20 27 21 to 30 12 Roughly one-third (32%) of those surveyed have (or did) serve 5 or fewer years. More than a quarter served between either 6 to 10 years (28%) or between 11 to 20 years (27%). Little more than one-in-ten (12%) served longer than 20 years. 5. What is or was the highest grade you achieved? E2 E9 66% O1 O8 31 W1 W5 3 Nearly two thirds of respondents (66%) achieved their highest rank as an enlisted man/woman. An additional third (31%) reached their highest rank as an officer, with the remaining 3 percent identifying themselves as The following are questions about your current unit. If you just arrived at a new unit, please answer for your last unit. (Vets: First wed like to ask some questions about the last unit you served in.) 6. Is your unit a combat, combat-support, or combat service support unit? (Vets: Was the last unit in which you served a combat, combat-support, or combat service support unit?)

44

Combat 29% Combat support 32 Combat service support 18 Other 19 Not sure 2 Nearly equivalent numbers of respondents were currently in (or had last been in) combat units (29%) and combat support units (32%). A slightly smaller number, one-in-five (18%), listed their current or last unit as a designated combat service support unit. The remaining respondents were either in units under another designation (19%) or were unsure about their units designation (2%). Among service branches, more than one-third of respondents from the Navy (39%) and the Army (34%) classified their units as combat units. A little fewer than one-in-five of those surveyed (19%) from both the Air Force and the Marines listed themselves as part of combat units. Air Force members were more likely to be part of units designated as combat support (39%) than under any other designation. Similarly, respondents from the Marine Corps were most likely to be in combat service support designated units (42%) than in any other such designated unit. 7. How would you rate your units level of training for its wartime mission? (Vets: How would you rate your units level of training for its wartime mission? If it varied, think generally about the last year you served in it.) Very well trained 43% Well trained 39 Above Average 83% Adequately trained 13 Poorly trained 3 4 Very poorly trained 1 Below Average Not sure 1 The overwhelming majority of survey respondents (83%) rate their current or former unit as well or very well trained. Only one-in-twenty (4%) list their unit as being poorly or very poorly trained for their wartime mission.

45

When viewed by service branches, some disparities emerge. Among Air Force and Marine respondents, nine-in-ten (89 and 90 percent, respectively) rate their unit as having above adequate training. On the other hand, four-in-five (80%) of Army and Navy respondents each lists their units as above average. The only subgroup that presents a below average rating above 5 percent are Reservists, whose net below average rating is 8 percent. Across Veterans, Active Duty Personnel, Enlisted men and Officers, these ratings hold within the sample error. 8. How would you rate the equipment your unit has for its wartime mission? (Vets: How would you rate the equipment your unit had for its wartime mission? Consider overall the last year you served.) Very well equipped 23% Well equipped 39 Above Average 62% Adequately equipped 28 Poorly equipped 7 9 Very poorly equipped 2 Below Average Not sure 1 Three-out-of-five survey respondents (62%) rated their units equipment as well equipped (39%) or very well equipped (23%). Less than one-in-ten (9%) rated their equipment for their wartime mission as below average. The remaining respondents either stated that their unit was adequately equipped (28%) or were uncertain (1%). Within the service branches, respondents from the Air Force rated their units equipment readiness the highest (76%), while members of Army gave their units the lowest rating (53%). Approximately three-in-five respondents in both the Navy (61%) and the Marine Corps (62%) designated their units as having an above average equipment readiness. Only the Army and Navy had below average ratings 13 and 12 percent, respectively. Among other significant subgroups, the highest above average rating emerged from officers (73%), while the highest below average rating came from reservists (17%).

