From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: More About Gays in the Military
Summary: Reply to an email message I got
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:35:51 GMT

    This is a reply to a message I got via email from Scott Aldrich who 
was having trouble posting from his home system. At his request I've posted 
it here along with my comments. I've snipped out one or two paragraphs but 
the bulk of the text should be intact. (Scott, please email me if you 
notice anything missing)

==========================================================================
From:     Self <PSYTHIRD/NATE>
To:       ma237saa@uvm-gen.EMBA.UVM.EDU
Subject:  Re: gays in the military
Date:     15 Dec 92 11:11:49

[discussion starts with the case of a hypothetical 18-20 year old 
heterosexual soldier who's been assigned to share a tent with a gay man]

> Why is it that the US Gov't must tell this kid he must sleep with a gay 
>man.  The US Gov't does not allow men and women to sleep together in 
>these tents. The reason is that they do not want anything to happen (ie 
>sexually).  

    True, and I'm not sure I see what you expect to happen if you put a 
gay and a heterosexual in a tent together. I would think that putting  
together two people with opposing sexual tastes would be sure to lead to 
"sexual gridlock". Putting gays together with each other might be a 
problem in that respect.

> I just recieved the Army's Sexual Harassment Class by the Troop Command in 
> Vermont,  they define Sex Harassment as anything that makes someone 
> uncomfortable based on their sexuality.  I think that the 18-20 yr old kid 
> could be made uncomfortable.

    So by that definition gay soldiers would "harass" straight soldiers 
just by being present. I would have thought that any working definition 
of sexual harassment would have to include some form of communication. 
According to the defintion you just gave the gay soldier would be guilty 
of sexual harassment even if he slept fully clothed and never uttered a 
single word.

> Currently, the policy in my unit is that buddy assignments are permanent.  The
> reasoning is that if they allow one person to change, they will have to allow
> everyone to change.  Who do you suggest sleeps with the gay man?  Does every
> unit have to have at least two?  Do you make the leader?  

    If the primary objective is to avoid sexual encounters then you sure 
can't bunk the gays with each other. That leaves bunking them with heteros. 

> Here is something that I would really like to know. I did most of my undergrad
> at Purdue.  I lived in the residence halls.  I was assigned two gay roomates.
> not at the same time, but still.  I did not find out their "orientation" until
> there were no available rooms left in that hall to changed to.  I felt as if
> I had no privacy in my room.  Maybe I am a little homo-phobic, but I did not
> feel comfortable in my room.  Should I have to go to counseling?

    No, you shouldn't "have to" go to counseling. It's perfectly natural 
to feel uncomfortable when confronted with unfamiliar situations. However 
I would also note that when I lived in residence halls here at IU I had 
several roommates, most of whom were not gay, and I *still* didn't feel 
that I had any privacy. Sharing a dorm room sort of precludes privacy. 

    At one point I shared a two room suite with 3 other guys who were all 
heavy cigarette smokers. For about 2 months I woke up with nose bleeds 
every morning, and my clothing smelled like an ashtray full of stale 
cigarette butts. One of the 3 guys was gay, but you'd be surprised what 
you can overlook when you're busy trying to staunch the flow of your own 
blood. It my be significant that in retrospect I remember that group of 
guys as 3 cigarette smokers rather than 2 straights and 1 gay.

> that would not
> be fair to me. He knew I was not available, but that did not make me feel any
> less uneasy.  Have there been any studies at IU or PU or anywhere to show of
> Gay-Straight pairings in Resi-Hall assignments to show that students do as
> well, better or worse in their studies, either side for the gay, or for the
> straight.  

    Such studies may exist, but I'm not aware of them. I do know of a 
case in which one of my friends had to drop out of a computer hardware 
lab because his gay lab partner (who was also a Marine Corps ROTC) started 
making passes at him. I'm not sure that's the sort of anecdotal evidence 
you're looking for, but it really happened.

> If you find that either group does worse, then you have a valid argument
> for the exclusion of gays from the military.  The ages of the students are
> similar to the military, HS grads.  The only difference might be career 
> outlooks of the college student and military soldier.

    I would go along with that. Sounds like you need to either find an 
existing study or begin one of your own.

> The last thing is sort of a weak argument, but... Sexually Homogenous Units
> such as Combat Arms units are that way to prevent, not prohibit, sex among
> members of the same unit, as sex among members within the same unit prevents
> cohesion, and a relaxation of leadership abilities. Why is it that most major
> corporations, and educational institutions do not promote co-worker relations.

    That's a reasonable point. I've known a very few situations in which 
co-worker affairs have worked out; that's how I met my wife, and I knew a 
married couple of psychologists at AT&T who worked in the human factors 
group and seemed to get along pretty well together. But by-and-large I 
would agree that work-related affairs are a bad idea.

> Scott Aldrich
> Battalion Chemical Officer
> 1/138th ADA INARNG (Air Defense Artillery)

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh