Arguing against Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Toulmin analysis of military policy

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Military Policy

Persuasive Research Essay ROUGH DRAFT AS REQUESTED BY CUSTOMER

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Military Policy

Persuasive Research Essay

The objective of this work is to review the Repeal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and to incorporate both classical principles of argumentation and elements of the Toulmin model of argument analysis. According to a report published in the 'Army Times' the Pentagon has suspended the military's DADT policy. Specifically stated is "The moratorium issued Friday came after a ruling Wednesday by a federal appeals court in California ordering the Defense Department to immediately stop enforcing the law. The court said the law is unconstitutional because it treats gay Americans differently under the law." (Tighman, 2011)

Toulmin states that the first problem in an argument is to make a decision of what things "about the form and merits of our arguments are 'field-invariant' and what things about them are 'field dependent'?" (p.14-15) Toulmin additionally asks the question of "What things about the modes in which we assess arguments, the standard by reference to which we assess them and the manner in which we qualify our conclusions about them, are the same regardless of field and which of them vary as we move from arguments in one field to arguments in another field?" (p.15) According to Toulmin "in some fields of dispute, no doubt, this happens rarely, and it is notoriously difficult to establish the pre-eminent claims of one particular candidate above all others: in these fields, more often than in most, the answers to questions remain matters of opinion or taste." (Toulmin, 2003, p.19)

III. Military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy Examined

The military policy known as 'Don't-Ask -- Don't Tell' can be examined from the view of the Toulmin model as well as from the view of the classical principles of argumentation. It is necessary to ask, as noted in the work of Toulmin on his model whether the item under discussion or the focus or the argument is 'field dependent' or 'field invariant' or in other words, if the focus of the argument is information that is necessarily relevant or if that information is actually irrelevant to the subject of debate.

In light of the fact that the military employs both male and female service members then the argument is one that interjects personal information of a service member's sexual choice as an additional or third field variant. In other words, prior to the military's DADT policy, and the addressing of the service member's sexual choice, this personal information was neither sought nor desired by the military because the military is sex and gender neutral. The court's ruling that DADT is discriminatory could have been expected as gender neutrality has been in effect in the military for decades therefore making gender-related questioning and regulating of military service members naturally inequitable and discriminatory treatment.

Logic dictates that if the gender of the individual service member is not to be considered in the individual's fitness for military service then certainly the choice of a sexual or intimate partner and that partner's gender can have no influence on the ability of the service member to perform their service-oriented duties. While the partner's gender might essentially create new problems for wives of service members and may change the face of the military base housing environment, in no way does the service member's partner's gender effect the ability of the military service member in performing their duties related to active service. As well, it can be reasoned that there is great diversity in race, ethnicity, level of education, socioeconomic background, and other diversifying features that exist among military wives living on base that the issue of partner gender should be treated in the same manner as other diversities. Specifically the issue of gender should simply be treated as an individual defining characteristic that should not be the source of any type of discriminatory treatment. In other words, the military service member partner's gender should not be a consideration that reflects on the performance of the service member's active duties and should not be distinguished as this necessarily results in recrimination and discrimination against that service member and their significant other.

While this may create some discomfort for those residing on a military base, just as the integration of the various races and ethnicities must have caused in decades past, the inequity of such treatment should be avoided through classifying those with alternate choices in intimate partner gender as such because this creates and environment of discrimination and inequality While society has long since overcome this hurdle and it sounds inane to consider, the demand that those with same sex partners follow DADT is just as discriminatory as the just stated example. Therefore, the gender of the military service member's partner is field invariant -- or so to say -- irrelevant to the service member's ability to perform their active service duties effectively.

From the view of the classical principles of argumentation, the argument once constructed with the requirement that military service members who are homosexual should not ask and not tell their sexual orientation, reaches the second step of the argumentation principles. The second step is one that involves defining the strengths of the arguments that support the focus of the argument against DADT or for DADT and it is at this juncture that a barrier is met because the strengths of the argument that supports DADT are non-existent when considered in the light of democracy and principles of equality. The conflict between the arguments supporting DADT and those against DADT are evident and are in actuality a conflict between the principles of democracy and equality and the principles of non-discrimination on the basis of gender and specifically in this instance the gender of the domestic partner as related to the gender of the service-member. This results in a discrimination that is both against the service member's gender and the domestic partner's gender and on the basis of the gender of the service member.