46

9. How would you rate the readiness of your unit for its wartime mission? (Vets: How would you rate the readiness of your last unit for its wartime mission? Again, think generally about the last year you served.) Very High 40% High 39 Above Average 79% Medium 17 Low 3 4 Very Low 1 Below Average Not sure 1 Three-in-four respondents (79%) rated their units overall readiness as above average, with only 4 percent designating their unit as below average. Members of three service branches the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps rated their readiness higher than the overall above average rating, with 82 percent, 86 percent and 90 percent respectively. Slightly less than three quarters of Army respondents (73%) rated their units the same. Among other sub groups, only Officers (85%) and Active Duty Personnel (82%) gave their units higher ratings than the overall average. The overall results held across all other subgroups. 10 12. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Table 1. Intra-unit Leadership and Cooperation Agree
Overall The NCOs in my unit are good leaders. (Vets: The NCOs in my last unit were good leaders.) There is a lot of teamwork and cooperation in my unit. (Vets: There was a lot of teamwork and cooperation in my unit.) The officers in my unit are good leaders. (Vets: The officers in my last unit were good leaders.) Strongly agree Agree

Neutral
Overall

Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree

Not sure 1

85

36

49

11

<1

82

32

50

12

72

25

47

19

47

Both Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and Commissioned Officers received high marks for leadership. NCOs did fare better in the overall ratings, as more than four-in-five respondents (85%) agreed that their NCOs were good leaders. Among Marine Corps respondents, agreement reached almost complete unanimity (95%), while among Army service members that rate dropped to 82 percent. When asked about their officers, more than two-in-three (72%) agreed that they were good leaders. Navy members were far less likely to believe that their officers were good leaders, as just over half (58%) agreed with that statement. Again, Marine Corps respondents gave their officers the highest vote of confidence among service groups, with almost all (93%) agreeing Four-in-five survey respondents (82%) agreed with the statement that there is a lot of teamwork and cooperation in their unit. Four subgroups had higher agreement rates with the statement Active Duty Personnel (86%), Officers (87%), the Air Force (88%) and the Marine Corps (92%). All other subgroups were within the sampling error. 13. Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not sure 9% 17 Agree 26% 32 16 21 Disagree 37 5

Slightly more than one-in-three respondents (37%) disagree that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military, while almost three-in-ten (28%) believe they should. Of those remaining, an almost equivalent amount holds a neutral opinion (32%), while just 5 percent are unsure. Along political lines, Democrats and Independents/Moderates (Independents) are far more likely to agree with the statement. One-in-three Democrats (35%) and Independents (36%) hold this opinion, while only one-in-five Republicans (22%) holds the same. One-quarter of Democrats (28%) disagreed with the statement, while Independents (41%) held close to

48

the overall average, and almost half of Republicans (45%) expressed their disagreement. A further divide was present along racial lines, as Whites (26%) and Hispanics (26%) held to the average agreement rate, while more than a third of African-Americans (37%) agreed. Only one-in-five Hispanics (17%) and a quarter of African-Americans (28%) disagreed with the statement, but among Whites the rate rose to more than two-in-four (43%). There also exists a gender divide with women far more likely than men to express agreement with the idea of gays and lesbians in the military. Four-in-nine women (44%) believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve, while more than a quarter of women (27%) disagree. Among men, the rates are almost reciprocal with a quarter of men (24%) expressing agreement and two-in-five (40%) voicing their disapproval. The only remaining non-military subgroup results to display significant findings were the disapproval rates among Baptists (41%), those between the age 35-54 (46%), and those living in both the Central/Great Lakes (45%) and Western U.S. (48%). Among Easterners, the rates were highly favorable toward the statement with more than two-in-five (39%) agreeing and less than one-in-five (15%) disagreeing. Within military subgroups, the highest agreement rates were found among Veterans (35%) and those having served less than four years (37%). The lowest acceptance rates were among Active Duty Personnel (23%), officers (23%), those serving between 10 and 14 years (22%) and those serving more than 20 (19%). Active Duty Personnel were also among those with the highest disapproval rates (39%), as were those serving between 15 and 19 years (40%), those serving more than 20 (49%), and officers (47%). Among the service branches, the Army had the lowest agreement rate less than a quarter (23%) as compared with the Marine Corps (25%), The Air Force (29%) and the Navy (31%). The highest disapproval ratings were found amongst the Air Force (40%) and the Army (37%), followed closely by the Navy (33%) and the Marine Corps (32%). 4. In your unit, are there people you suspect are gay or lesbian, but dont know for sure? (Vets: In your last unit, were there people you suspected were gay or lesbian, but didnt know for sure?)

