46

A, 'rX I j

U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1657

Perspectives on Organizational Change

in the Canadian Forces

Franklin C. Pinch

Human Rewurces Consufting

D TIC

ELECTEI 6%

APR 011994111

F

94-09791

January 1994

Appmed for pubk reWaft; distdbudon Is unarnbed.

0 9 7
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Human Resources Consulting Accesior: Fot

N'IIS Cj',A&l

Technical review by I ',

Paul A. Gade jo . ..C.. .. I.

Jacqueline A. Mottem By ................

Morris Peterson Di t. ib: ti .

Robert A. Wisher .......

Dist O. ý'i.; al

NOTICES

S'stribunonilof. U "o . r efor Beb~oral and Social Sciences,

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destmyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this rport are not to be construed as an official Depamnent of the Army position,

unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fcn Approved

"Ptcbi r..orting birden for this collection of itifa'l estimnatnd to average I hour Per rewonse. including the tune for reviewing jil tumcnii ,earcning existing oats soujrces.

gahering :nd mnaintaining the data needed, and comfet'ng ano re. -ewing the toigon of mnformation. Sendl comments regarding thus burden anitmate or any other aiectM of this

€ OgitatiOn f informiation, including sug testo o reducig this m.rcen. to Washington Heedquarte, Serk-e. Direct rate for Information o• .at•c.ns and Reports. 12 1I Jefferson

eavts Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington. VA 1220-432. and to the c ct of Man4ge•nent and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Profect (0704-0183). Washington. DC 20S03:

1, AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave bOind) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

1994, January Final Apr 93 - Jun 93

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian MDA903-93-M-5414

Forces 65803D

730

6. AUTHOR(S) 1131

Pinch, Franklin C. C10

"7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Dr. Franklin C. Pinch REPORT NUMBER

Human Resources Consulting

97 Greenwich Drive

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2V2N5

Canada

9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Social Sciences

ATTN: PERI-RP ARI Research Report 1657

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Contracting Officer's Representative, Robert A. Wisher

12a. DISTRIBUTION IAVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report reviews and synthesizes the background literature and other documentation relating to transition from a homosexual ban to the cancellation of

the exclusionary policy in the Canadian Forces. The open literature was reviewed

to provide the conceptual basis for systematic analysis of policy and research

documents. An extensive review and study over a 6-year period failed to provide

information to justify or defend the exclusionary policy for homosexuals.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Homosexual Canadian Forces 63

Military Sociology 16. PRICE CODE

Workplace Policy

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

JSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prvestocnd by ANSI Std Z£3-16

2% -102
Research Report 1657

Perspectives on Organizational Change

in the Canadian Forces

Franklin C. Pinch

Human Resources Consulting

Leadership and Organizational Change Technical Area

Paul A. Gade, Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research Division

Zita M. Simutis, Director

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

January 1994

Army Project Number Personnel and Training Analysis 66580370M

Approved for public release; disblbulon Is unL iited.

S I
FOREWORD

This research was initiated in response to the proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals in the U.S. military. The research reported here was conducted by Franklin

Pinch, an independent consultant from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; retired Colonel,

Canadian Forces; and former Director, Personnel Psychology and Sociology within the

Department of National Defence. This research offers a perspective on the experiences

of the Canadian Forces in lifting the ban on homosexuals, which was done in October

1992.

This research complements ARI Research Note 93-17, Comparative International

Military Personnel Policies, edited by Professor Gwyn Harries-Jenkins of the University

of Hull.

ED RM JHNSON

Director

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of BrigadierGeneral (Retired) Dan Munro, Director General Personnel Policy, and Colonel (Retired)

George Logan of the Directorate of Personnel Policy and Conditions of Service, for

specifying and, in some cases, providing data sources without which this report could

not have been prepared. Thanks also to Lieutenant-Commander (Retired) Rosemary

Park for reviewing an earlier chronology of events leading up to the cancellation of the

Canadian Forces policy on homosexuality. David Segal also made helpful suggestions.

The editorial comments of Robert A. Wisher, U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences are greatly appreciated.

Any errors of fact, omissions of pertinent details, or misinterpretation of the

information available are the sole responsibility of the author.

vi
PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE CANADIAN FORCES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences was

tasked by the Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army to conduct research on lifting the

ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. Part of this requirement was to

gather systematic information on the experiences of the Armed Forces of other nations.

This report contributes to the requirement by providing a review and synthesis of the

background literature and other documentation relating to transition from a homosexual

ban to the cancellation of the exclusionary policy in the Canadian Forces (CF).

Procedure:

Perspectives from the open literature were reviewed to provide the conceptual

basis for systematic analysis of policy and research documents. Only those documents available to the public--including media references--were included in the

investigation.

Findings:

Impetus for policy change emanated from recently implemented social legislation supported by Canadian public opinion and reinforced by associated political and

legal pressures. Specifically, the enactment of equality rights legislation in 1978 and

1985 forced a review of exclusionary policies of the CF in five areas--including sexual

orientation--and gave rise to legal challenges under provisions of the Canadian Human

Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sexual orientation policy was

challenged under Section 15 (Equality Rights) of the Charter. Extensive review and

study over a 6-year period failed to provide research or other evidence to justify or

defend the exclusionary policy for homosexuals as a fair and reasonable limit on their

rights in a "free and democratic society.' The Federal Court of Canada declared the CF

in violation of the Charter, and the policy was canceled in October 1992.

The impact of the policy change has been minimal. Negative consequences

predicted in the areas of recruitment, employment, attrition, retention, and cohesion

vii
and morale have not occurred in the 6-month period since revocation of the exclusionary policy. There is no indication that homosexuals are declaring themselves. The

major consequence for the CF has been the requirement to negotiate settlements with

those homosexual former members who were dismissed and have filed a Human or

Charter rights complaint or to compensate serving members who were disadvantaged

under the exclusionary policy.

Several factors may account for the lack of effect, among them the introduction

of policy and procedural safeguards, including a zero tolerance policy on sexual misconduct for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Other factors may include the role

of leadership, the long-held expectation of the policy change, force reduction, the low

level of recruitment, and generally poor job market conditions that may have masked or

delayed the effects.

Utilization of Findings:

Although these findings are specific to the CF, they shoid help inform the

current debate on homosexual exclusion policy in the U.S. Armed Forces.

viii
PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE CANADIAN FORCES

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTIO N .................................................. 1

Purpose of the Report ........................................... 1

Background .................................................. 1

M ETHO D ....................................................... 2

Data Sources ................................................. 2

TWO CONCEPTIONS OF THE MILITARY ............................... 2

THE CONTEXT OF CHANGE IN THE CANADIAN MILITARY ................ 5

LEGISLATION AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS .......... 6

Human and Charter Rights ....................................... 6

DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS ......................................... 10

Background: Homosexuality in the Canadian Military .................. 10

Impetus for Change: Charter-Related Influences ...................... 13

Government Action ............................................. 13

Department of National Defence (DND)/CF Response .................. 15

The Charter Task Force (CTF) .................................... 16

Social Environment ............................................. 17

Cohesion and Morale ........................................... 17

Confidence in the CF ........................................... 17

Discipline ..................................................... 18

Privacy and Equality ............................................ 18

Recruiting and Retention ......................................... 19

Policies of Other Nations ......................................... 19

Medical Im plications ............................................ 19

Conclusions .................................................. 19

Observations on the CTF Final Report .............................. 20

ix
CONTENTS (Continuedi

Page

RESEARCH RELATED TO CTF STUDY ISSUES ......................... 21

The Zuliani Study .............................................. 22

The Kristiansen Review .......................................... 23

The Henderson Review .......................................... 26

The Suedleld Review ............................................ 29

The Internal UDG Study ......................................... 30

Review of UDG Study ........................................... 32

Other Research-Related Inputs on Specific Issues ..................... 33

Privacy ................................................. 34

Bodily Modesty, Social Acceptance, Gender Differences ................ 35

Summary: Research-Related Inputs ............................... 38

LEGAL IMPETUS FOR POUCY CHANGE .............................. 39

Second Phase Review ........................................... 39

Interim Policy .................................................. 39

Court Challenge ............................................... 40

Counter-Arguments to Current Policy ............................... 41

Court Declaration/Revocation of Policy .............................. 42

Implementation--New Policy ...................................... 42

Other Actions ................................................. 43

Outstanding Issues ............................................. 44

Impact of Policy Change ......................................... 44

CONCLUSIONS .................................................. 46

Concluding Comments .......................................... 46

REFERENCES ................................................... 49

Open Uterature ................................................ 49

Government of Canada .......................................... 52

Department of National Defence ................................... 53

x
PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN THE CANADIAN FORCES

INTRODUCTION

uroose of the Reoort. This report provides information that is complementary

to research being undertaken by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences (ARI) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the U.S. Army

on the topic of lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the United States (U.S.)

