Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


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Consider, for example, this question: “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of morale be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

December 22 • 6:00 AM

Politicians Gonna Politic

Is there something to the idea that a politician who no longer faces re-election is free to pursue new policy solutions without needing to kowtow to special interests?


December 22 • 4:00 AM

Keep That E-Reader Out of Bed and You’ll Feel Better in the Morning

New research finds e-readers, like other light-emitting electronic devices, can disrupt normal sleep patterns.


December 20 • 10:28 AM

Flare-Ups

Are my emotions making me ill?


December 19 • 4:00 PM

How a Drug Policy Reform Organization Thinks of the Children

This valuable, newly updated resource for parents is based in the real world.


December 19 • 2:00 PM

Where Did the Ouija Board Come From?

It wasn’t just a toy.


December 19 • 12:00 PM

Social Scientists Can Do More to Eradicate Racial Oppression

Using our knowledge of social systems, all social scientists—black or white, race scholar or not—have an opportunity to challenge white privilege.


December 19 • 10:17 AM

How Scientists Contribute to Bad Science Reporting

By not taking university press officers and research press releases seriously, scientists are often complicit in the media falsehoods they so often deride.


December 19 • 10:00 AM

Pentecostalism in West Africa: A Boon or Barrier to Disease?

How has Ghana stayed Ebola-free despite being at high risk for infection? A look at their American-style Pentecostalism, a religion that threatens to do more harm than good.


December 19 • 8:00 AM

Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.


December 19 • 6:12 AM

All That ‘Call of Duty’ With Your Friends Has Not Made You a More Violent Person

But all that solo Call of Duty has.


December 19 • 4:00 AM

Food for Thought: WIC Works

New research finds participation in the federal WIC program, which subsidizes healthy foods for young children, is linked with stronger cognitive development and higher test scores.


December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.


December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.


December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.


December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.


December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.


December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.


December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.


December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.


December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. Substance.com asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.


December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.


December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.


December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.


December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?


December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.


Follow us


Don’t Text and Drive—Especially If You’re Old

A new study shows that texting while driving becomes even more dangerous with age.

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

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