49

Yes 45% No 31 Not Sure 25 Almost half of all service members (45%) stated that they suspect there are members of their unit who are gay or lesbian. Three-in-ten (31%) said they did not suspect a unit member, while a quarter of all respondents (25%) said they were unsure. Females were much more likely than males to suspect a member of their unit, with nearly three-in-five females (56%) believing a member of their unit to be gay or lesbian, while little more than two-in-five (43%) males held the same belief. Three-in-five Reservists (60%) and more than half of all Veterans (54%) responded that they suspected a member of their unit, as opposed to approximately two-in-five (38%) active duty personnel. Higher than average rates were also found among Enlisted men (50%), Marines (51%) and Navy Personnel (59%). Roughly two-in-five members of the Air Force (38%) and the Army (43%) suspected members of their unit, as did only one-third (33%) of officers. 15. (Asked only of those who suspect gays/lesbians in their unit.) How many people do you suspect are gay or lesbian? (Vets: How many people did you suspect were gay or lesbian?) One 13% Two 26 Three 29 Four 12 Five 12 Six or More 9 Of those who responded that they suspect a member of their unit is gay or lesbian, respondents were asked how many individuals they suspected. Two-thirds of respondents (68%) said they suspected three or fewer individuals in their unit were gay or lesbian. A little more than onethird (39%) suspected two or fewer unit members. The remaining third (32%) suspected that four or more members of their unit were gay or lesbian. These numbers held across all military subgroups. 50

16. Do you know for certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unit? (Vets: In your last unit, did you know for certain that someone was gay or lesbian?) Yes 23% No 61 Not sure 17 Sixty-one percent of respondents surveyed stated that they were certain that a member of their unit was not gay or lesbian, as compared to 23 percent who were certain. Among women, nearly three-in-ten (29%) expressed certainty that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian. Only onein-five males (22%) had the same degree of confidence. When compared among service branches, those in the Navy were the most likely to be certain regarding the presence of gays and lesbians in their unit. Thirty-one percent of Navy personnel responded as such, while a quarter of Marines (26%) and those in the Army (25%) had the same level of certainty. Members of the Air Force were the least likely to be certain of a unit members homosexuality, with only 13 percent holding this view. Enlisted men were more than twice as likely as officers to know for certain, with more than a quarter (27%) noting this, as opposed to the 12 percent of officers. (Questions 17-21 were asked only of those who know for certain that someone in their unit is gay/lesbian.) 17. How many people do you know for certain are gay or lesbian? (Vets: How many people did you know for certain were gay or lesbian?) One 37% Two 38 Three 14 Four 3 Five 2 Six or More 5 Three quarters of respondents (75%) who were certain about the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit knew of two or less people. Fourteen percent were aware of three members, while a further 10 percent 51

knew of four or more. Among males, more than two-in-five (42%) were aware of only one individual. Females, on the other hand, were less likely to know of just one individual (17%), but much more likely to know of the presence of four or more (37%). Only 4 percent of males were aware of four or more within their unit. 18. How do you know for certain? (Vets: How did you know for certain?) (Choose all that apply.) The individual told me 59%

Somebody else told me about the person 32 I could tell by the persons speech, behavior, or appearance 25 I observed the person being romantic with someone of the same sex 24 I observed the person attending a gay club, bar, parade, political activity, 8 etc. Other 12 Not sure 3 A majority of those who know about a unit member being gay or lesbian (59%) report as to having been made aware by the individual themselves. Additionally, a third (32%) say that they were told by another person. One quarter also report their certainty as being based either on the persons behavior (25%) and/or having observed the person engaged in homosexually romantic activity (24%). When broken down by gender, women were more likely than men to have been told by the individual (74 percent to 55 percent). Men, on the other hand, were twice as likely than women to have been told by another individual (36 percent to 17 percent). Enlisted men were also twice as likely as officers to have been told by the individual themselves (63% to 30%). 19. Is the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit well-known by others? (Vets: Was the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit well-known by others?) Yes 55% No 25 Not sure 21

