DWYP2 Round 2: DoH vs. ComradeSAL - Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[DoH]

In 1993 the Clinton campaign introduced a compromise between two competing factions in America; those who wanted an all-out ban against homosexuals serving in the military and those who wanted to be able to serve their country regardless of sexual orientation. Drafted by Colin Powell, this new policy prohibits any member of the Armed Forces to "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability", and was codified into law under section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, which regulates the military.

This policy remains on the books, informally known as "Don't ask, don't tell" or DADT, and results in service members being discharged daily on accusations of homosexuality. On average, about 2 people a day are discharged, with 742 discharges on grounds of violating DADT in 2005, an increase from 668 in 2004. In another twist of irony, while the Pentagon admits that it is having increasing trouble meeting its recruitment goals, they estimate that an additional 41,000 gays and lesbians would enlist if DADT were repealed, in addition to the service men and women they could recall . The General Accounting Office estimates that it costs taxpayers $200 million dollars a year to recruit replacement officers for the ones that are discharged; however heterosexism seems to have superseded rationality. However, there are far more important reasons to overturn DADT than purely a numbers game. DADT itself is gutting our military, and overturning the ban would solve our current recruitment crisis and therefore eliminate the current threat of overstretch of our armed forces. While fighting two overseas wars, plus maintaining a military influence across the globe, we cannot sustain continued losses any more than we have to on the battlefield. A sustained overstretch of United States armed forces would signal weakness that would invite regional conflict to challenge our dominance and hegemony; the visible overextension of our forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to international conflicts in the Middle East and various hotspots of animosity. If the Army were ordered to respond to a crisis today, it would be to deploy troops whose readiness is far below what operations require, resulting in a disastrous military campaign.

However, overstretch isn't the only crisis facing the readiness of our military today. DADT causes paranoia of expression and suppression of sexuality that increases disease outbreak specifically in closeted homosexuals ; suppressing of emotions triggers the flight-or-fight response by triggering the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) which, when overused chronically suppresses immune system functions in a number of ways. The SNS secretes neurotransmitters and hormones into the bloodstream which, overtime, have an adverse effect on the immune system; one of such hormones is cortisol, which eventually halts the formation of lymphocytes, as well as rendering existing lymphocytes useless. These lymphocytes are key to stopping the spread of infections, and without them disease runs rampant. This immunosuppression turns otherwise mild infections into disease episodes, a costly risk for any soldier. Obviously, diseases have an adverse effect on the readiness of our troops, which magnified by the current overstretch of US forces only sets up the stage for a collapse of US hegemony. Some may question the importance of a unipolar world dominated by a single super power in the wake of increasing trends such as globalization, but a world in which the United States exercises its hegemony has tremendous advantages; other nations are more inclined to accept American values, thus facilitating cooperation on various issues such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony, and the events that could preclude a global nuclear exchange. Since the military is the most visible sign of our hard hegemonic strength, then a well-equipped and ready military is essential to strong US leadership around the world. Our cooperation with other nation's militaries is also uniquely threatened by sustaining DADT; all of our NATO allies outside of Turkey have removed restrictions on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Going into a situation that requires international cooperation with a homophobic schism in the midst of combat guts internal cohesion of individual military units. If the argument that the world is shrinking and globalization is on the rise is true, then this type of international cooperation is absolutely essential to rapid response and containment of regional conflicts worldwide.

Additionally, there are far more critical and personal impacts to the dehumanization and institutionalization of "the closet" that DADT promotes. The very premise of DADT creates the mindset that homosexuals are monsters that need to be suppressed in the military; this spills over to the rest of society because we define the model citizen as the citizen soldier . When different societal groups are excluded from being part of the identity of a soldier, then they will undoubtedly be excluded from acceptance and calculations made by the majority of society. This results in isolation, Otherization, and ultimately dehumanization; when people are no longer viewed in the 'us' category of the us/them dichotomy, then any atrocity can become justified in the name of preserving the 'us.' Combined with the 'tyranny of survival' that is an inevitable aspect of heterosexism (as they posit that homosexuals pose a unique threat to the survival of heterosexuals), then systemic violence ultimately becomes an unavoidable result, and gays are brutalized and attacked in the public sphere; gay bashing becomes a legitimate response and this violence is therefore codified within our society and seen as a natural part of it. Therefore, homophobia and heterosexism result in a precedent of social moral slavery that justifies the eternal coercion of minority groups, resulting in inevitable systematic oppression. However, heterosexism is just a branch from the abusive tree of patriarchy; the oppressive nature of a hyper-masculinized, hegemonic military has the effect of reinforcing traditional gender norms that have unique impacts on women; failure to stop the spread of patriarchy will ultimately ensure the redomination of women and effectively crush the feminist movement. However, challenging regimes of heteronormativity can liberate society from multiple instances of oppression, as homosexuality offers a unique challenge and alternative to oppressive and coercive heterosexuality . Under DADT, individuals lose the ability to define themselves, which denies personal autonomy and therefore personal agency, subjecting them to compulsory heterosexuality.

