Introduction
The Don't Ask Don't Tell is a policy that was introduced by Clinton following his election to office in 1993. It is a policy that restricts the United States military men and women from discriminating and harassing homosexuals who are in service, and also those seeking to join. It works by preventing individuals from openly sharing their sexual orientation and also preventing others from seeking to know the same. Clinton’s administration instituted this policy in February 1994, and this lasted until September 2011. Throughout its course, the policy has been challenged by various problems. First, it did not fully accept homosexuality, as it forced gays to keep their sexual orientation a secret. This was despite the fact that Clinton had introduced it as a way of enabling homosexual to serve in the military. Second, it did not quite protect the homosexual individuals as the behavior of commanders remained the same; Gay and lesbian soldiers were still being discharged from the service frequently.
History of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Since the introduction of the Republic, government decisions have been made about who shall be allowed and required to serve in the U.S. military, and under what conditions. Ever since World War II, there has been an intensification of the opposition in the military to admit and retain gay and lesbian members (Livermore, Midgley & Tracy, 2000). Although in History the military could not officially discharge homosexuals, sodomy was considered a criminal offense. In 1778, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin became the first ever military man to be discharged from the Continental Army because of Sodomy (Spitko, 2012). After this, many others followed as other suspects were also purged from military units.
As the United States prepared for the World War II, the induction process was designed to also involve psychiatric screening to help identify any individuals with the then known as a disorder. Therefore, instead of focusing on homosexual behavior, as was previously the case, the shift switched towards the elimination of any homosexuals within the service (Spitko, 2012). This was purely based on a medical rationale. In 1942, the revised army mobilization regulations were provided with a draft featured for the first time, relating to the definition of a homosexual and a "normal" person (Bailey, 2013). This, therefore, acted as guidance for how such homosexual draftees were to be rejected from getting into the service (Livermore, Midgley & Tracy, 2000).
When there was personnel shortages, homosexuals of the American origin were allowed to serve. To expand its war efforts, the United States had to make use of all available resources and personnel including the homosexuals. As a result, the screening procedures were loosened, enabling many more individuals to enter the military (Spitko, 2012). However, this shift was only temporary as when the war came to an end, more anti-homosexual policies were enforced (Livermore, Midgley & Tracy, 2000). This was done with an even stricter vigilance which led to many gay men and lesbians being discharged involuntarily. Hence, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, acknowledging openly that one was a homosexual prevented him or her from joining the military.
In the 1970s, a new movement pushing for the respect of gay and lesbian rights was developed. An important target for this movement was the military policy. The legal challenge being presented by the movement continued all through the 1970s. Although it was not successful in its goals, it still managed to shed some light on the issue of the wide latitude of discretion given to commanders when it came to implementing existing policies (Spitko, 2012). They contested this as it led to a certain degree of rigor with which the policy would be enforced.
In 1981, a new policy was developed, which stated unequivocally that homosexuality was not reasonable or allowed in the military service. Because of this new rule, approximately 17,000 individuals were discharged due to homosexuality (Bailey, 2013). By the time the 1980s was coming to an end, reversing this military policy was emerging as a priority for the advocates of the rights of gay and lesbians (‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell REPEALED’, 2011). Several homosexuals came out in public and challenged their discharges through the legal system. In 1992, legislation to overturn this ban on homosexuals was introduced in Congress. By this time, the opposition to the policy was already on the rise; various national organizations had officially condemned it, and some colleges and universities had already banned military-based programs from their campuses as a way to protest the policy (Livermore, Midgley & Tracy, 2000).
Early 1993 started off hopeful for the protestors, as it appeared as if the ban on homosexuals would soon be done away with. Shortly after being elected the president, Clinton asked that a draft policy be prepared to help put an end to the years of discrimination on homosexuals due to their homosexuality. Unfortunately, after his proposal was contested by Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress and many others, a compromised policy was developed, which was named Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue (Bailey, 2013). The terms of this policy were that military members would not be asked of their sexual orientation, neither would they tell it in the open. For those who were already known, they would not be discharged for simply being homosexual. However, engaging in sexual activity still justified the discharge of the soldiers.