52

More than half (55%) of those knowing with certainty about the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit state that such a presence is well known by others. More than a quarter (25%) claim that the presence is not well-known. Between males and females, males are more likely to agree that the presence of gays and lesbians within the unit is well known (56%), while less than half of women (47%) report the same. The overall averages hold constant across all other subgroups. 20. How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your personal morale? (Vets: How did the presence of gays or lesbians in your last unit impact your personal morale?) 21. How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your units overall morale? (Vets: How did the presence of gays or lesbians in your last unit impact your units overall morale?) (All responses skip to 24) Table 2. Impact of Gay/Lesbian Presence on Unit Morale Personal morale 8 20 28 66 1 4 6 1 Units morale 8 19 27 64 1 2 3 6

Very negative impact Somewhat negative impact Negative No impact Somewhat positive impact Very positive impact Positive Not sure

When those who were certain of the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit were asked what impact this presence had on both their personal morale and their units morale, responses were consistent across the board. Roughly one quarter of all respondents said that the presence of gays or lesbians had a negative impact on either their personal morale (28%) or their units morale (27%). The overwhelming majority of respondents stated their belief that the presence of gays or lesbians had little or no impact on 53

either. Less than one out of every ten respondents noted a positive impact with personal morale (6%) or their units morale (3%). Men were twice as likely as women to view gays and lesbians within their unit as having a negative impact on personal morale. Three-in-ten men (31%) voiced this opinion, while only one-in-ten women (14%) did the same. Eleven percent of women noted a positive impact created by gays and lesbians, as compared to 4 percent of men. Among other subgroups, the only significant variation was found with Active Duty Personnel, of whom more than a third (36%) listed a negative impact on personal morale created by gays and lesbians within the unit. Opinions regarding the impact on the units morale were even more consistent. Here, the only significant variations were found among women 10 percent of whom believe in a positive impact of unit morale. This is starkly contrasted by the 1 percent of men who hold the same belief. Among Active Duty Personnel, negative impact rating is also higher than average, with one-third (33%) believing it to have a negative impact. (Questions 22-23 were asked only of those who do not know for certain that someone in their unit is gay/lesbian.) 22. How do you think the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit would impact your personal morale? 23. How do you think the presence of gays or lesbians would impact the overall morale of your current unit? (Vets: How do you think the presence of gays or lesbians would impact the overall morale of your last unit?)

54

Table 3. Assumed Impact of Gay/Lesbian Presence on Unit Morale Personal morale 9 29 38 49 1 2 2 11 Units morale 15 43 58 26 -2 2 14

Very negative impact Somewhat negative impact Negative No impact Somewhat positive impact Very positive impact Positive Not sure

Respondents who had previously stated that they were not certain about the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit were asked about the hypothetical impact if such a presence existed. The result was a higher negative impact rating than is seen among respondents who are certain of gays or lesbians in their units. More than one-third (38%) of these individuals believe there would be a negative impact on personal morale, and more than half (58%) believe such presence would have a negative impact on the units morale. The percentage of those voicing the opinion that the presence of gays or lesbians would have no impact fell significantly from the percentages of those who are certain of gays or lesbians in their units, as did the percentage of those perceiving a positive impact. Across the gender divide, men again saw the presence of gays and lesbians as having a more negative impact, with more than two-in-five (42%) holding this opinion regarding personal morale, and more than threein-five (62%) regarding the units morale. Only one-in-five women (22%) believed gays and lesbians in their unit would have a negative impact on their own morale, while twice that number (45%) believe in a negative impact for the unit. Older respondents were also more likely to perceive a negative impact the highest such rating coming from those between the ages of 35 to 54, as 55