Armed Forces. Specifically, the aim is to review the background literature and other

documentation, from the 1960s to the present, regarding the change from prohibition

of known homosexuals to serve in the Canadian Forces (CF) to the cancellation of

the prohibition policy, which became effective on 27 October 1992. It is intended to:

offer a conceptual framework in which the issue may be viewed; provide a contextual

overview of the social change environment in which the CF operate; synthesize the

available information on changing sexual orientation policy within the CF; and assess

the consequences of the policy changers involved in the transition process.

Bag[QIhgr.. The U.S. government and military officials are currently in the

process of examining the arguments for and against lifting the ban on permitting

homosexuals to serve openly in its Armed Forces, and ARI is conducting a broad

examination of the evidence from the militaries of other nations. To this end, a

statement of work related to policy change in the CF was agreed upon 2 April 1993,

between the contractor and ARI. A list of documents and outline of events leading up

to cancellation of the CF policy have been provided separately. This report brings the

source information together in a unified report.

i = 1
METHOD

DataSource. The data sources for this report are the open literature and

unclassified Canadian government documents, accessible by the public, as well as

completed research studies and research reviews. The documents cover roughly a

30-year period, but most have been produced within the past five to eight years. They

are primarily centered on the specific topic of sexual orientation research, policy and

regulations.

This report is limited by the fact that the policy change on homosexuals arose

partly out of a requirement to defend the homosexual prohibition policy in the Federal

Court of Canada. Therefore, part of the information is protected by solicitor-client

privilege. Relatedly, other documentation is protected under Cabinet confidence

provisions of the Canadian Access to Information Act and is unavailable to the author.

Also, access to discussions among CF policy makers, justice officials, officers of the

court and consultants, that might have shed light on the interpretations made in their

deliberations, has not been available to the author. These limitations affect the level of

detail provided, but they neither detract from the identification of influencing factors nor

do they invalidate the overall conclusions reached.

TWO CONCEPTIONS OF THE MILITARY

The sociological issues involved in understanding military organizational change

associated with lifting the ban on homosexuals and resistance to such change have

elsewhere been documented for social change in general (Pinch, 1991). On the one

hand, as suggested by Harries-Jenkins and Moskos (1981) and Segal and Segal

(1983) are traditional conceptions of the military as a unique, masculine, cultural

environment, characterized by: social solidarity based on likeness (rather than

differences); traditional authority structures and sanctions; and, individual constraints

and obligations to the institution or group. "These characteristics are seen to form the

2
basis of group cohesion, motivation and morale, and, ultimately, operational

effectiveness (c.f., Henderson, 1990; 1991; 1992). The image of the entire institution

is based on the requirements of the core combat segment, from whence flows an allencompassing ideology of homogeneous norms, manifested in political and social

conservatism (Huntington, 1957), a collective orientation and unlimited liability on the

part of military members. In systems terms, the idea military under this conception is

a closed, ascriptive institution, that sharply diverges in its norms and values from other

institutions in its host society. This conception may be called the operational

imperatives model, since its adherents tend to argue that falling to maintain these

traditional features and proscriptions-- including the exclusion of specific social

categories-- will lead to a reduction in operational effectiveness and ultimate failure of

the military to achieve its mission: that is, to successfully wage war on behalf of the

nation, when legitimately called upon to do so (c.f., Loomis and Lightburn, 1980;

Cotton, 1981).

On the other hand are modern conceptions of the military as a highly

differentiated, complex bureaucracy, rationalized and formalized along lines similar to

other utilitarian organizations: especially so for mainly peacetime or constabulary

militaries (Scott, 1981). Further, since the military is, by necessity, an open system, it

is penetrated by, and overlaps with, civilian society on the occupational, professional

and institutional levels (Janowitz, 1960, 1971), and exhibits patterns of organization,

management and interpersonal interaction that are convergent with those found in

other, civilian large-scale organizations (Lang, 1973).

This conception does not deny the need for team performance, collective

action, and unique mission orientation, but it does view the ideal military in a

democratic society as closely integrated with, and more or less representative of, its

host society (see, e.g., Cotton et. a1., 1978). It recognizes, also, that all-volunteer

forces (AVFs) operate on market principles that place them in direct competition with

other institutions for both new recruits and those fully or partly trained (Pinch, 1982),

3
who are seen to be motivated primarily by economic factors (Moskos, 1977; Segal

and Segal, 1983) (although some analysts, e.g., Faris 1984, see non-economic factors

being implicated as well). Structurally, the assumption is one of a formal contractual,

limited obligation between the individual and the military: that is, individual service in

return for monetary rewards and other incentives (Moskos, 1973, Segal et. a/., 1974),

rather than on informal arrangements which are binding on the individuals and

determined exclusively by the military institution.

The above may be termed the social mode since its adherents

tend to argue that failure of the military to incorporate dominant social and cultural

value trends -- e.g., equality of employment opportunity -- is likely to lead to various

forms of disruption and withdrawal of public support, which, ultimately, threatens its

survivability (c.f., Olson, 1978; Kasurak, 1982; Pinch, 1982; Segal, 1993).

The operational imperatives and social imperatives models are analytic

distinctions only and, as such, both simplify and exaggerate the differences found in

the literature (e.g., Moskos, 1971, 1978; Hauser, 1973; Bradford and Brown, 1973;

Cotton, 1979, 1981; Cotton and Pinch, 1985). However, the opposing models and

images are useful in examining the issue of human and equality rights and freedoms in

the military. Since issues involved are linked to both progressive rationalizing trends

and dominant social value trends (Segal and Segal, 1983; Segal, 1993), and since

irrefutable evidence (usually of a scientific and empirical nature) is necessary to obtain

exemptions under Canadian legislation, the operational imperatives model is

progressively weakened and, concomitantly, the social imperatives model is

strengthened.

Nonetheless, in areas where the exemptions are demonstrably consistent with

societal trends or are otherwise empirically supported in relation to institutional

requirements, then the operational imperatives model holds. For example, this has

been the case with respect to retention of a compulsory retirement age in the CF.

4
Despite the interplay between the two models, the general shift is definitely toward the

social imperatives model--certainly in Canada and, to a greater or lesser extent, in

other Western militaries as well (c.f., Segal, 1993). This trend is likely to be

accelerated under conditions that prevail in the Post-Cold War period ( Moskos, 1991;

Segal, 1993). That being said, when it comes to decisions on policy change involving

social issues, such as the lifting of restrictions on the employment of women or

homosexuals in the armed forces, it can be seen that these models may well come

into conflict. In such cases, empirically based arguments carry considerable weight.

Beyond that are considerations of which values represent the greater social good (Q±,

Macrae, 1976), in whatever manner that is determined. In this regard, the context of

change, including the degree to which legislation prescribes such change, is likely to

be consequential to the final decision.

THE CONTEXT OF CHANGE IN THE CANADIAN MILITARY

Canada is, officially, both a bilingual (English and French) and multicultural

society. Demographically, socially and culturally, Canadian society is decidedly

pluralistic: typified not only as a cultural mosaic, but having been said to contain

"mosaics within mosaics" (Bibby, 1990). In short, it has significant concentrations of

identifiable ethnic and cultural groups, such that the "management of diversity" has

become an integral part of Canadian institutional and organizational mandates (g..f.,

The MacDonald Series, 1993).

As in other Western militaries operating under the AVF format, Canada's armed

forces have had to accommodate substantial economic, social, political and

technological change over the pest three decades. For example, in the mid-1960s it

was for reasons of cost-reduction and elimination of duplication and redundancy that

the three separate services (navy, army and airforce) were amalgamated into a single

unified force. Other internal policy changes have also brought the CF closer to the

mainstream of Canadian society (Cotton et.al., 1978; Pinch, 1982).

