With the Democrats in control of Congress, and with the prediction markets suggesting a Democratic presidential victory, there has been a lot of talk about ending sexual orientation discrimination in the military by repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (“DADT”) policy.
There are always two ways of ending de jure discrimination: you can level up, or level down. In the late 1950s, the estimable city of Greensboro, N.C., operated a whites-only swimming pool. When a group of African Americans petitioned the city council to end the segregation, the council relented — by closing the pool to both whites and blacks.
As such, there are also two ways to end the military’s de jure discrimination based on sexual orientation. We can either repeal DADT, or we could extend its application to heterosexuals as well. If extended, no soldier could talk about his or her orientation without risk of exclusion.
My own church, St. Thomas Episcopal in New Haven, tried a version of this strategy. In 2004, the church vestry adopted a resolution “calling for St. Thomas’s clergy to treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally in administering the sacrament of marriage,” as the church Web site describes it. The Bishop was not amused, and within 3 days he called an emergency meeting warning our rector, Father Michael Ray, that he risked being defrocked if he performed marriage ceremonies for any same-sex couples inside the church. Ray responded by honoring both the request of the vestry and the demands of the Bishop by announcing a moratorium on the celebration of all marriages. The Times ran a great piece describing the event.
Extending DADT could similarly allow the military to serve seemingly conflicting goals. It would satisfy those people who cling to the antiquated idea that DADT is necessary to preserve “unit cohesion.” Homophobes wouldn’t be put off by having to serve with openly gay comrades. But as a matter of formal law, it would treat everyone the same with regard to their sexual orientation.
Let me be clear: I favor the immediate repeal of DADT. I don’t buy the unit cohesion argument. You can read more about my views on DADT (to borrow from “Naked Self Promotion”) in Chapter 6 of this book. But the real value in the idea of extending DADT to heterosexuals is as a thought experiment. It makes clear the costs of closeting. It’s hard to imagine what married soldiers would have to do to comply. Extending DADT would be a recruiting disaster, and could be far more destructive of unit cohesion. Suddenly, heterosexuals would have to bear the same kinds of costs that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender soldiers have been bearing for years (just as heterosexual couples at our church have had to bear the same costs that LGBT couples have borne — not being able to religiously marry).
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I’m with the majority of commentators thus far. This belongs in a different section of the NYT.
“or any other kind of sexual pervert”
I’m the most disgusting kind of sexual pervert – I’ve been in a monagamous relationship for ten years, and yet we still have sex even though we don’t want children!
DADT is a flawed policy, because it allows people to continue to hold bigoted opinions and act like they’re normal human beings.
I agree, ian twolan- perverts like those who have “intimate relations” with people they aren’t married to, or those that “take matters into their own hands” should also be dishonorably discharged before sundown.
That will make for a much stronger military. I feel safer already.
Re: All the implicitly (or potentially) pro-DADT arguments hinging on efficiency…
…you all assume too much.
I wish I could remember his name, but the gay military retiree who presented this issue at the Republican Debates put it well:
What makes you all think that the Armed Forces personnel are not professional enough to prevent their irrelevant and abstract personal beliefs from interfering from their ability to serve their unit?
And if they ARE so unprofessional – then DADT isn’t actually improving efficiency; it’s covering up the problem (shoddily) under a moldy band-aid.
The whole argument is a little fallacious anyway, honestly: The majority of people who talk about DADT as a lynchpin for efficiency wouldn’t hesitate to agree that the military should not be in the business of violating Geneva conventions and rules of engagement, or torturing, etc. So obviously it’s not as simple as “efficiency over fairness, always.”
And economics or not, this post is far more thoughtful than the bulk of this blog’s content. At the very least, by virtue of it not discussing economics, it avoids the ranks of poor reasoning and correlative fallacies that plague the more “on-topic” posts here.
“Just because you don’t believe unit cohesion would have any problems doesn’t make it so. I tend to think the same thing, however I also think it should be left up to the military itself to decide what is best for its own effectiveness. I also believe that the effectiveness of the military is much more important than having “fair” admission policies.”
One could very easily say the same thing about racial integration of military units. In WWII, it was anathema, but today the military is a shining beacon of racial equality. Why cannot the same work with regards to sexual orientation?
DADT is a failed policy, and my preference would be that it be reversed.
What I think is interesting is Mr. Ayers’ first paragraph regarding the policy’s reversal if both the legislative and executive branches are in the hands of Democrats.
Please correct me if my memory is faulty, but I believe that the legislative branch had nothing to do with the policy’s implementation — it was an executive order by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat I believe.
In any case, at a minimum the House was controlled by Democrats when the policy was implemented. So what makes anyone believe that now would be any different.
A marines corps friend of mine made this point to me once, back when he was a company commander: “In combat, my life and lives of my marines depend on each member of the unit doing the best possible job. So I want the best possible person for the job, not the best straight male.” He also pointed out that this was a not a view he could make too open with senior officers.
As for the military deciding on what is most effective, I would say that the U.S. military is under civilian control for a reason. There were lots of potentially valid “unit cohesion” arguments made about integrating the armed forces in the late 40s and on well into the 50s and even the 60s when it was an accomplished fact. Does anyone think we could sustain our current military without african americans integrated into its structure as they are today?
Of 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit homosexuals to serve. Homosexuals are currently serving in our armed forces (I have first hand knowledge of this) and the armed forces of our allies. That will not change. The difference is that in our armed forces, they are not allowed to admit to it (limiting their freedom of speech). Yes, serving in the armed forces (as I have for more than 7 years) is different than working for Starbucks, but it does not discount the fact that the primary mission of our armed forces is to defend the US constitution which states all men are created equal and deserve to be treated equally.
At one point admitting women to the United States Air Force Acadmey was thought to disrupt unit cohesion and it did, but people get over it, they moved on, or they got out of the military. The same should hold true for homosexuals. How can we possibly expect our military to defend the rights of US citizens when they do not appropriately represent US demographics or even our own constituion by treating everyone equally?
DADT is antiquated and I can tell you our young LTs are ready for the challenge of repealing it. It is the Generals (clear throat: General Pace) that need to step aside and let a generation greater than their own take lead on this one.
I was under the impression that a major tenet of freakonomics was to let economics take you where it will without the limitations of others shouting “hey! you can’t do that with economics!”