46 percent believe in a negative impact on personal morale and two thirds (68%) in a negative impact on the unit. For impact on personal morale among military subgroups, the lowest negative ratings emerged among those having served less than four years (27%) and between 10 and 14 years (29%), and those in the Navy (29%). In contrast the highest negative ratings emerged from those having served between 15-19 years (43%) or more than 20 years (49%), Officers (42%), and those in the Marine Corps (43%). All subgroup positive ratings were well within the sampling error. The negative impact of gays and lesbians regarding unit morale also presented several significant subgroup variations. Among the service branches, personnel in the Navy (51%) and Air Force (54%) have the lowest negative opinion, while the Army (61%) and the Marine Corps (69%) have the highest. The data also shows that the longer one serves in the military, the more likely they are to believe in a negative impact. Such ratings were lowest among those serving less than 4 years (50%) and highest among those serving either between 15 and 19 years (63%) or more than 20 (68%). Two-thirds of officers (66%) also held a negative opinion, compared to 53 percent of enlisted men. Still, net negative impact ratings were above 50 percent for every subgroup. 24. Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians? Very Comfortable 29% Comfortable 73% Somewhat Comfortable 44 Somewhat Uncomfortable 15 Uncomfortable 19 Very Uncomfortable 5 Not Sure 8 When asked whether they were comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians, three-quarters (73%) of those surveyed said they were either somewhat comfortable (44%) or very comfortable (29%). Less than one-infive (19%) stated that were uncomfortable, and of that group, only 4 percent identified themselves as being very uncomfortable.

56

Comfort rates were consistent across both Democrats (73%) and Republicans (72%), but spiked among Independents (81%). Among Independents, very comfortable rates were the highest of any subgroup, with more than one third (37%) stating their high degree of comfort with gays and lesbians. The highest discomfort rate was found amongst Republicans nearly a quarter of whom (24%) held this opinion. Females were also more likely to express comfort among gays and lesbians, as nearly nine-in-ten (88%) held this opinion, as compared to seven-in-ten males (71%). Males were three times more likely to be uncomfortable (22%) than were women (6%). Among other subgroups, African-Americans (71%), Catholics (78%) and those between the ages of 25-34 (75%) displayed the highest rates of comfort. Baptists (26%) and those between the ages of 18 and 24 (24%) presented the highest discomfort rates. Within military subgroups, Veterans (81%) were more likely than Active Duty Personnel (70%) to be comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Also, more than four-in-five (85%) of those who have served between 10 and 14 years expressed being comfortable, while two-thirds (66%) of those having served more than 20 years feel the same. Additionally, roughly four-in-five members of the Navy (79%) and Marine Corps (82%) stated that they felt comfortable around gays and lesbians the highest rates among the service branches. This compared with less than three quarters of Air Force members (73%) and Army members (69%). Air Force personnel displayed the highest discomfort rate (23%) of any service branch. 25. In your current unit, how often do you take showers privately, such as in a single-stall shower rather than an open group shower? (Vets: During the last year of your military service, how often did you take showers privately, such as in a single-stall shower rather than an open group shower)

57

Almost Always Privately Usually Privately About Half and Half Usually Group Showers Always or Almost Always Group Showers Not sure

49% 22 17 5 3 4

Just less than half of all respondents (49%) stated that they almost always shower privately. An additional fifth (23%) note that they usually shower privately, which aggregates to nearly three quarters (71%) of service personal surveyed who at the minimum usually shower privately. A further 17 percent shower privately approximately half the time, leaving only 8 percent who usually or almost always shower in groups. Women were more likely than men to shower privately, with threefifths (61%) responding that they almost always shower privately and at least three quarters (78%) who usually do so. Less than half of all men (47%) said they always shower privately, and more than two-thirds (70%) at least usually do so. Among the service branches, those in the Navy (88%) and Air Force (79%) were most likely to at least usually shower privately. Within the Navy, almost two-thirds (64%) noted that they almost always shower privately the highest such rate. Roughly three-in-five Army personnel (60%) and Marine Corps members (63%) report at least usually showering privately. Only 37 percent of Army personnel said that they always shower privately the lowest such rate. 26. Which of the following were important in your decision to join the military? (Choose all that apply.)