Later on in 1993, the Congress voted for the idea that most aspects of the ban be codified. It was during this time that the civilian court provided contradictory opinions; some were for the policy's constitutionality while others wanted the reinstatement of the openly gay military personnel who were discharged from service against their will (Bailey, 2013). Higher courts won by upholding the policy, thereby making it unlikely that the policy would be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
This policy remained in effect up until 2011, despite the efforts of many organizations to point out its shortcomings. The failures were dramatized by the murder of various homosexuals, such as Pfc. Barry Winchell. Additionally, discharges increased when this policy was in effect than at any other time. In 2002 and 2003, campaigns for changing the policy started intensifying once again (‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell REPEALED’, 2011). This is what triggered President Obama's move in 2011 to do away with the ban, and give the homosexuals the freedom they so desire.
Alternative proposals
The social welfare problem is featured in this section; certain alternatives may be used. First, since the policy features an oppression of the homosexuals, it should also include laws against the people oppressing them. One reason why discrimination did not stop was that there were no rules to help stop the actions, even in secret. What happens when one is caught discriminating a homosexual is very important as the actions of members of the military would have been governed. The law must be very strict and severe to ensure people do not ignore its importance (Livermore, Midgley & Tracy, 2000).
Second, to ensure that homosexuals are not forced to keep their sexual orientation a secret, the alternative would be to enable them to freely express their sexuality, without making it illegal for them (‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell REPEALED’, 2011). Also, they should be allowed the freedom of choice when it comes to engaging in sexual activity. This area of the social problem policy should, therefore, be switched to offer protection instead of suppressing their freedom.
Analysis of the Alternative Proposals
The first alternative proposal is bound to work by protecting the rights of the homosexuals, since just as any other minority group, they also need protection. Homosexuals are also human beings. Therefore they should not be treated like anything less. By outing in place strict laws that indicate punishment for people who oppress them, the cases of discrimination will reduce (Livermore, Midgley & Tracy, 2000). However, leaving the policy free from consequences will still give room for oppressors to repeat the same in private.
The second alternative is also reasonable and applicable, as the main point of the policy was to give homosexuals their freedom. However, it only oppressed them further by preventing their freedom of expression. They should all be given the chance to seek love and be intimate with a person of their choice. Additionally, this should not be a reason for them being discharged from service.
Political Ramifications
In the first alternative, the government will have no option but to start treating homosexuals as equals regarding legal marriages, equal health coverage, child adoption issues and so on. This is because they cannot develop a law that punishes discriminating individuals yet it is at the forefront of the discrimination.
Second, government officials from both the opposing and supporting sides will constantly engage in a battle over the policy, as those opposing the alternative think that it is wrong to be a homosexual, and thus deserve any treatment.
With regards to the second alternative, the federal funding of a majority of social programs will be under scrutiny. This is because they will be viewed as bad influence. Second, the church-state relationship will also become strained as individuals will be promoting what the Bible teaches against.
Conclusion
The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has undergone a rather long history of transformation into what it is now today. It was introduced to give homosexuals freedom, but it ended up doing worse by restricting their freedom and exposing them to even more poor treatment. Alternatives to this are to offer protection by introducing punishment laws for offenders and to give them freedom to share their orientation with anyone they like. Once these are implemented, the homosexual community will be free to finally carry on like everyone else without feeling at risk.
References
Bailey, B. (2013). The Politics of Dancing:. Journal Of Policy History, 25(1), 89-113. doi:10.1017/S089803061200036X
Don't Ask, Don't Tell REPEALED. (2011). Profiles in Diversity Journal, 13(6), 46-50.
Livermore, M., Midgley, J., & Tracy, M (2000). The Handbook of Social Policy. SAGE Publication, 220-568.
Spitko, E. G. (2012). Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Employment Discrimination as a Means for Social Cleansing. Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal, 16(1), 179-209.
