Menus Subscribe Search

Why Again Are We Asking About ‘Don’t Ask’?

• August 10, 2010 • 3:45 PM

The Pentagon was counseled to act quickly and decisively on allowing gays in the military. So why is it being slow and dilatory?

The Pentagon has invested considerable money and muscle surveying the troops this summer on their feelings about a potential — err, eventual — repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Last month, 400,000 representative service members were emailed a 103-question colossus.

They were asked — according to a copy of what the Pentagon hoped would be a confidential questionnaire — about everything from unit morale to open-bay showers.

Troops have until the end of this week to weigh in, although it’s unclear exactly what anyone will learn from the data. From the beginning, the entire exercise has been riddled with contradictions.

The Pentagon wants to know what the troops think, but the troops don’t really have a say in this decision. Gay and lesbian service members have been understandably skittish, given that outing themselves in the service of research could technically still cost them their jobs.

And then there is the really big hitch: There simply is no good way to survey service members about their gay colleagues without singling out those troops for precisely the type of treatment the Pentagon says it wants to avoid.

“On one hand, you can look at this as the beginning of a dialogue that could have some useful role,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “On the other hand, there are some issues that you simply don’t poll the troops about.”

Consider, for example, this question: “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be affected?” (Options are: very positively, positively, equally as positively as negatively, and negatively.)

[class name="dont_print_this"]

Idea Lobby

THE IDEA LOBBY
Miller-McCune's Washington correspondent Emily Badger follows the ideas informing, explaining and influencing government, from the local think tank circuit to academic research that shapes D.C. policy from afar.

[/class] “These are not questions that in the 21st century should be asked about any minority group,” Belkin said. “Imagine a survey that asked, ‘Would it have a big impact on you to share a tent with a Chinese soldier?’ The reason we don’t ask those kinds of questions is because asking a question like that constitutes the group you’re asking about as a second-class citizen. And part of what the Pentagon is trying to do now is to send a signal that everyone is going to be treated equally.”

A central element of the military ethos, Belkin adds, is that you don’t get to pick your tent-mate; you bunk with whom you’re ordered to.

The military, after all, is not a democracy. “It’s not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not,” Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of Naval Operations, has warned. “That gets you into a very difficult regime.”

(Even in a democracy, policymakers didn’t poll Southern businessmen about whether they’d mind sharing a lunch counter with blacks.)

The Pentagon says it needs this research to determine whether repeal would harm military readiness. Social scientists, however, point to existing research that already answers the question, including studies of other countries and past reports commissioned by the Pentagon.

“There are ways you can use social science to test whether repeal harms the military,” Belkin said. “But asking troops about their behavior is not one of them.”

He points to the common phenomenon — long identified by psychologists and illustrated in other countries that have integrated gay soldiers — that predictions about our behavior often don’t match our actual actions.

The military’s last definitive study on the topic, a 1993 RAND report, concluded that any policy change integrating gays should be implemented quickly. “Any sense of experimentation or uncertainty,” RAND concluded, “invites those opposed to change to continue to resist it.”

The Pentagon, in other words, is ignoring its own commissioned advice.

When this latest data comes back — the study group’s final report is due Dec. 1 — the picture may only get messier. The whole study is set against the backdrop of an equally contradictory political reality: Civilian leaders will be the ones to repeal DADT, but they must treat the military as if it has some ownership of the process.

As those civilian leaders look for political cover, who’s to say what the palatable survey results will be? Fewer than 15 percent of troops feel repeal would hurt morale? Seventy-five percent are on board if the military eliminates open-bay showers?

“I’m not interested in the outcome of this study,” Belkin said. “I’m interested in the president’s reaction to the study. It’s a leadership moment. It’s not a moment for more data.”

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Emily Badger
Emily Badger is a freelance writer living in the Washington, D.C. area who has contributed to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor. She previously covered college sports for the Orlando Sentinel and lived and reported in France.

More From Emily Badger

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 18 • 8:00 AM

Welcome to the Economy Economy

With the recent introduction of Apple Pay, the Silicon Valley giant is promising to remake how we interact with money. Could iCoin be next?