58

Duty/service to the country 78% Benefits (such as retirement, health care) 62 Funds for college or vocational school 54 Job skills/experience for a civilian job 51 Military values/ethics 50 Interesting/meaningful work 44 Challenges of military life (such as mental, physical) 39 Salary/cash bonuses 35 Family tradition of military service 28 Knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly 2 Other/None of the above 6 Not sure 1 sked to choose which reasons were most important in their decision to join the military, an overwhelming majority of respondents (78%) stated that their decision was a product of a sense of duty and a desire to serve their country. Approximately three-in-five said that their reason for joining was either for non-wage benefits (62%) or for funds for college tuition (54%). Half noted their reasons as being either for military values (50%), Job skills and experience (51%) or for interesting and meaningful work (44%). Only 2 percent noted that the inability of gays to serve in the military was a reason behind their decision to serve. 27. Would you have still joined the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly? Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably Not Definitely Not Not Sure 42% 35 7 3 13 No 10 Yes 78%

59

Four-out-of-five respondents (78%) report that they would have joined the military, regardless of whether gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve. One-in-ten (10%) would not have joined if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly. Thirteen percent of respondents remain uncertain about their decision to this hypothetical. Eighty-nine percent of female respondents report they would have joined the military regardless of the presence of gays and lesbians, as compared to 77 percent of their male counterparts who hold the same opinion. All other subgroups responses remained within the sampling error, including all military subgroups. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? 28. Compared with my peers, I consider myself more tolerant on the issue of homosexuals in the military. (Vets: Compared with the peers I served with, I considered myself more tolerant on the issue of homosexuals in the military.) Strongly Agree 16% 52% Agree 36 Agree Neutral 31 Disagree 8 Strongly Disagree 3 Disagree 11 Not sure 7 A majority of respondents (52%) believes they are more tolerant than their peers on the issue of homosexuals in the military. Only one-in-ten (11%) feels they are less tolerant, with 31% claiming neutrality on the issue. Several subgroups present significantly higher than average agreement rates, including Democrats (69%), Independents (62%), Females (68%), Hispanics (64%) and African-Americans (55%). Conversely, male respondents and Republicans were less likely to agree that they were more tolerant than their peers, with 50 percent and 46 percent, respectively, holding that opinion. Within military subgroups, Veterans (62%), those having served less than 4 years (62%), Marine Corps members (78%) and Navy personnel (61%) were more likely to agree that they were more tolerant than their 60

peers. The lowest rates of agreement were found among Active Duty Personnel (29%), those serving between 5 and 9 years (42%), Air Force Personnel (48%) and Army Personnel (48%). 29. What are the strongest arguments for keeping gays from openly serving in the military? (Please choose up to three of the most convincing options below) Table 4. Arguments for Keeping Gays/Lesbians from Serving % 40 28 26 25 22 7 6 5 3 <1 9 21 14

Open gays and lesbians would undermine unit cohesion Open gays and lesbians would get beat up or abused Straights would not respect gay or lesbian leaders Homosexuality violates religious / moral beliefs Straights should not have to share foxholes, showers, etc. with open gays and lesbians Open gays and lesbians would be more likely to pursue one another than they do now Gays and lesbians would increase the spread of HIV/AIDS Open gays and lesbians would be more likely to pursue straights More gays and lesbians would join or remain in the military Gays and lesbians cannot perform their military jobs as well as heterosexuals Other reason There are no strong arguments for keeping gays from serving openly Not sure

When asked to identify which are the strongest reasons for keeping gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, the top two responses were concern for unit cohesion (40%) and for the individuals themselves (28%). The next tier of responses, each being selected by approximately one fourth of respondents, pertained to concern over the violation of moral or religious beliefs (25%), lack of respect for gay or lesbian leaders (26%), and a concern over sharing personal space (22%). An almost equivalent number (21%) stated they believed there were no strong arguments for keeping gays and lesbians from serving openly. 61

30. What are the strongest arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Please choose up to three of the most convincing options below) Table 5. Arguments for Allowing Gays/Lesbians to Serve % Sexual orientation has nothing to do with job performance It is wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation During wartime, the armed forces need every qualified service member regardless of sexual orientation Discharging service members for being gay is a waste of recruiting, education and training dollars Gays already make valuable contributions to the military No one should be able to avoid a service obligation by claiming to be gay No one should be forced to lie about who they are as a condition of military service The government should not pry into peoples private lives Discharging service members for being gay undermines military readiness Other reason There are no strong arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly Not sure 36 30 25 22 17 11 11 11 7 2 19 13

