The United States Federal Government should repeal the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the military is not allowed to question a service member's sexual orientation. However, if it becomes clear (through actions, confessions, etc.) that a service member is gay, he or she may be discharged due to their orientation. As a policy, DADT fails in all respects. It is a tragic attack on the rights of gays and bisexuals and does little to protect military readiness. The United States Federal Government should repeal the current policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." While there is no federal protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, DADT is the only policy that explicitly encourages such discrimination. Interestingly, the policy seems to be designed to discriminate specifically against people with homosexual identity, i.e. gays and bisexuals as people, rather than homosexual conduct. In U.S. Code Title 10, Section 654 the law states that a service member may be discharged for same-sex relations UNLESS "such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior" and is "unlikely to recur." However, the law is also very clear that a simple admission of homosexuality is sufficient ground for discharge. In other words, if you are straight but decide to experiment on a really wild night, you can stay in the military, but if you so much as mention that you consider yourself to be gay, the military has no place for you. The DADT policy is aimed at erasing the gay identity and the gay individual, not at preventing homosexual acts. This discriminatory policy also severely undermines the military's ability to protect its members from harassment. Suspected homosexuals are sometimes harassed within the military, but this harassment often goes unreported. Members of the military who have been harassed are often afraid that drawing attention to the harassment will result in expulsion from the military, EVEN THOUGH THE HARASSED MAY NOT BE GAY. It is important to note that DADT does not prevent anti-gay harassment and prevents the military from adequately responding to these incidents. A repeal of DADT would allow the military to take an active role in developing policies that prevent and react to (sometimes violent) harassment and working to decrease homophobia. The current policy only reinforces homophobic attitudes by labeling gays as a group that must be erased. Homosexuals are not the only ones who feel the sting of DADT. The policy works to undermine women of all orientations by reinforcing patriarchal power structures. Women who do not conform to traditional feminine expectations in their military career, such as those who exhibit masculine talents and attributes, may be rumored to be lesbians. Due to the fear of discharge that DADT creates, many women feel compelled to assume traits that are perceived as feminine. DADT also gives sexual assaulters a tool against women. In a practice known as lesbian baiting, women may be sexually assaulted or raped, and then accused of being lesbians if the woman reports the violence. Fear of being labeled a lesbian also causes some women to give in to sexual advances made by male members, Women may feel that if they reject the advances of the men around them, they will be seen as lesbian. In this way, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy undermines the protection of female service members. DADT undermines the Armed Forces core values of honesty, integrity, and respect. The policy creates an environment of suspicion and hostility where individuals must continually prove their heterosexuality. Those who hope to enforce the policy must look for subtle signs that could give away potential members of the unwanted minority. Everyone is suspect because anyone could be gay. Individuals must continually submit themselves to self-surveillance in order to make sure they do not come off as gay, or in the case of one female enlistee "not feminine enough." This constant suspicion and panopticon of self surveillance may be subtle in military life, but they are ever present and certainly unhealthy. Morale and cohesion may actually be hurt by the current DADT policy. The atmosphere of suspicion that DADT encourages can work to divide units. The policy also encourages the idea that gay members do not belong and should be expelled. When a team mate is perceived or SUSPECTED of being gay, this idea may help to separate him from the unit. If DADT were repealed, the military could pursue an aggressive stance of inclusion of homosexuals. Furthermore, gays would no longer be viewed as people who do not belong in the military, making full inclusion of all service men much easier. Unfortunately, DADT precludes and possibility for meaningful inclusion. We have not yet come to the greatest reason to repeal DADT. The purpose of the army is to defend this country and its values. When a policy works to WEAKEN the army, when it serves to ENDANGER our country, it must be repealed. If a policy puts the men and women of America in unnecessary danger, it is a policy that must change. DADT hurts military readiness. According to a 2005 GAO report, approximately 10,000 gay service members have been discharged since the creation of the DADT policy in 1993. A significant number of these discharged personnel held specialized positions such as linguistic professionals, translators, and doctors. Many of the fired translators spoke Arabic and other languages crucial to counter-terror tasks. The GAO estimated that the cost of replacing the discharged members is about $96 million, though this estimate has been frequently challenged as too low (the Blue Ribbon Commission claims the cost to be $363 million). The labor Cost DADT puts on the military is intensified by the current overstretch of the U.S. Army. A policy that targets the gay identity and deems it unfit for service, intensifies homophobic attitudes, and creates and environment that is conducive to sexual abuse, DADT does not protect military readiness. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion, has proved empirically unnecessary, and wastes valuable human and monetary resources. The policy is unjustified. The policy is unfair. The policy is dangerous. The policy must go.