5
However, the most far-reaching impact on the CF has resulted from social

change that has received expression in legislation in the form of increased individual,

human or equality rights and freedoms. Over a period of slightly more than a decade,

the Canadian Parliament has passed legislation that explicitly bans discrimination on a

number of grounds, formally guarantees the rights and freedoms of individuals and

generally encourages social representation and democratization within all institutions of

Canadian society. To these we shall now turn.

LEGISLATION AFFECTING INDMIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

The legislation is contained in seven acts (Pinch, 1991b), passed or amended

between 1971 and 1988, which include: the Official Languages Act; the Access to

Information Act; the Privacy Act; the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA); the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms (Charter); the Multicultural Act; and, the Employment Equity

Act. In one way or another, they all offer protection and/or guarantees for individuals

in general, or for those within identifiable groups, in particular. The cumulative impact

of this legislation has been to shift a great deal of power away from institutions and,

potentially, at least, into the hands of individual Canadians. This shift, backed by

strong enforcement agencies and the legal system, has been primarily responsible for

bringing about social reform and increased democratization in the CF and elsewhere.

(For a full discussion of the above legislation, see Pinch, 1991b).

Human and Charter Rights. Legislation with by far the most profound effect on

Canadian government institutions, including the military, is contained in the Canadian

Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter)

(Government of Canada, 1978, 1987). Enacted in 1977 and proclaimed in March,

1978, the CHRA is couched in the language of social equality and individual rights.

For example, Section Two states:

6
Every individual should have equal opportunity with other

individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is

able and wishes to have consistent with his or her duties and

obligations as a member of society.

The CHRA prohibits discrimination on ten grounds: race, national or ethnic origin,

colour, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy and childbirth), marital status, family

status, a pardoned conviction, and physical or mental disability (including

disfigurement and dependence on drugs or alcohol).

The CHRA is administered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)

which operates independently of the government (in fact, it reports to Parliament) and

has powers of investigation, adjudication and enforcement for human rights

complaints. Any individual under its jurisdiction, including members of the CF, has the

right to lodge a complaint with the CHRC. If determined to be valid, the complaint is

investigated and there is a conciliation process that takes place between the CHRC

and the respondent (which can be a person or an organization). If conciliation fails,

the case is heard by a tribunal.

With respect to any institution, if a tribunal determines discrimination, it can

declare a policy null and void, order that a practice be stopped, order costs,

compensation and damages to be paid, and have a person hired, rehired, etc. It can

also levy fines against persons interfering with the filing of a complaint or appeal. A

tribunal decision can be appealed to a Federal Court, but only on legal questions

rather than on the soundness of a decision. The CHRC, in general, and human rights

tribunals, in particular, have a great deal of power which they vigorously wield. For

example, the CHRC often plays an advocacy role in publicizing discriminatory

practices that it perceives and otherwise prosecutes precedent-setting cases. Service

to complainants is provided free of charge, and this includes lawyers for tribunals and

appeals.

7
Exclusions under the CHRA are made on the basis of demonstrated bona fide

requirements, with the burden of proof resting on the organization or institution

involved in the discriminatory practice. Thus, for example, previous restrictions on the

employment of servicewornen were identified as discriminatory, and the CF had to

justify why this was the case before a human rights tribunal. Despite the best scientific

evidence and professional opinion that could be mustered, the CF were unable to

convince the tribunal that restrictions should remain and, in February 1989, the CF

were ordered to integrate women into all roles and environments, except submarines

(Pinch, 1991b).

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) is part of the Constitution Act of

1981 (Government of Canada, 1987). Section 15 of the Charter, which came into effect

in April 1985, goes well beyond the CHRA in guaranteeing individual equality before

and under the law, and equal protection and benefit under the law. Provisions for

fostering programmes and activities (eg., affirmative action) to ameliorate "conditions of

disadvantaged groups" are also contained in the Charter, along with sections dealing

with democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, official language and educational

rights.

As the supreme law of the land, the Charter invalidates all laws that are

inconsistent with its provisions. Virtually every provision in the Charter has the

potential to impact on the CF, to a greater or lesser degree, both with respect to the

proscribed areas of discrimination set out in the CHRA, and others, both listed and

unlisted in the Charter itself (Government of Canada, 1985).

As with the CHRA, the Charter does provide for limits and exceptions on the

rights it contains; however, these must be reasonable in a free and democratic

society, prescribed by law and demonstrably justifiable. Again, the burden of proof is

placed on the institution or organization seeking the exemption or exclusion. Also,

whereas the CHRC hears CHRA complaints, those under the Charter are processed

8
through the Federal Court of Canada. While the complainant may have to bear legal

costs for the Charter cases, there was, for the first several years, a *court challenge

program" that paid for cases of social significance.

The majority of the provisions of both the CHRA and the Charter were based on

master trends in Canadian society. This was expressly recognized in a formal

discussion paper on the Charter, issued by the Department of Justice (Government of

Canada, 1985).

While laws and policies expressed by governments may influence the

norms of society by imposing constraints, they do not create norms.

Law usually flows from norms, not the contrary.

Thus, an argument for exclusion from the provisions of the CHRA or the Charter

is seen as an argument that runs contrary to Canadian social norms. In this regard,

while the Canadian military's response to the legislation has been characterized by

philosophical adherence to an operational imperatives model of military service (i.e., by

initially resisting change), it has pragmatically accepted, and actively implemented,

change toward the social imperatives model. This situation has resulted primarily from

the CF's inability to provide bona fide justifications for exclusions, as adjudicated by

human rights tribunals and the courts.

Three points may be made from the foregoing, based on Canadian experience.

First, it generally has not been sufficient for the military to argue that it is a unique

institution, with unique requirements, when it comes to restricting individual or equality

rights guaranteed under the CHRA or the Charter. Evidence for exemptions must be

clearly and unambiguously related to performance outcomes. Second, the view that

only military professionals can fully and accurately apprehend the consequences of

internal policy change on the military has not necessarily been accepted by tribunals

or the courts; this is in contrast to courts in the U.S. which, in some cases at least,

9
have shown deference to the military on issues concerning cohesion, morale and

discipline (Noone, 1989). Third, and relatedly, arguments of "customer preference" or

"convenience" for exclusionary practices tend to carry little weight in human and

equality rights judgments. Thus, non-acceptance of specific social categories (e.g.,

women and homosexuals), by a significant minority or even a majority of service

members, is unlikely to be taken as justification for their exclusion from military

employment, under the provisions of the CHRA and/or the Charter. These are

important considerations in the analysis of policy change respecting sexual orientation.

DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS

This section reviews the policy, research and other documentation that serve as

indicators of change in sexual orientation policy in the CF over a relatively short

period. This analysis seeks to highlight the connecting threads and to convey the

factors that have influenced the progress of change. It will be shown that unrelenting

external pressure on the military-from human and charter rights legislation, from

Parliamentary bodies and, laterally, from the legal complaints process--led to changes

in policy and practice and, ultimately, to the cancellation of the exclusionary policy.

The examination below reveals that unambiguous social and behavioral science

data and other convincing evidence to support the status quo could not be produced.

This reduced the military's ability to mount an effective legal defence against specific

complaints of former service members placed before the Court, and, more generally,

evidence was insufficient to justify exclusion of known homosexuals as "a reasonable

limit in a free and democratic society" under the provisions of the Charter.

Background: Homosexuaifty in the Canadian Military. Consistent with changes

in the society and the law, and reflected in policy, views and definitions of what

homosexuality and homosexuals represent have evolved in the Canadian military over

the past three decades. Before integration and unification, regulations differed

10
somewhat across the separate services in both the labelling of homosexuality or

homosexual acts and in the procedures to be followed in "disposal" of cases brought

to the attention of military authorities - that each service member had a duty to report.

The Navy regulations referred to "unnatural offenses" and "homosexuality generally,"

the Army to *sexual offenses" / "abnormal sexual tendencies" and the Air Force to

"homosexuality and gross indecency". Regulations tended to reflect a strong moral

aversion to homosexuals. In fact, naval authorities viewed homosexuality as an "evil"

and an abomination to be stamped out, and directed "attention of all concerned to the

dangers - spiritual, moral and physical - of unnatural practices and of condoning

these practices in others" (Department of National Defence, 1962).

