Our Rand Corporation has a new .pdf for you to peruse: Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study.
*End User License Agreement or whatever it is. I’m all like, I’m not agreeing to that, just the way I reacted when I saw similar click box as I was trying to make a post at SFist one day back in ought-eight. The upshot of RAND’s new policy is that I’m now afraid to even read their pdfs, much less borrow text from them. Oh well. I mean, if people for whom I’m doing favors want to sue me, they’re welcome to do so, but I’m not going to make it easy for them, I’m not going to make their case a lead-pipe cinch through a written contract right from the get-go…
Anyway, all the deets, license and pdf-free:
“At the request of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Secretary of Defense, the RAND Corporation conducted a study on sexual orientation and U.S. military policy in order to provide information and analysis that might be considered in discussing the possible repeal of the law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The study examined DADT implementation; U.S. public and military opinion about allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military without restriction; and the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexual orientation, and related health issues. RAND conducted focus groups with military personnel and a survey of gay, lesbian, and bisexual military personnel. RAND researchers also examined the comparable experiences of other institutions, domestic agencies, and foreign militaries, as well as how repeal of DADT might affect unit cohesion and military readiness and effectiveness.
“Most polling data suggest that a majority of Americans support allowing gay people to serve in the military without restriction. The research concludes that there would be little impact on recruiting and retention of military personnel and on unit cohesion and performance. Current research and the experience during World War II shows that cohesion of combat units comes from the common threat of the enemy, not from prior shared values and attitudes. The majority of gay and lesbian service members who responded to RAND’s survey reported that, although they did not talk about their sexual orientation, many unit members already knew that there was a gay service member in their unit. The vast majority indicated that they would remain circumspect in how they make their orientation known to other service members. Many military focus group participants said that they knew gay men and lesbians who were serving and respected their contributions. Many major U.S. allies, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have allowed gay individuals to serve without restriction for a number of years. They report no effect on unit performance or on their ability to meet recruitment goals. No country provides special accommodations for privacy or special training on sexual orientation. Police and fire departments, as well as federal agencies, major corporations, and colleges, all report that they have integrated gay individuals without serious problems and without negative effects on performance — and without making specific accommodations — by applying a strict policy of nondiscrimination.”
Pretty soon, “Ask, Tell” will be the Law of the Land, unambiguously…
Tags: 1993, 2010, bay area, california, Corporation, dadt, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Gay, military, RAND, RAND's, rights, San Francisco, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND's 1993 Study, study, update