Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Policy Analysis and Alternatives
This paper examines the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy established in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, which permitted homosexuals to serve in the military only if they concealed their sexual orientation. The paper argues that DADT failed both gay service members and the broader military mission, and evaluates four policy alternatives: maintaining the status quo, outright repeal and replacement, targeted modifications to existing law, and further study before action. Drawing on poll data, discharge statistics, and comparative international examples, the paper recommends gathering additional information in preparation for a complete legislative overhaul, while acknowledging that the political feasibility of any change depends heavily on electoral outcomes.
- Introduction and Background: Origins and history of DADT policy
- Policy Goals: Objectives any revised policy must meet
- Policy Alternatives: Four options for reforming or replacing DADT
- Recommendations: Preferred course of action and rationale
- Conclusion: Legislative outlook and path forward
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete statistical evidence — discharge rates, poll percentages, and troop estimates — to support claims rather than relying on rhetoric alone.
- Presents a balanced multi-alternative framework, fairly describing each option's feasibility and drawbacks before making a recommendation.
- Grounds the policy argument in legal context (14th Amendment, Executive Order 13087, H.R. 3685), giving the analysis institutional credibility.
- Draws on historical analogy (racial segregation in the military) to contextualize and rebut the unit cohesion objection.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates structured policy memo analysis: it defines the problem, establishes evaluative criteria (policy goals), applies those criteria to discrete alternatives, and defends a recommendation. This format — common in public administration and political science — requires the writer to show why rejected alternatives fall short, not merely why the preferred option is good.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a problem statement and historical background on DADT's origins, then shifts to a goals section that establishes evaluative criteria. Four alternatives are assessed in sequence — status quo, full repeal, modification, and further study — before the conclusion recommends the fourth option as a pragmatic bridge to eventual full repeal. The argument is linear and cumulative, with each section building directly on the previous one.
Introduction and Background
It is widely accepted that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) has failed the needs of homosexuals serving in the military. It is also accepted, albeit less widely, that the policy has failed the needs of the military and, by extension, the people of the United States. This policy needs to be reviewed. The objectives of any revision should be to meet the needs of homosexuals in the service, to meet the needs of the military, and to bring policy more in line with current legal and social standards regarding the status of homosexuals.
There are four main alternatives: to maintain the status quo; to repeal DADT and replace it with an entirely new policy; to maintain the principle of DADT but include measures to allow the policy to better serve the various stakeholders; or to give the issue further study before acting.
On January 29, 1993, then-President Bill Clinton introduced the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military. The policy arose from a Clinton campaign promise to allow all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, to serve in the military. Prior to the policy, homosexuals were forbidden from serving altogether. A DOD Directive issued in 1981 stated that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission."
In the face of strong opposition, President Clinton chose to compromise once in office. Homosexuality would still be grounds for dismissal from the military; however, recruiters would no longer be allowed to ask candidates about their sexual orientation. Candidates, in turn, would be required to keep their orientation secret. In addition, the phrase "Don't Harass" was added by DADT author Charles Moskos, referring to the requirement that the military no longer engage in witch hunts designed to identify homosexuals within its ranks. For a service member to be discharged for homosexuality, their acts or leanings would need to become public in some way.
As of the time of writing, that threshold is specifically outlined in DOD Directive 1332.14, section E3.A1.1.8. This clause explicitly states that while "a member's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter... it is not considered a bar to continued service... unless manifested by homosexual conduct." In other words, it is acceptable to be homosexual as long as no homosexual acts are committed and no homosexual leanings are demonstrated publicly.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was intended to allow homosexuals to serve in the military — albeit in secret. That they had always served in the military, albeit in secret, was itself the result of the compromise. Clinton's original idea was more liberal, but staunch opposition resulted in the version that was ultimately written into law.
The policy is widely considered to be a failure. Prior to its passage, military personnel seemingly operated on the assumption that there were no homosexuals in the military. After the policy took effect, however, it was broadly understood that homosexuals were serving. Despite the "Don't Harass" provision, service members soon found themselves under scrutiny for homosexual behavior. Former Navy captain Joan Darrah noted that shortly after the bill's passage, military interest in homosexuality actually increased: "We all sat down taking this survey asking, 'Do you know a gay person, and, if you did, what would you do?'"
Opposition to the policy has grown in recent years. There is strong anecdotal evidence of opposition among homosexuals who are currently or were formerly in the military. A group of retired generals and admirals has expressed opposition to DADT. Former Senator Sam Nunn — who had spearheaded the original opposition to Clinton's more inclusive plan — stated that "it is now time to reconsider the ban on openly gay service."
Works Cited
Rodgers, Sam. (2006). Opinions of Military Personnel on Sexual Minorities in the Military. Zogby International. Retrieved June 28, 2008 at
Lusero, Indra. (2008). Chief Congressional Architect of Military's Gay Ban Ends Opposition to Openly Gay Service. The Michael D. Palm Center. Retrieved June 28, 2008 at
Shanker, Thom & Healy, Frank. (2007). A New Push to Roll Back Don't Ask Don't Tell. New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30military.html
Thompson, Mark. (2008). Don't Ask, Don't Tell Turns 15. Time. Retrieved June 28, 2008 at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html
Frank, Nathaniel. (2008). Scholars Remember Charles Moskos Military Sociologist. The Michael D. Palm Center. Retrieved June 28, 2008 at
Schoenberger, Colin. (2007). Video: Candidates Weigh in on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Logo Online. Retrieved June 28, 2008 at http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/the-candidates-weigh-in-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/
DOD Directive 1332.14. Retrieved at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133214p.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.