Specific commonalities across all three services were: the requirement for

action by the commanding officer (CO) regarding suspected or known homosexuals

or homosexual acts; investigation by military security officials or military police; a

medical examination; the possibility of civil action under the Criminal Code of Canada

or court martial; and release of those whom investigation identified as homosexual or

otherwise "sexually deviant".

Investigations of homosexuals or alleged deviant acts were to be conducted

with care; and cautions were built into each of the regulations lest misidentification

occur, causing embarrassment or damage to the character of the service member

involved, as well as to the public image of the service. Review by higher headquarters

formed part of the safeguards in all procedures and the individual was to be released

as being "unsuitable for further service" (i.e., an honorable discharge), unless he or

she had been convicted of a serious offence in civil court or by court martial, when

release for misconduct was to be seriously considered (Department of National

Defence, 1961; 1962; 1964).

Homosexuals were classified as "sexual deviants," and were considered a threat

to good order, discipline and security; hence they were either to be prohibited from

11
entering the armed forces, in the first instance, or, if they managed to enroll

undetected, were to be released upon being identified. This view of the homosexual

as deviant persisted when r-gulations were amalgamated into one Canadian Forces

Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, Sexual Deviation - Investigation, Medical

Examination and Disposal, following unification of the three services.

As part of the reform of the Canadian criminal justice system in 1967, sexual

relations between consenting adults ceased to be a criminal offence (Zuliani, 1986);

thus there was no basis in civil law to visit penalties upon known or suspected

homosexuals, unless specific offenses had been committed. But under the CF

regulations, it was still the duty of all service members to report suspected or known

homosexuals and the duty of the CO to have each reported case investigated. In fact,

the process for "disposal" of homosexual cases remained virtually unchanged until the

mid-1970s. However, the vast majority of homosexual releases from the CF were of

the administrative type and not the result of disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

In 1976, CFAO 19-20 was amended and retitled 'Homosexuality - Sexual

Abnormality Investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal". Whereas homosexuality

and sexual abnormality had been previously lumped together, they now received

separate definition: that is, a "homosexual is one who has a sexual propensity for

person's of one's own sex"; and "sexual abnormality is any form of sexual behaviour

not conforming with accepted moral standards or constituting an offence under the

Criminal Code of Canada, e.g., voyeurism, exhibitionism, gross indecency, bestiality".

The requirement of persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline to report

suspected or known homosexuals and sexual abnormals to their CO remained; also,

whereas previously, service women could only be questioned in the presence of a

women officer, a women non-commissioned officer was now considered acceptable if

the former was not available. While this represented a degree of "fine-tuning", the

impact for homosexuals remained the same; they would be reported, investigated and,

12
if confirmed, compulsorily (but usually honorably) released from the CF. Theoretically,

at least, this was the case even iN a member was a "passive homosexual" or if it was

established that propensity for one's own sex existed.

Impetus for Change: Charter-Related Influences. The impetus for change in the

policy came with the promulgation of the CHRA and the Charter, as earlier indicated.

The latter gave rise to a review of all laws and regulations governing institutions within

Federal jurisdiction - including the military. Moreover, the Canadian Hu;nan Rights

Commission (CHRC) began almost immediately to advocate for inclusion of sexual

orientation as part of the prohibited grounds in the CHRA. This pressure has

remained up to the present time, and likely has had an indirect bearing on the policy

change recently implemented in the CF.

Government Action. The first phase of the review of the equality rights

provisions of the Charter (Section 15) was released by the Canadian Justice

Department in January, 1985, as Equalitv Issues in Federal Law: A Discussion Paper

(Section 15 became effective 17 April 1985). The paper only highlighted those areas

that appeared not to conform to the Charter but made clear that follow-up action on

offending statutes and regulations was to be conscientiously reviewed. It offered three

simple suggestions as to what constituted discrimination under the Charter (1985):

first, "when unnecessary distinctions are made for irrelevant and capricious reasons";

second, distinctions for "unnecessary reasons that are not relevant in the

circumstances"; and, third, "when neutral administration and laws have the effect of

disadvantaging people already in need of protection under Section 15". In

commenting on areas of possible non-conformity, the CF were singled out for attention

in five areas: mandatory retirement ages; physical and medical employment

standards; the recognition of common law relationships; the employment of women;

and, sexual orientation.

13
These areas formed part of the hearings and discussions of a Parliamentary

Committee on Equality Rights, established in February 1985. In its report, the

Committee (1985) recommended, among other things, that the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police (RCMP) and the CF "bring their employment practices into conformity

with the (CHRA) as amended to prohibit discrimination on the bases of sexual

orientation". The Committee noted that it was not convinced by reasons advanced by

the RCMP or the CF during its deliberations for continuing discrimination against

homosexuals, which were that members:

frequently serve in isolated posts in close physical proximity ... train and

often live in confined quarters; homosexual members may be subject to

blackmail; some countries to which members may be posted make

homosexual relations illegal; the presence of homosexual members

undermines morale and confidence; and homosexual members are

excluded for their own protection.

In particular, the Committee held that the arguments were based on stereotypical

views of homosexuals, that undue weight was given to the sensitivities of others, that

risk of blackmail stemmed from current exclusionary policies, and that, further,

heterosexuals are as vulnerable to blackmail as are homosexuals. If the RCMP and

the CF could not persuade a human rights tribunal that their policy was based on a

bona fide occupational reqbjirement, it was to be changed.

A further report, entitled Toward ,gugiit, was published by the Justice

Department in 1986, as a response to the Parliamentary Committee's

recommendations. It supported most of the recommendations made by the

Committee, including the recommendation that the CHRA be amended to include

sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination and stated the

Governments' view was 'that one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether one can

perform a job..." (1986). Even though the Government affirmed its interest in the

"requirement of the Armed Forces to be operationally effective in the interest of

14
national security%, the CF's position in barring known homosexuals from service was

substantially undermined, and the CF were put in a position of formally defending the

exclusionary policy.

Department of National Defence (DND)ICF Response. In response to the

CHRA, the Charter and the three documents just reviewed, a Charter Task Force

(CTF) was established *to examine and make recommendations on courses of action

available to the CF in pursuit of the Governments' objectives set out in Toward

Equali. (Department of National Defence, 1986). One of the five issues examined

was sexual orientation.

For our purposes, the CTF study should be considered as part of "phase one"

of a policy review that began in 1985 and did not formally end until the ban was lifted

in 1992. During the CTF's study, which lasted some six months, both the Associate

Minister of National Defence (AMND) and the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS)

appeared before the (Parliamentary) Standing Committee on National Defence and the

Standing Committee on Equality Rights, respectively. In April 1986, the AMND was

asked to assure the Committee that action to release militarily qualified homosexuals

would not be taken during the CTF's examination of the sexual orientation issue. The

AMND stated that it would be behaviour and not just the fact of a CF member being a

homosexual, that would lead to dismissal. Inappropriate behaviour of the individual,

regardless of sexual orientation, could lead to release. But the simple assertion by an

informant that an individual was a homosexual would not be adequate reason to take

release action. Although this response questioned the "propensity clause" and the

policy of the CO acting on the simple identification of a CF members as homosexual,

the CFAO 19-20 remained unamended.

When the CDS was queried by the Committee in June 1986, as to the status of

CFAO 19-20, he responded that it had not been changed, but that given the new

position indicated by the government, homosexuals would not be released from the

15
CF "strictly and simply because they might be labelled homosexuals*. Also, cases

would not be disposed of without the personal sanction of the Assistant-Deputy

Minister (Personnel) or himself.

These statements and others made by the Minister of National Defence, without

any modification to CFAO 19-20, created incongruence between stated policy and the

appropriate course of action to be taken at the unit level. For example, there is no

evidence that "appropriate" versus "inappropriate" homosexual behaviour were defined,

and CF members who were confirmed to be homosexual continued to be released.

Although the exact numbers and the circumstances in each case are not known for

this period of policy ambiguity, 60 identified or self-admitted homosexuals left the CF

between 1986 and 1992 (DND, 1993). Policy remained in this state of uncertainty

during and beyond the life of the CTF study, a brief summary of which is given below.