The elements of discrimination on the basis of gender are very strong in DADT. When evaluating the acceptability of the arguments that support DADT, from the view of democratic principles applied to classical principles of argumentation it quickly becomes clear that arguments based on the right to discriminate upon the basis of gender are not acceptable arguments and should not be held as valid arguments. Once having made this determination, it is inherent that the conclusion of such processes of argumentation that the argument is invalid and from the view of the Toulmin model, the argument which supports DADT is one that is erroneous as the service member's domestic partner's gender is in fact field invariant. In other words, the gender of the service member's domestic partner or the sexual persuasion of the service member is not and cannot under the principles of democracy and equality, be considered as a factor in the ability or the capacity of the service member to carry out their respective active service duties. Just as the race of the military service member's domestic partner is irrelevant to the ability of the service member to perform their duties, so is the domestic partner's gender irrelevant to the ability of the service member to perform their duties and obligations relating to military service. Another aspect that must be considered and as stated in the work of Toulmin is that dangers exist in such "single-mindedness" and due to generalization those participating in such an argument "blind themselves to the special problems involved in other sorts -- to all the difficulties of aesthetic judgment and to many of the issues facing one in the course of one's moral life." (Toulmin, 2003, p.20) This is because "there are many sorts of assessment an grading besides the appraisal of legislative programs and social reforms and standards which may be wholly appropriate when judging the worthiness of a Bill before Parliament" all of which may serve to mislead. This misleading is perpetrated through the requirements of DADT because the military base then, without knowing, is unable to make accommodations for military service members with same-sex partners. This situation is one in which Toulmin notes as being one in which there is no justification for "presenting any one suggestion as being uniquely acceptable" and one in which "some of the survivors (or choices of action) may in the light of our data, be more deserving than others." (2003, p.32)

IV. Summary

The issue of DADT has been held by the court as being discriminatory in nature and one that is inherently against the very principles of democracy and equality when viewed in the light of discrimination. This type of policy is directly in opposition to policies that prohibit discrimination based on gender, sex, race, and ethnicity which are constitutionally guarded factors in the areas of prohibition of discrimination against the individual when applying the classical principles of argumentation to this discussion. However, when applying the elements of the Toulmin model to this discussion, the answer is not so clear.

Fortunately, this is acceptable in light of the elements of the Toulmin model which is a model that does not place a requirement on a final conclusion but is a model that allows for many possible correct choices and even allows for the lack of a conclusion in that it is often that there is no one good and correct conclusion to be drawn in the process of the debate of issues under consideration. It is likely that the Toulmin model is more applicable to the issue of DADT than are the classical principles of argumentation and this is because this issue is one that is as of yet, unaddressed in contemporary society and specifically in the military due to avoidance of these issues perpetrated by the policy framework of DADT.

V. Conclusion

This work in writing has examined the military's DADT policy from the view of the Toulmin model and the classical principles of argumentation and has found that both from the view of each that the policy of discrimination of service members upon the basis of their sexual orientation or upon the basis of the gender of the service member's domestic partner, is nothing other than blatant discrimination on the basis of not only the service-member's gender but as well that of the service member's choice of domestic partner or the sexual orientation of the service member based on the service member and the sexual partner's gender. No matter how this issue is viewed, the effect of DADT is the infliction of gender discrimination in the life of the service member, which is strictly prohibited by Constitutional principles, common-law and legislated law in the United States. The Toulmin model provided a means for DADT to exist because the Toulmin model is such that does not make a requirement of a definitive and written in stone conclusion. However, this model is not such that enables the military to address the issue at hand and certainly does not prepare the way for the military to mitigate any problems that may arise due to the existence of military service members with same-sex partner preference.