Thus the plan: the United States Supreme Court should grant a writ of certiorari to an appropriate test case, and applying a standard of strict scrutiny, and hold that 10 U.S.C, 654 and Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice constitute violations of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively lifting the ban of homosexuals from openly serving in the United States military, enforced by the United States Department of Defense. Supreme Court action is critical for several reasons. First, it changes the suspect classification for sexual orientation from lowest level of scrutiny to strict scrutiny, meaning that there must be a compelling governmental interest for discrimination to be tolerated. Second, it would reverse a long standing trend of judicial deference to the military, one that has been in place ever since their infamous decision in Korematsu v. United States during World War II. Ending judicial deference is critical to maintaining an independent judiciary, which is key to having a separation of powers as the framers of the United States Constitution intended. Having the Supreme Court overturn DADT would set a fair bright line between soldier's rights and national defense, preventing future military abuses by forcing them to rely on unbiased research. If the Supreme Court ever wishes to be an institution dedicated to the preservation of rights and the rule of law, they must stand up and reclaim their position as an arbiter of rights and send a beacon of hope throughout the nation that we will no longer tolerate discrimination based on vacuous assertions. Otherwise we will have failed in our mission to ensure one nation with liberty for all.

 

[Crimson King]

And disproven. This debate continues.

 

[ComradeSAL]

What I will be arguing for is not that homosexuals should never be allowed, but that doing so now would be both divisive and counterproductive for our military. America’s crushing need for a stable, unified military demands continued enforcement of DADT, despite its questionable morality.

For one, claims of a “recruitment crisis” are overstated. In fact, in a July press release from the U.S Department of Defense, all armed services have met or exceeded recruitment goals for the past thirteen months. Granted, the military has had moderate difficulty recruiting in the past, but the problem is nowhere close to the degree that D’OH has implicated. As a result, there is currently not sufficient reason to take any reckless measures solely for the sake of recruits.

Moreover, there is no clear evidence that the DADT policy would increase recruitment opportunities. In fact the opposite is likely true. The army currently houses some of the most socially conservative individuals in the United States, and a majority of the recruits fall in this demographic as well. Repealing the DADT would alienate this demographic. In a survey conducted among 545 military personnel, a mere 26% said they agreed with repealing the DADT. Moreover, 10% of those surveyed said they would have not joined the military if the DADT was not in effect.

There is simply no percentage in risking military stability at such a crucial time for a law that would cause even more division than the army currently suffers from.

The argument from mental health is at best speculative and at worst uncited hearsay. Yes, sexual repression is a known cause of stress, but it is most likely dwarfed by the stress caused from actual combat. I would need to read a study on actual stress caused by the DADT to believe that this was a valid reason. Moreover, there is no guarantee that repealing the DADT would reduce stress; the subsequent estrangement of an openly homosexual by his fellow soldiers could easily outweigh the supposed gains.

The social argument is a strong one in abstract terms, but is irrelevant. For the homosexual community, there are more pressing issues to pursue, such as marriage, adoption, and the ability to make medical decisions for their partner. Coupled with the strong possible repercussions, it seems only logical to table the DADT for a better sociopolitical climate.

I’ve ran out of time. More arguments concerning the proposal to repeal the law through the supreme court to come.

 

[DoH]

First of all judges, you're going to view this debate in terms of competing frameworks. On one hand, you have ComradeSAL with his advocacy of the status quo. You can vote for that, or you can vote for the affirmative and take a stand for a change in this country. At the point in which the negative offers no competing framework in which to evaluate the round, you're going to decide it via the framework of the aff.

For one, claims of a “recruitment crisis” are overstated. In fact, in a July press release from the U.S Department of Defense, all armed services have met or exceeded recruitment goals for the past thirteen months. Granted, the military has had moderate difficulty recruiting in the past, but the problem is nowhere close to the degree that D’OH has implicated. As a result, there is currently not sufficient reason to take any reckless measures solely for the sake of recruits.

Even if the military is meeting it's recruitment goals, it's not a reason to not do the plan. Films such as Stop Loss have permeated popular culture to show the effect that current global conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as members of the military who have served their tours of duty and fulfilled their contract are recalled to the battle lines because we are still engaged in combat and need the troops. Both presidential candidates have stated that they intend to increase the number of troops in the armed forces and have talked about deploying more forces to finish missions in Afghanistan. In the past Barack Obama has supported military action in Darfur, an action that would require even more committment from our military that is fighting two wars while continuing to extend its presence around the world.

Secondly, members of the military who speak Arabic and Farsi are in short supply. The Christian Science Monitor now reports that the army is so desperate for these translators they're offering $150,000 bonuses These members of the military are key to mission successes on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, in bridging cultural gaps and spreading information in a foreign region, as well as a tool in the war on terrorism. However, the DoD continually discharges gays and lesbians who have these unique skills simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. Keith Olbermann estimates that over 300 servicemembers who were translators have been discharged, and that the cost to re-recruit and retrain their replacements has been more that $45 million dollars. Clearly there is still an inherent recruitment problem in this area of the military, and even ComradeSAL admits that the army is made of of "socially conservative people" and stereotypes them as being intolerant, so even if the military is meeting its recruitment goals, it's not attracting the bright young diverse minds that it needs.