Given potential arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, the two most frequently selected options were that sexual orientation has no impact on job performance (36%) and the ethical concern for discriminating based on sexual orientation (30%). The next three most selected options involved the implications for service, especially during wartime. Respondents noted that in a state of war, the military needs access to every qualified individual (25%), discharging based on sexual orientation is a waste of resources (22%) and that individuals gays already make valuable contributions to the military (17%). Nearly one-in-five (19%) of respondents stated that they believe there are no

62

strong arguments for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. 31. Have you had training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment in the past three years? (Vets: During the last three years of your military service, did you have any training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment?) Yes 52% No 37 Not sure 11 A majority of those surveyed (52%) report having received anti-gay harassment training within the past three years. Approximately one-third (37%) say they have not received such training, while one-in-ten (11%) is not sure. Within military subgroups, Active Personnel were more likely than Veterans to have received such training 56 percent compared to 44 percent. Also, 64 percent of those having served 15 to 19 years report having received training, while less than half of those having served less than 4 years (47%) or between 5 and 9 years (48%) report the same. Among the service branches, the Air Force had the highest percentage of respondents having received training (62%), while those in the Army (51%), Navy (44%) and Marine Corps (34%) reported far lower levels of anti-gay harassment training.

63

Appendix E

Vet Voice Foundation National Survey of 510 Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans February 8-23, 2010

This document is available only in PDF Form. The URL to access the PDF is: http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/new?id=0002

64

Appendix F

Peer Knowledge of the Presence Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Troops and Its Relevance to the Issue of Dont Ask, Dont Tell
by Rear Admiral Alan Steinman, USPHS/USCG (Retired) June 2010 Dont Ask, Dont Tell (DADT) was founded on the assumption that any known gay in a unit would degrade unit morale and unit cohesion and thus negatively affect operational readiness. No academic or military studies justified that assumption. On the contrary, the only study performed at the time DADT was enacted (the RAND Study, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment) concluded the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance. Several recent statistically valid polls of active duty, reserve and guard troops demonstrate a widespread knowledge of the presence of gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) peers in their own units (see Appendix D, Zogby International Poll and Vet Voice Foundation Poll). Since current operational readiness is evidently unimpaired while fighting two wars, despite the widely known presence of GLB troops serving alongside their straight counterparts, the conclusion of the original RAND Study would appear to be correct. Reports from the Town Hall meetings currently being conducted by the CRWG appear to verify that conclusion. When audience members are asked if they know or think they are serving with gay peers, the vast majority of the attendees raise their hands in agreement. When they are then asked if the known presence of these gay troops is negatively impacting operational readiness, only a small number of hands are raised.

65

Appendix G

A New Look at the Zogby International Poll on Gays in the Military

RADM Alan M. Steinman, USPHS / USCG (Ret) Summary: When troops know a gay peer in their own unit, their attitudes towards gays serving openly in the military dramatically change. This is true even for combat troops. In December, 2006 Zogby International published the results of a poll of Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans concerning gays in the military. The poll is significant because it was the first time a scientifically valid opinion survey of current military combat troops was conducted on this issue A brief summary of the demographics of the poll respondents is as follows: 545 U.S. Military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations). 65% active duty; 16% veterans; 6% mobilized Reserve/Guard; 13% non-mobilized Reserve/Guard 46% Army; 29% Air Force; 17% Navy; 7% Marines; 1% Coast Guard 66% enlisted; 31% O1-O8; 3% warrant officers 29% combat; 32% combat support; 18% combat service support; 21% other or unsure The poll asked a large number of questions on a variety of issues. But most directly, the issue of known gays serving alongside their straight counterparts was addressed in the following three questions: 66

Do you know for certain that someone is gay or lesbian in your unit? Yes 23% No 61% Not Sure 17%

Was the presence of gays or lesbians in the unit well-known by others (answered by those indicating yes to the above question)? Yes 55% No 25% Not Sure 21%