The Charter Task Force (CTF). In approaching the study of sexual orientation,

the CTF undertook to assess "the probability of adverse effect" on national security of

removing the barriers to homosexual enrollment and retention, and it limited its

examination to homosexuality as it referred to male homosexuals and lesbians (1986,

p. 3). While acknowledging that homosexuals had completed successful careers and

that they were "capable of performing the duties of all members" (op. cit.), the CTF

Final Report emphasized that assessment was being made "of the potential impact of

the presence of known (my emphasis) homosexuals on operational effectiveness in

the CF, particularly in war" (op. cit.). The data sources were recent experiences with

the presence of known homosexuals in the CF, attitudinal surveys of the public and

serving members, and the policies of other nations. Arguments were made under the

general headings of: social environment; cohesion and morale; confidence in the CF;

discipline; privacy and equality; recruiting and retention; polices of other nations; and

medical implications. They are briefly summarized below.

16
Social Environment. The CTF noted there were 'substantial reservations* in

acceptance of homosexuals among Canadians and citizens of the Western world; that

negative attitudes were deeply rooted, difficult to change, and could lead to violence

against homosexuals. The public was "uneasym regarding employment of

homosexuals in the CF, with men being divided in their opinion and a majority of

women (59%) being in favour. Sizable minorities of both genders indicated

homosexuals would decrease CF effectiveness.

Cohesion and Morale. The CTF cited survey results which indicated that most

CF members opposed the idea of working with homosexuals in high stress-low privacy

conditions. Underlying causes were heterosexuals' anxiety and discomfort over the

prospect of direct or indirect personal contact with homosexuals: said to be

influenced by media reports and previous experience with homosexuals. Further, it

was argued that subordinate reactions to known homosexual leaders would result in

diminished respect and confidence, and homosexual leaders would be unable to elicit

the obedience from subordinates that is required in the CF. This was supported by

stated intentions of CF survey respondents; 45% of CF males and 20% of CF females

would refuse to be supervised by a homosexual of the same gender. According to

the CTF, mutual acceptance and respect are lost when homosexuality is discovered,

and this leads to a breakdown in cohesion, social isolation of the homosexual and

even to harassment and assault.

Confidence in the CF. The CTF argued that employment of homosexuals in the

armed services would reduce confidence in the CF among heterosexual members.

Drawing on CF survey results, which indicated that 80% of males and 47% of females

surveyed predicted a decrease in the effectiveness of the CF, the CTF thus expected

loss of confidence in the CF and adverse impact on morale. Bonding and team spirit

would be impaired by the presence of homosexuals, causing a breakdown in

cohesion, especially in operational units. Statements from the U.S. Court and from

17
U.S. sociologists that homosexuals would not comply with group mores or conform to

"the dominant orientation" of the military were used to buttress these conclusions.

Disiine. The CTF observed that discipline plays a central role in an effective

military force. Subordinates must respond to orders from their supervisors, but there

is a fear that homosexual supervisors would use their power for sexual ends. Not only

would subordinates react unfavourably toward a homosexual authority, and there is a

strongly expressed view that homosexuals would be verbally and physically harassed,

especially in the army and the navy.

The above views were considered reinforced by data on sexual assault in the

CF. From 1981 to 1984, homosexuals were alleged to have been responsible for 41

incidents compared to heterosexuals' responsibility for 197, or about four times as

many incidents as were heterosexuals. A review of homosexual incidents from 1966

to 1986 involved cases of abuse of rank and authority, preferential treatment of other

homosexuals, and imposition of their practices on others by force, threats, bribery,

favours and persuasion. Overall, employment of known homosexuals was predicted

to erode standards of discipline in the CF.

Privacy and Equality. Unlike conditions in other occupations, the CTF pointed

out that CF members live and work in very close contact with one another. For

example, they share common latrine and shower facilities and these might stimulate

sexual advances by homosexuals toward heterosexual members. The latter do not

object to unavoidable, close physical proximity and contact with other heterosexuals

but they are repulsed by the possibility of stimulating a same-sex homosexual. This is

supported by CF survey results which indicate 62% of males and 41% of females

would refuse to share showers and sleeping accommodations with homosexuals of

the same gender. To force such a condition would violate equality rights that have

been accorded to heterosexual men and women; the alternative of providing four

18
separate sets of accommodation and hygiene facilities (especially in the navy) might

be possible, but not practical.

Recruiting and Retention. Although accepting homosexuals could potentially

broaden the recruitment and selection pool, the CTF concluded this would be more

than offset by a reduction in attractiveness of the CF for heterosexuals, and decreased

support by CF members, friends and relatives of potential candidates--major sources

of influence for CF participation (c.t., James, 1981). This is borne out by responses of

1,200 recent enrollees, of whom 38% of men and 26% of women stated that the

enrollment of known homosexuals would have been an important consideration in their

decision to join the CF (Zuliani, 1986).

Policies of Other Nations. The CTF Final Report noted that most Western

nations have some restrictions on homosexuals. The United Kingdom (U.K.), the U.S.,

New Zealand and Australia (since revoked) have total exclusionary policies, while only

Norway and the Netherlands have no limitations on homosexual employment. This

was offered as additional support for the maintenance of the status quo.

Medical Implications. Homosexuals were argued to be greater risks for sexually

transmitted diseases (STDs); therefore such diseases as Hepatitis B and AIDS were

predicted to increase. Problems would be encountered with blood transfusions on the

battlefield. Screening costs for detection of diseases and ensuring uncontaminated

blood would be extremely high, as would be the cost of treatment and care with the

expected increase of STDs. However, apart from increased costs, there was no

compelling medical reason why an open policy toward recruiting homosexuals could

not be effected.

Conclusions. Overall, the CTF concluded that there was widespread

unacceptance and negativism towards homosexuality in Canadian society and in the

CF, that homosexuals were themselves averse to their sexual orientation becoming

19
known, and there existed policies of exclusion of known homosexuals among all

nations with voluntary military systems-including in the U.K. and the U.S., nations

most culturally similar to Canada. The presence of known homosexuals was assessed

as being detrimental to cohesion, morale, discipline, leadership, recruiting, medical

fitness, privacy rights of members and, ultimately, to operational effectiveness. Thus

continuation of the policy of not employing known homosexuals was recommended.

Observations on the CTF Final Report. The CTF Final Report, put forward to the

Canadian Government as the CF and DND position on sexual orientation in October

1986, represented interpretation of the data used for a position that seemed widely

and strongly held within the CF (c.f. Zuliani,1986). As such, it reflected an operational

imperatives viewpoint. Much of the empirical data were taken from a research study

especially commissioned for that purpose (Zuliani, 1986), which will be reviewed

presently. However, it is important to note some of the relevant issues that the CTF

Report omitted.

First, there was no attempt to take account of the direction of the trend toward

greater acceptance of homosexuality in Canadian society, which Zuliani (1986, p. 3-5)

had noted in his report. For example, polling data show that the vast majority of

Canadians felt that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be illegal, a

majority wanted to see protection for homosexuals in employment and access to

services embedded in the CHRA, and a majority agreed that homosexuals should be

employed in the CF. In this regard, the CTF's use of statistics was somewhat

selective and interpreted to support the exclusionary policy.

Second, there was no attempt to identify responses based on myths,

stereotypes and prejudices regarding homosexuals and no discussion of possible

methods (e.g., education, leadership influence, heterosexual-homosexual contact, etc.)

to overcome them (Kristiansen, 1989; Shawver, 1991a,b,c). In this respect, the CTF

20
failed to meet one of the major objections of the Parliamentary Committee, noted

above.

Third, an undifferentiated view of the CF environment permeates the CTF

Report, suggesting that the preponderance of personnel are deployed in operational

roles when, in fact, these account for no more than one-third of all military personnel

(Cotton et. al., 1978). In attempting to develop an operational imperatives argument

for exclusion, the CTF virtually ignored almost 70% of the CF environment where

negative consequences of homosexual employment (e.g., on readiness) would be

predictably few and manageable. Relatedly, there is no analysis of the efficacy of

management strategies from other nations' militaries employing homosexuals, and

how they might have been translated to the CF.

Fourth, there is no assessment of the exclusionary policy as a possible causal

factor in disciplinary problems created by homosexuals, and the reported incidence of

homosexual assault in relation to heterosexual assault was based on inadequate and

unreliable investigation methods. In fact, the incident rate for the periods reported

remains unknown (DND, 1993).

