Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Research Paper:
It delved into the historical record of integration of blacks into the military, public opinions and health risks and unit disruption. It also incorporated the findings of scientific literature on group cohesion, sexuality and relevant health and legal issues and their implementation. Only one policy would fulfill the President's directive. It would consider sexual orientation as not inherent in determining who may serve in the military. It would set a standard of professional conduct for all personnel in the pursuit of good order and discipline. And it would be enforced in every level of the chain of command so as to maintain effective unit performance (Rostker et al.).
Policy for Ending Discrimination
This policy binds all service members to the same standard of professional behavior (Rostker et al., 2000). It draws upon actual conduct, not behavior from presumed sexual orientation. It elicits tolerance and restraint for the good of the group without endorsing homosexual preference or lifestyle. The Standard of Professional Conduct has four features. The first requires all members of the military services to conduct themselves in ways, which accrue to good order and discipline. These include respect and tolerance towards others. While heterosexuals are asked to tolerate homosexual behavior, the military environment is not the appropriate setting for it. The second feature is that inappropriate conduct could undermine order and discipline, and hence service members should avoid such conduct. The third is a list of inappropriate conduct. This list includes personal harassment, abuse of authority, show of affection and explicit talks about sexual practices or experience. And the four is the observance of these standards by leaders of every level with the end-view of maintaining maximum performance (Rostker et al.).
Lifting the ban on homosexuals would require the modification of the enclosed Directive 1332.14 on administrative separations (Rostker et al., 2000). If sexual orientation were not a determinant on who may serve, neither would decisions on assignment, pay, military specialty or benefits be a determinant. And in issues, such as homosexual marriages or granting benefits to homosexual partners, there would be no need for the Department of Defense to change the current policy or be the lead federal agency to address the issues. How policy change is implemented instead determines how it will be accepted with minimal disruptions (Rostker et al.).
The RAND research team identified five key elements to an effective implementation strategy (Rostker et al., 2000). The first is the clear and consistent communication of the change in policy from the top. Senior military leaders frequently oppose change. Others will need to make their acceptance and commitment to it known to insure successful implementation. The troops must understand that behavioral dissent is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The second is the immediate implementation of the change. Experimenting or uncertainty will invite continued resistance from its opponent. The third is the emphasis on conduct rather than tolerance or sensitivity. Behavior should be consistent with a change in policy and remain that way. The fourth is the leadership's constant messages of reassurance to the troops. This is needed in the presence of other stressful experiences. The troops must be made to feel that the change in policy does not challenge traditional values and create unnecessary disruption. And the fifth is empowerment of leaders at all levels to implement the new policy. Training may be called for to clear understanding and rapid implementation a monitoring process should also be put into place to detect problems early in the process and resolve immediately. The RAND team believed that this implementation strategy promised high probability of ending discrimination involving sexual orientation. It is practicable and realistic and insures that unit cohesion and performance can be preserved at the same time (Rostker et al.).
Summary and Conclusion
Homosexuality bias, especially in the military, has long existed. The U.S. Articles of War of 1916 expressly prohibited it until the initial but failed attempt by then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton to lift the ban. A compromise was reached with the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which allowed homosexuals to get enlisted as long as they kept quiet about their gender preference. Times have changed and now 75% of Americans favor the enlisting of gays in the military. In his first State of the Union address, President Obama vowed to work on the lifting of the ban. He set Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to the task of repealing the "Don't Ask" policy. Former President Clinton and his Defense Secretary Aspin in 1993 commissioned the RAND National Defense Research Institute to prepare a comprehensive study on the issue. The Institute came up with a policy that would end homosexual discrimination in the military in a practicable, realistic way and insure troop cohesion with minimal disruptions. Society now accepts gays in all its ranks as equals. A workable policy can replace the current one to respond to the new public sentiment. A nation built on the principle of equality needs to recognize the fact and adapt to it by introducing appropriate changes for a stronger, more cohesive military.#
Burrelli, D.F. And Feder, J. (2009). Homosexuals and the U.S. military: current issues.
CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service: Federation of American
Scientists. Retrieved on March 5, 2010 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL30113.pdf
Roberts, R and Roberts C. (2010). Society ready to accept gays in the military. Topeka Capital-Journal: ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Retrieved on March 5, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20100222/ai_n50180056
Rostker B.D. et al. (2000). "Changing the Policy towards Homosexuals in the U.S.
Military." Sexual orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy. Rand National
Defense Research Institute: RAND Corporation. Retrieved on March 5, 2010
Thompson, M. (2010). Congress resumes battle over gays in the military. Time: Time,
Inc. Retrieved on March 5, 2020 from http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,85951958253,00.htm
Webley, K. (2010). A brief…[continue]
"Gays In The Military Coming" (2010, March 07) Retrieved December 5, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/gays-in-the-military-coming-369
"Gays In The Military Coming" 07 March 2010. Web.5 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/gays-in-the-military-coming-369>
"Gays In The Military Coming", 07 March 2010, Accessed.5 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/gays-in-the-military-coming-369
This option would, however, allow the opportunity to eliminate the issues that stem from the existing policy and incorporate all of our objectives into our new policy. The third alternative would also require approval from Congress, but would represent a less radical change. Such changes to the law could include bulking up the protections for homosexuals against harassment (in light of the lack of enforcement on the Don't Harass side
However the survey is also likely to expose disputes that the services could face in getting rid of the policy, including defeating severe resistance in some divisions of the military even if they symbolize a minority (Gays in the Military Study: Most U.S. Troops, Families Say Gays OK, 2010). Earlier this year, the Pentagon was required to get rid of its prohibition on openly serving gays for eight days after
The subjects were 613 injured Army personnel Military Deployment Services TF Report 13 admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from March 2003 to September 2004 who were capable of completing the screening battery. Soldiers were assessed at approximately one month after injury and were reassessed at four and seven months either by telephone interview or upon return to the hospital for outpatient treatment. Two hundred and forty-three soldiers
The definition for "subversives" is a bit vague, but Fagen explains that in Argentina and elsewhere in Latin American dictatorships the victims of violent repression tended to be union leaders, liberal political leaders, artistic people in cultural circles, student protest leaders and media personalities (p. 41). The whole point of these horrendous repressive policies was to inspire fear, confusion and "distrust" among the general population. For those who believe the
Seo, who teaches at Yonsei University of Korea, created a homosexual student organization in 1995 called "Come Together." He states that "it would not be an overstatement to say that this was the first social movement through which homosesxuals could effect changes in their lives. The movement went beyond the ghettoized and marginalized locales, such as bars, theaters and saunas, where homosexual cultural and sexual activities were performed." After the
Adverse Responses to Homosexuality While adverse responses to behavior viewed as deviant is a common and sometimes essential element of social order, too frequently this tendency goes overboard, such that these adverse responses actually end up disturbing social harmony far more than the perceived deviance. This is nowhere more true than in the case of homosexuality, because not only do homosexuals continue to face adverse responses to their sexual orientation, recent
Sexual Harassment in the Military Sexual harassment is a significant issue in the military. Sexual harassment is also a complicated issue in the military. In most workplaces, the major concern in regards to sexual harassment relates to women being harassed by males or by a male-oriented environment. In the military, sexual harassment also extends to include the sexual harassment of homosexual males and the sexual harassment of homosexual females. A look