In your unit are there people you suspect are gay or lesbian, but dont know for sure? Yes 45% No 31% Not Sure 25%

From the above responses, it is clear that a large majority of these servicemen and women (68%) either knew for certain or suspected there were gays or lesbians in their own unit. And this fact was widely known by other members of the unit. These results contradict the foundation for the DADT law. The known and suspected gays werent just somewhere in the military; they were right there in the same unit with their straight peers. Since operational readiness is not evidently impaired at present, the known presence of gays and lesbians is obviously not causing a significant problem. Another issue often cited by those opposing gays serving openly in the military is the assumed discomfort of straight service men and women if gays were known to be present in the close quarters of most military operations. Colloquially this is often referred to as the shower issue, but it applies not only to showers but to barracks, tents, hooches, foxholes, ship

67

berthing, submarines basically any place where privacy is compromised. The poll asked the following question: Personally, how comfortable are you in the presence of gays and lesbians? Comfortable 73% Uncomfortable 19% Not Sure 8%

These results demonstrate the current generation of military men and women seem not to have a problem working with gays and lesbians. When asked their opinion about the possibility of GLB troops serving openly in the military, the data show the following: Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? Agree 26% Neutral or Not Sure 37% Disagree 37%

So even though the majority of troops either knew or suspected there were gay members of their own unit, and nearly three-quarters of them were personally comfortable working with gays and lesbians, the troops were split on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve honestly. Therein lies an interesting finding in the poll data. It is not enough simply to look at the overall responses to the above question, since the troops might have differing opinions based on whether they actually know someone who was gay. Knowing a gay person in their own unit and seeing firsthand that he/she is a valued member of the command might affect how poll respondents view the issue of gays serving openly in the military. A further analysis of the data allows one to evaluate just that possibility. When the data are analyzed on the basis of knowing for certain there was a gay person in their own unit, a dramatic difference of opinion emerges:

68

Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Data from only those answering yes or no to knowing for certain there were gays or lesbians in their own unit) Agree Know gays in unit Dont know gays 45% 24% Neutral or Not Sure 24% 30% Disagree 31% 46%

From the above responses, its obvious that when the troops actually know a gay person, their opinions change significantly in favor of allowing gays to serve openly. In essence, the bogeyman of an openly gay man or woman serving in the military disappears when theres a real, live person involved (and not some assumed stereotype). Another argument used by opponents of gays serving honestly in the military is that while gays might be able to serve openly in support duties (medical, legal, linguists, cooks, clerks, etc.), combat troops at the tip of the spear would never be accepting of known gay soldiers, marines, etc. Again, the poll data allows for an analysis of just this issue. Of combat troops among the respondents to the poll, 18% said they knew for certain there were gays in their own unit; 66% said there were no gays in their own unit, and 16% were unsure. And the following data shows the results of combat troops opinions on gays serving openly based on whether they knew gays in their unit: Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? (Combat troops only) Agree Know gays in unit Dont know gays 36% 16% Neutral or Not Sure 40% 26% Disagree 24% 58%

While the reliability of these results must be looked at with some caution, because of the relatively small numbers involved in the analysis, it again is evident that when someone personally knows a gay person in his/her own

69

unit, opinions about allowing gays to serve openly change markedly in favor of gays serving honestly. Finally, the issue of unit morale, the foundation rationale for the current DADT law), was addressed by the Zogby poll. And here there is a huge difference of opinion between those who personally know gays in their unit compared to those who dont. How does the presence of gays or lesbians in your unit impact your unit morale (or, how would the presence of gays in your unit affect unit morale) No Impact Know gays in unit Dont know gays 64% 26% Not Sure 6% 14% Negative Impact 27% 58%

Again, and significantly, knowing a gay person in a unit dramatically alters the opinions about whether gays serving openly would be a detriment to unit morale. When the troops know a gay person, they are more than twice as likely to say there is no impact on unit morale; whereas when they dont know a gay person, they are more than twice as likely to assume there would be a negative impact. Bottom line from the polling data: there are many gay men and women currently serving openly in both theaters of war; they are not causing a negative impact on morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness.

70