Fifth, the CTF Report relies heavily on the expressed dislikes and preferences of

service member responses on a survey, and offers largely "customer preference"

arguments that carry little we!,gt under the CHRA and the Charter. This plays against

the aforementioned criticism c. the Parliamentary Committee that undue weight is

given to the sensitivities of members and insufficient concern for those who are

excluded from military service.

RESEARCH RELATED TO CTF STUDY ISSUES

Since the CTF study raised virtually all the issues considered relevant to the

employment of homosexuals, this section reviews research and research-based

21
commentary related to those issues (even though only one of the documents was

completed within the life of the CTF). Once this has been done we shall return to

policy and other issues.

The Zuliani Study. As noted, the most current and systematic data used by the

CTF were generated by an attitude survey of 6,580 CF members, conducted by Zuliani

(1986). Land, sea and air operations units were proportionately represented, and

women, francophones, operational units, and basic trainees (both officer and noncommissioned) were over-represented, while males, anglophones, support and

isolated units were under-represented. The sample was drawn during a period of

block leave and this may have affected the representativeness of the sample (Zuliani,

1986).

Respondents were administered an anonymous, 10-part Attitudes Toward

Employment of Homosexuals (ATEH) survey, which elicited information on the basis of

scaled items, as well as open-ended comment. It attempted to assess the attitudes of

CF members toward homosexuals in general, and the potential impact of policy

change in areas such as: heterosexuals and homosexuals living and working

together; confidence in the effectiveness of CF; and recruiting. It also sought to

identify "determinants of the reactions and attitude of homosexuals toward

homosexuals", and to arrive at an estimate of the number of homosexuals in the CF

(found to be less than 2% "exclusively homosexual" and less than 1.5% "nonexclusively homosexual", based on self-reporting).

In summarizing his study results, Zuliani (1986) concluded that there existed

among CF members a good deal of negativism toward homosexuals being openly

permitted to serve in the CF. For example, with respect to cohesion and morale, he

noted that heterosexual CF members expressed concerns with privacy: "many would

refuse to undress, share shower facilities or sleeping accommodation with known

homosexuals". Heterosexual males-particularly those in the land and sea operations

22
groups - would be unwilling to work with openly homosexual men, with many

heterosexual men indicating they would refuse to be supervised by male homosexuals

(women were somewhat less negative, with only small percentages indicating they

would refuse to be supervised by homosexuals).

Zuliani further concluded that homosexuals would be subjected to harassment

and physical violence; that CF members were concerned with contracting disease

from homosexuals, and *many would refuse blood transfusions from known

homosexuals for fear of contracting AIDS;" and, that CF members generally agreed

that operational effectiveness and the CF image would be reduced by the employment

of homosexuals. These results were interpreted to predict adverse effects on team

spirit, bonding, confidence in leadership and CF image, impairments to cohesion and

morale (leading to personnel problems), and an overall threat to military effectiveness.

On the face of it, Zuliani's report appears to offer clear-cut evidence for the

continuing ban on homosexuals in the CF; indeed, as summarized above, this was the

thrust of the CTF Report. However, there exist a number of deficiencies which call the

results and their interpretation into question; these were pointed out by three external

reviewers (Kristiansen, 1989; Henderson, 1990; Suedfeld, 1991).

The Kristiansen Review. Kristiansen (1989), whose review is the most

comprehensive, detailed, and critical, makes observations in areas of theoretical

rationale, methodoloav, data analysis, the presentation and interpretation , and

inferences (my emphasis) drawn from the results. Overall, she finds the Zuliani report

extremely deficient.

As to theoretical rationale, Kristiansen (1989) raises four criticisms of Zuliani's

report: (1) "the causal impact of demographic characteristics such as age and sex

was overstated;" (2) *the explanation of gender differences in attitudes toward

homosexuals was simplistic and uninformative;" (3) "the discussion of the theory of

23
reasoned action was inaccurate;" (4) "the motivational basis for (male) service

members attitudes and likely role of social norms was not discussed;" and, (5)

"attitudes toward homosexuality may be irrelevant in the military context (and) may

have little effect on overt behaviour of service members".

The first criticism speaks to the logic of causal inference, which, of course,

should not be made on the basis of correlational or associational data. Henderson

(1990) makes a similar observation and refers to "the failure to acknowledge great

leaps of inference and overstatement of conclusions". The second criticism is based

on competing theoretical explanations of male-female differences in attitude formation

regarding homosexuals. This would have been relevant if an attitude change strategy

was being developed, but was not crucial in Zuliani's study. However, criticisms (3)

and (4), above, are important since the conditions under which behaviour may be

predicted were not specified and the role of social norms-which are central to both

attitudes and overt behaviours of CF members-was ignored. For example, the

prevailing norm of non-acceptance of homosexuals would be expected to produce at

least a proportion of the negative intentions observed in Zuliani's study; by the same

token, a norm of acceptance would, conceivably, produce a more positive effect.

Finally, Kristiansen's suggestion that attitudes of CF members are irrelevant must be

qualified; the influence of socialization, training, regulations and supervision on CF

members is by no means absolute, and eressed views that run counter to military

teaching and direction may indeed be disruptive. The issue is not that attitudes have

no relevance, but that the effects of other moderating influences must be taken into

account if meaningful interpretations are to be made.

On the methods side, Kristiansen (1989) notes that: (1) Othe construct validity

of the measure of attitudes toward homosexuals is unknown;" (2) "the validity of the

measures of personal and organizational outcomes is suspect owing to the potential

misunderstanding, of these items;" (3) "the timing of the survey may have affected

service members' response;" and, (4) "justification for excluding the responses of non24
exclusively heterosexuals from the analysis is not convincing'. Again, some of these

criticisms are more important than others. For example, regarding (1), given the lack

of validity data, a confirmatory factor analysis would have been most appropriate, to

ensure that the factors conceptually indicated did, in fact, exist. As regards (2), Zuliani

indicated that there appeared to be some misunderstanding of the term

"heterosexual," and many of the items lacked specificity as to action, context and time,

not to mention the fact that a number called for CF members to make predictions

regarding organizational outcomes (e.g., on operational effectiveness, recruitment,

etc.) that even the most knowledgeable would be hard-pressed to assess accurately.

Criticism regarding (3) is justified in that the "AIDS scare" was not only prevalent during

the survey period but redolent with misinformation and hysteria; and regarding(4), in

the interest of providing a complete picture of CF members' reactions to homosexuals,

the "non-exclusively heterosexual" category of respondents should have been

included. This is a rather weak objection given that the major concern was with the

reaction of heterosexuals.

Kristiansen (1989) raises numerous technical observations on the validity of the

data analysis and results, that call the report into question; however, only those

considered to be of major import are highlighted as follows: (1) the regression

analyses were performed incorrectly and, therefore, "valid conclusions cannot be

based on them;" and (2) "the presentation and interpretation of many of the findings

appear to be biased and designed to present homosexuals in the most unfavourable

light". The point at (1) appears justified, since the manner in which variables are

entered in a regression equation can indeed affect the results and the conclusions

drawn from them. As to point (2), there are several examples (e.g., contact with

homosexuals, harassment expectations), where the results do not permit clear-cut

negative depictions and, indeed, the convention in this type of study is to link neutral

and positive responses. Also, the fact that Zuliani had omitted a large body of

literature which would have debunked some of the negative views regarding

homosexuals (c.f., Shawver, 1991 a,b,c, below) and his tendency toward "great leaps

25
of inference* (Henderson, 1990) suggests, at a minimum, some degree of bias in his

report.

In addition to these technical observations, Kristiansen (1989) further noted that

the most uncontroversial findings of the survey suggest that "service members are

misinformed about homosexual issues". There is no question that CF members are

generally misinformed regarding homosexuals; given that this is amenable to change

through education, it should have figured into Zuliani's report and, in turn, been

translated into the CTF Final Report. In criticizing Zuliani's research, Kristiansen (1989:

36) points to the "value justification affect", which argues that people and organizations

will justify their attitudes by appealing to "universally held positive values". She

suggests that in trying to perpetuate an exclusionary policy, the CF are pursuing their

mission of national security as an end in itself, rather than national security's

underlying purpose which is to defend and maintain "a democracy rooted in values of

freedom and equality for all, including homosexuals". This is the social imperatives

argument that the military should embody the values that it is mandated to protect and

defend.