September 18 • 6:09 AM

How to Build a Better Election

Elimination-style voting is harder to fiddle with than majority rule.


September 18 • 6:00 AM

Homeless on Purpose

The latest entry in a series of interviews about subculture in America.


September 18 • 4:00 AM

Why Original Artworks Move Us More Than Reproductions

Researchers present evidence that hand-created artworks convey an almost magical sense of the artist’s essence.


September 17 • 4:00 PM

Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away From an Assault Weapons Ban

A decade after the ban expired, gun control groups say that focusing on other policies will save more American lives.


September 17 • 2:00 PM

Can You Make Two People Like Each Other Just By Telling Them That They Should?

OKCupid manipulates user data in an attempt to find out.


September 17 • 12:00 PM

Understanding ISIL Messaging Through Behavioral Science

By generating propaganda that taps into individuals’ emotional and cognitive states, ISIL is better able motivate people to join their jihad.


September 17 • 10:00 AM

Pulling Punches: Why Sports Leagues Treat Most Offenders With Leniency

There’s a psychological explanation for the weak punishment given to Ray Rice before a video surfaced that made a re-evaluation unavoidable.


September 17 • 9:44 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: Portlandia Is Dying

Build an emerald city. Attract the best and brightest with glorious amenities. They will come and do nothing.



September 17 • 8:00 AM

Why Don’t We Have Pay Toilets in America?

Forty years ago, thanks to an organization founded by four high school friends, human rights beat out the free market—and now we can all pee for free.


September 17 • 6:32 AM

Do Conspiracy Theorists Feed on Unsuspecting Internet Trolls?

Not literally, but debunkers and satirists do fuel conspiracy theorists’ appetites.


September 17 • 6:00 AM

The Grateful Dig: An Archaeologist Excavates a Tie-Dyed Modern Stereotype

What California’s senior state archaeologist discovered in the ruins of a hippie commune.


September 17 • 4:00 AM

The Strong Symbolic Power of Emptying Pockets

Researchers find the symbolic act of emptying a receptacle can impact our behavior, and not for the better.


September 16 • 4:00 PM

Why Is LiveJournal Helping Russia Block a Prominent Critic of Vladimir Putin?

The U.S. blogging company is showing an error message to users inside Russia who try to read the blog of Alexei Navalny, a prominent politician and critic of the Russian government.


September 16 • 2:00 PM

Man Up, Ladies! … But Not Too Much

Too often, women are asked to display masculine traits in order to be successful in the workplace.



September 16 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, Brilliant 12-Year-Old?

Charles Wang is going to rule the world.


September 16 • 10:09 AM

No Innovation Without Migration: The Harlem Renaissance

The Harlem Renaissance wasn’t a place, but an era of migration. It would have happened even without New York City.


September 16 • 10:00 AM

A Law Professor Walks Into a Creative Writing Workshop

One academic makes the case for learning how to write.



September 16 • 7:23 AM

Does Not Checking Your Buddy’s Facebook Updates Make You a Bad Friend?

An etiquette expert, a social scientist, and an old pal of mine ponder the ever-shifting rules of friendship.



September 16 • 6:12 AM

3-D Movies Aren’t That Special

Psychologists find that 3-D doesn’t have any extra emotional impact.


Follow us


How to Build a Better Election

Elimination-style voting is harder to fiddle with than majority rule.

Do Conspiracy Theorists Feed on Unsuspecting Internet Trolls?

Not literally, but debunkers and satirists do fuel conspiracy theorists' appetites.

3-D Movies Aren’t That Special

Psychologists find that 3-D doesn't have any extra emotional impact.

To Protect Against Meltdowns, Banks Must Map Financial Interconnections

A new model suggests looking beyond balance sheets, studying the network of investment as well.

Big Government, Happy Citizens?

You may like to talk about how much happier you'd be if the government didn't interfere with your life, but that's not what the research shows.

The Big One

One in three drivers in Brooklyn's Park Slope—at certain times of day—is just looking for parking. The same goes for drivers in Manhattan's SoHo. September/October 2014 new-big-one-3

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.