Moreover, there is no clear evidence that the DADT policy would increase recruitment opportunities. In fact the opposite is likely true. The army currently houses some of the most socially conservative individuals in the United States, and a majority of the recruits fall in this demographic as well. Repealing the DADT would alienate this demographic. In a survey conducted among 545 military personnel, a mere 26% said they agreed with repealing the DADT. Moreover, 10% of those surveyed said they would have not joined the military if the DADT was not in effect.

There is simply no percentage in risking military stability at such a crucial time for a law that would cause even more division than the army currently suffers from.

Let's take a look at this ridiculous survey for a second. First, the sample size is ridiculously small. Secondly, if you take this survey's results as reliable, 2/3s of those surveyed said sexual orientation did not affect either their personal or unit morale.

There's no coherent argument that having gays in the military will harm troops. In fact, the evidence shows that DADT is the policy that causes harm to troops.

Cross apply all of my disease impacts about how the stress of suppression of a secret is disastrous for those in the military. It's analysis from the article "RESTRICTED EXPRESSION AND IMMUNOSUPPRESSION: HOW "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" MAY HARM MILITARY READINESS BY INCREASING THE RISK OF CANCER AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE IN HOMOSEXUALS" by John Lanou, published in the Fall 2001 edition of the George Mason Law Review. There's an incredible risk of a detrimental impact to military readiness via a disease outbreak. That's reason enough to repeal DADT, combined with the soldiers that could be recalled and the thousands that would enlist.


Lastly, the military has been a catalyst for change in past civil rights struggles. For African Americans, they were allowed into the military before they had the right to marry white people, as they fought in World War II but it wasn't until 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, that anti-miscegenation laws were finally struck down. In The Long Arc of Justice, Richard Mohr, professor of philosophy at the U of Illinois, posits that

The military is nominally intended to defend what the country is, but as its racial and gender histories show, it is one of the chief institutions by which the nation defines what the country is and what to count as full personhood and full citizenship. Take the Civil War. Even though the North was fighting (at least in part) to end black slavery, both North and South initially conceived the war as one to be carried out only between white men - full citizens. President Lincoln (it may come as a surprise to learn) was not seeking full citizenship for blacks, did not entertain black equal protection, and opposed the black vote. He thought blacks should be like women as far as citizenship was concerned. But under the press of necessity, both sides, by war's end, had resorted to the deployment of black combat troops. For many southerners, this reconfiguration of the army was the equivalent of having lost the war even before hostilities were over. For in being combatants, blacks had changed their definition and assumed the rank of full citizens. They could no longer be thought of as slaves. The North cast this conceptual shift into institutional, indeed constitutional form. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal protection rights to blacks, and the Fifteenth Amendment conferred the vote on black men. At least on the plane of the nation's ideals, the Civil War and its amendments catapulted the nation far ahead of Lincoln's understanding of race.

The ban on homosexual presence in the military operates at a similar profound level of national definition. Straight male soldier’s skittishness, which the military uses to try and justify the suppression of any gay male presence in the armed forces, is a mere surface phenomenon, masking a much deeper and wider cultural anxiety about gay men - anxiety over understanding the male body as a penetrable object. For the military, the real person, the full citizen, is defined as one who must penetrate while never being penetrated. Conversely, it defines the enemy as a potentially penetrating but actually penetrated body. The citizen warrior first "penetrates" the enemy's lines and then penetrates the enemy himself for the kill.

Lifting the ban on gay soldiers will not only, finally acknowledge the full status of gays as citizens in America - important as that recognition is on its own - but also begin, as did the ending of slavery, to transform our understanding of who we are as people. It will change our ideals, whatever our failed or partial practices of them may be. The ending of slavery meant that a person may no longer view another essentially as just an instrument or tool in his or her own projects. The end of the military’s ban on gay male presence will extend this line of cultural thinking and point the direction of equally momentous cultural change and moral improvement.

[Editor's note; I've underlined the parts I'll be using as my argument, but left in the rest of the text in a smaller font in case anyone wants to read it.]

The soldier is the model of the perfect citizen in American thought. If gays are not allowed to be a part of that model, then full citizenship rights can never be conferred. Being able to fight for our country is key to furthering the gay rights movement, and has historically been necessary to achieve equal rights, such as marriage and adoption.

At the point in which there's no offense on the Supreme Court as a solvency mechanism, you're never going to vote neg on it. Until SAL provides a reason to not do the plan through the USSC, then you're going to grant full solvency to the aff.

Lastly, to vote neg is to embrace inaction, and thus complicity in the oppresion of gays and lesbians in today's military. The affirmative is the only alternative in this debate. Not taking a stand, not speaking out against this injustice contributes to the conspiracy of silence that allows victimization of the GLBT population to perpetuate itself. Therefore, I see no ballot other than the affirmative.