The Henderson Review. As previously indicated, Henderson (1990) finds

significant weaknesses in Zuliani's methodology and conclusions, including the

tendency to draw unqualified conclusions and inferences of his results. For example,

that unrestricted homosexual employment will lead to erosion of cohesion and morale

and pose a serious threat to military effectiveness are, according to Henderson,

unwarranted inferences, based on the method of inquiry used and results obtained.

However, unlike Kristiansen, who assesses Zuliani's survey as lacking research value,

Henderson (1990) believes that its results are useful if placed within the context of a

cohesion-combat performance impact model.

In his review, Henderson (1990) argues that survey results show open

homosexual employment will impact negatively on "primary groups", "horizontal

26
cohesion" and "vertical bonding'. In all areas, the arguments and conclusions he

advances are similar to those of the CTF Report, the difference being that they flow

from a more tightly conceptualized rationale of the importance of the primary group,

leader-follower cohesion and peer bonding to unit effectiveness.

To Henderson (1990, p. 6-8), the degree and intensity of negativism-expressed

in the survey by male soldiers toward homosexuals in general and as they specifically

relate to issues of sharing facilities and privacy-indicate the "potential for major

cleavages within the (CF) should homosexuals be enrolled and retained". Value

differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals would impede development and

sustainment of high performance combat units. Tensions arising over privacy needs

would lead to disruption and militate against teamwork, achievement of high standards

and survival/success on the battlefield. As Henderson himself suggests, researchbased examples are hard to come by, and he provides none.

The major argument advanced by Henderson (1990) with respect to horizontal

or peer cohesion is the need for an integrative value basis to foster "buddy relations"

which, in turn, sustain the individual soldier in the face of conditions of danger,

isolation and loneliness of the type encountered in listening post and similar missions.

"Such situations demand complete trust, confidence, and sharing of basic values if

soldiers are to develop and maintain the necessary teamwork and soldierly skills"

(p.9). The conflicting values observed in the Zuliani survey would be detrimental to

peer cohesion, as would be rumours, the threat to manliness, toughness, etc.,

attendant upon the inclusion of known homosexuals.

Other examples of threat to horizontal cohesion, as depicted in survey results,

revolve around the unacceptance of blood transfusions from homosexuals to

heterosexuals, owing to fear of AIDS, etc., and the additional conflict created by

"refusals". This, according to Henderson, would erode confidence in the medical

system and adversely impact on unit effectiveness.

27
Regarding vertil bo.ding, which refers to cohesion up and down the

leadership chain, Henderson sees homosexual participation as a barrier to leaders

building the essential "enduring primary and personal relationship with their soldiers*

(p.12). There should be agreement upon norms between the soldier and the leader

and these should be congruent with military objectives-which lead to common values

for guidance of "soldiers' day to day behaviour-. The presence of homosexuals would

pose obstacles in sustaining the leadership/followership process.

Sources of leadership influence are "expert powero (based on real or imputed

expertise), "reward/coercive power" (power to reward or punish), "legitimate power"

(power based on acquired cultural values), and, 'referent power" (power based on

personal identification). In Henderson's view, all four sources of influence need to be

used "to the fullest" under combat or wartime conditions, and would be adversely

effected by the inclusion of known homosexuals. But he is most concerned with the

loss of legitimate and referent power (the two most potent influences) that he believes

the antipathy expressed toward homosexuals by survey respondents would bring.

The presence of homosexuals in leadership positions or the association of leaders

implementing homosexual inclusion policies would lead to loss of legitimacy for those

in authority and for the military, at the same time that it would erode the close personal

relationship, identification, respect and trust of the follower for the leader. Full

development of leadership capabilities would be prevented and leader influence would

be curtailed.

Finally, Henderson (1990) notes that personal privacy of heterosexuals from the

gaze of same-sex homosexuals could not be guaranteed, and to segregate on the

basis of sexual orientation would be impractical.

Overall, Henderson's view is: given the strength of negative response in the

survey, the CF has the option of choosing either maintenance of combat effectiveness

or equal opportunity for homosexuals. Henderson's review is consistent with the

28
general thrust of the CTF Final Report, but it lacks demonstrable proofs of the negative

impact on cohesion by the presence of homosexuals. He also tends to fall into the

same trap as Zuliani-assuming that stated intentions and future behaviour are virtually

identical. Henderson assumes, as well, that social values, norms and attitudes are

static when, in fact, they are subject to change over time and conditions-and may be

accelerated through socialization, training and education [see, e.g., Kristiansen (1989),

above, and Shawver (1991, below)]. His analysis is also based on an all-male unit

scenario, which is not the direction of change in the CF and a number of other

militaries. It may be noted that many of the same predictions were made for increased

women's participation but they have not been borne out by experience, at least as far

as negative impact on operational effectiveness is concerned.

The Suedfeld Review. In his review, Suedfeld (1991 b) points up a number of

problems with Zuliani's survey, including a sampling bias, that he argues could

produce erroneous results. For example, bias was introduced by over-sampling

women, who tend to be more tolerant of homosexuals [note, however, that Zuliani

(1986) conducted a separate analysis for women, for which he was criticized by

Kristiansen (1989)]. Over-sampling of francophones and recruits/officer candidates

and under-sampling of support/isolated locations could have produced unknown

distortions. In Suedfeld's (p. 2-3) view, high stress locations, such as isolated posts,

hazardous situations, peacekeeping missions, etc., should be over-sampled and

intensely studied, since negative reactions and acute conflict are most likely to emerge

in these settings. Given the fact that many CF members surveyed would have served

in such environments makes this a rather weak criticism.

Suedfeld (p.3-6) makes a series of comments on "research artifacts" (factors

that confound results and interpretation). Unlike Kristiansen and Henderson, he

considers that the "ecological validity" (i.e., the survey resembled non-experimental,

everyday life) to be desirable and "in some ways extremely high". Also, he notes that,

despite the assurances given by test administrators-CF Personnel Selection Officers--

29
"expectancy" probably influenced the results of the survey, since it was administered

by and for the CF. In particular, serving homosexuals might have been reluctant to

admit their sexual orientation. While Suedfeld finds *test validity" and "question

phrasing* largely satisfactory, he believes that the definitions of heterosexual and

homosexual were inadequate, and that there was ambiguity in scoring the ATEH scale.

Despite these observations, Suedfeld tends to take the findings in the report at

face value. However, his analysis of the scale responses of the ATEH indicate to him

that CF heterosexuals are not merely homophobico, but that many react to the

possibility of homosexual enrolment with "angei and disgust (p.8).

Overall, Suedfeld agrees with the import of the study as expressed in Zuliani's

report; in fact, he states that the magnitude of negative reactions were probably

underestimated (p.9). Similar to Henderson, he agrees that "invasion of privacy" by

homosexuals, particularly under conditions of stress, danger, discomfort and already

tension-laden privacy conditions, is a serious concern. However, he stops short of

making dire predictions regarding degradation of operational or military effectiveness

should the policy be changed. The implication to be drawn from Suedfeld's review is

that we might expect the integration of known homosexuals to be fraught with

difficulty, but that does not necessarily mean that problems would be unresolvable or

that the resulting situation would be unmanageable. Again, the ideas provided by

Suedfeld are interesting but the evidence regarding exclusion or employment of known

homosexuals is inconclusive.

The Internal UDG Study. In 1990, Urban Dimensions Group, Inc. (UDG), was

contracted to replicate the Zuliani study: both to overcome some of the weaknesses

noted and to determine if attitudes of CF members had changed. Virtually all the

issues covered in the earlier survey were included in the UDG study (called the

Canadian Forces Internal Survey on Homosexual Issues), as well as additional

30
information to permit analysis of factors related to acceptance/non-acceptance of

homosexuals (UDG, 1991, p. 2, Appendix A). The study was completed in June 1991.

Unfortunately, a major error was made in sampling (for which the DND

accepted responsibility), which resulted in a restricted and unrepresentative sample.

Moreover, the response rate of the sample selected was just over 40% (2,479 out of a

possible 5,973)-low for a study conducted within the CF. Over-represented were

those who joined the CF in Atlantic Canada, senior officers and non-commissioned

members (NCMs), and those with long service; under-represented were those who

enrolled outside Atlantic Canada, junior officers and NCMs, and those with five or

fewer years of service. The magnitude of the sampling bias and the unacceptably low

response rate means the results cannot be generalized to CF members, as a whole,

and the use of inferential statistical procedures is inappropriate. However, as

cumulative information on the topic, the results are of some interest.

