Don't ask, don't tell
...
In 1993, Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis and a national authority on heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, testified before the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Representative Ron Dellums. Dr. Herek testified on behalf of the American Psychological Association and five other national professional organizations. Those organizations were the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Nursing Association, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Dr. Herek stated: "My written testimony to the Committee summarizes the results of an extensive review of the relevant published research from the social and behavioral sciences. That review is lengthy.
However, I can summarize its conclusions in a few words:
The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters."[11]
In his testimony, Dr. Herek reviewed existing scientific research concerning issues of unit cohesion and effectiveness and the fitness of lesbians and gay men for military service. He concluded that heterosexual personnel can overcome their prejudices and adapt to living and working in close quarters with lesbians and gay men. Furthermore, he said, lesbians and gay men are not inherently less capable of military service than are heterosexual women and men. "The assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one," said Dr. Herek.[12]
Dr. Herek stated in 2008: "Today, as then (1993), the real question is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. The social science data answered this question in the affirmative then, and do so even more clearly now. Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of antigay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy."[13]
American Psychological Association states:
Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).
Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000"2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).
When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.
The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