In general, the structure of the responses in the UDG survey were similar to

those reported by Zuliani (UDG. p. 23-24). For example, a greater proportion of men

than women exhibited hostility toward homosexuals, and men are more hostile toward

gay men than they are toward lesbians. Women are relatively less hostile to both

male and female homosexuals. As noted, owing to the restriction of the sample, direct

comparisons are not meaningful; however, for the respondent group, while significant

minorities are negative on a number of important dimensions, overall, the group is

relatively tolerant of homosexuals, and particularly so of female homosexuals.

On the negative side, the vast majority of respondents indicated that lifting the

prohibition on homosexuals would decrease operational effectiveness, and a majority

would have difficulty working alone with homosexuals or sharing toilet facilities with

them. Also, about 40% were doubtful that CF policy would protect heterosexuals from

being harassed by homosexuals, and 64% were doubtful that homosexuals would be

protected from harassment by heterosexuals. A minority of respondents predicted

31
various other negative effects if homosexuals were openly employed in the CF,

including: support for military service would be reduced; there would be less

willingness to give and receive first aid; and, there would be difficulties in interaction

between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

A number of relationships were reported which suggested the basis for

ameliorating negative attitudes (e.g., exposure to positive media messages, religious

affiliation, etc.) but, owing to sampling difficulties, they can be taken only as suggestive

rather than conclusive.

Review of UDG Study. Since reviews of the UDG report were completed by

Henderson (1991) and Suedfeld (1991) before the sampling error was discovered, it

would be unproductive to treat them in detail. However, among other deficiencies,

Henderson (1991, p. 13-14) commented on the under-representation of lower-ranking

CF members, higher educational levels, etc., of the sample as well as on the effect of

less direct attitude measures of feelings toward homosexuals. In his view, these

produce an under-estimation of negative effects and, therefore, the greater tolerance

noted in the UDG report is unwarranted. Henderson's actual analysis of the survey

results indicate an adverse impact on all forms of cohesion and short- and long-term

unit degradation. Again, the issue of privacy is raised as a particularly vexing problemif known homosexuals are permitted to openly enrol and serve in the CF.

Suedfeld (1991c, p. 1) finds the UDG survey carefully constructed and views

focus group interviews, which formed part of the survey methodology, as strong points

in the research design. However, he again points to research artifacts that may

confound the results and, again, the effect of a more "mature" sample of CF members

is noted-i.e., they would be expected to be more tolerant (social desirability). But he

also holds out the possibility that CF members may have responded mor negatively

than they actually were in order to discourage policy change--i.e., attitude

questionnaires are pQgr predictors of actual behaviour, a point made earlier by

32
Kristiansen and Henderson. After reviewing all the major indicators of the study,

Suedfeld (p. 14) makes the observation What while CF personnel are not universally

hostile to homosexuals, the predominant view is negative*- He predicts tension and

discomfort among the most vulnerable: "persons with less service and lower rank.. .in

ground and naval units", and envisages the possibility of other negative impacts on

discipline, retention and recruiting, as well as "skepticism" regarding protection of both

homosexuals and heterosexuals from harassing each other. However, "while

problems arising from a policy change would not be overwhelming, they would be

substantial and serous"; and the degree of disruption of CF members in a given unit

"would vary with a number of characteristics".

Overall, owing to its own deficiencies and the inconsistencies in the reviews, the

UDG study contributed little valid, systematic knowledge to the database on sexual

orientation or the on-going debate.

Other Research-Related InDuts on Specific Issues. As part of the datagathering process, Suedfeld (1991 a and c) reviewed an article by Cameron, Cameron

and Proctor (1989) on various social impacts of homosexuality and provided an

analysis of privacy issues. The former is an analysis of data from a U.S. national

sample of 4,340 respondents and a group of 842 Dallas, Texas, residents, conducted

in 1983-84. Samples were not representative of the civilian population and contained a

high proportion of whites, homosexuals and women. On the items that bear a

resemblance to those asked in Canadian surveys-eg., privacy violations and military

situations--heterosexuals supported discrimination against homosexuals and otherwise

were largely negative in their assessments of the impacts (Suedfeld, 1991c).

Homosexuals, on the other hand, were against discrimination and positive toward both

heterosexual and homosexuals. Military veterans were more negative toward

homosexuals than non-veterans. Much information reported by Cameron et. aL, which

cast homosexuals in a negative light is dated (e.g., 1940s, 1970s).

33
Suedfeld (1991c, p. 15) concludes from the study that "under conditions of

special stress.. .the problem (of privacy) would most likely become even more grave

than usual" and "the enrolment of known homosexuals.. .would be felt as an invasion of

privacy and a source of discomfort (for heterosexuals opposed to homosexuals);

homosexuals would have serious problems being accepted; and the Forces would

suffer in effectiveness, public esteem, morale and recruitingo. This is a fair comment, if

the Cameron et.al. study is taken at face value; however, it is inappropriate as a

generalization to the Canadian case, owing to the nature of the survey design and the

samples from which the results were obtained.

Privacy. Privacy issues were of paramount concern in the consideration of

policy change respecting homosexuals, as noted in the CTF Final Report and

elsewhere. Suedfeld (19918) offers a very detailed analysis of privacy in social

environments in all its conceptual, definitional and practical complexities. Important

points that he makes are that the need for privacy varies across cultures, nations,

socio-economic statuses, job statuses, genders, etc. For example, Suedfeld notes

that women appear to have lower privacy needs than do men. His analysis also

shows that "the search for privacy is marked by both individual and societal

ambivalence" (p. 16); and that actual privacy needs, and associated problem

identification and prescription are somewhat ambiguous. However, Suedfeld indicates.

that less than "optimal" privacy leads to 'privacy stress", which can result from, e.g.,

high social density or "unwanted touching of others". Privacy stress is likely to be high

in isolated environments, such as those found in the military (e.g., submarines,

isolated stations) and where social compatibility is important to avoiding conflict and

hostility (p. 25-34).

An individual's privacy stress is increased by the inability to control the degree

to which others have access to him or her. This can negatively affect adaptability of

the individual and the group. It can be reduced by environmental design, selecting

only those who will be compatible in a group, or teaching people how to adapt to

34
minimal privacy. Respected leaders (typically those who are less authoritarian) may

also help relieve privacy stress.

Overall, Suedfeld (1991a) provides a great deal of definitional information on

privacy as it relates to a range of environmental factors, and adds some useful

refinement of the privacy issues surrounding the introduction of known homosexuals

into the CF. For example, important points for policy consideration are the degree to

which perceptions of social and personal privacy can be influenced by environmental

design and the degree to which persons can be taught to operate within and adapt to

a variety of privacy conditions. This underscores the fact the preferences regarding

personal privacy are subject to both influence and change.

Bodily Modest. Social Acceptance. Gender Differences. Shawver (1991a,b,c),

offers specific research-based knowledge on issues related to bodily modesty,

problems resulting from associating with or accepting homosexuals, and the effect of

gender differences in tolerance of homosexuals. In the short space available here, it is

not possible to provide the detailed treatment of these topics covered by Shawver, and

only those points most directly related to the inclusion of known homosexuals in the

CF are offered. Shawver points out that, generally speaking, bodily modesty is

learned in family upbringing and through on6 s culture. "Modesty discomfort" is abouthalf that in same-sex situations as that in opposite-sex situations. Modesty is best

understood as part of habit formation, which is influenced by trends in fashion (rather

than as a rigid attitude or value), and is demonstrably one of the easiest to modify for

most people, through normal exposure or education. Even those who suffer from

"neurotic modesty discomfort" are normally responsive to simple therapeutic

techniques.

Shawver (1991a, p. 13-17) reports that required measures to change attitudes

and habits of bodily modesty are available. They involve providing people with

relatively non-threatening, embarrassing situations, using desensitization techniques,

35
providing "modesty screens", permitting personal techniques for hiding one's body

parts from view or minimizing viewing, and training people to reduce embarrassment

to others by learning not to stare at their bodies.

Shawver (1991a, p. 18) states there is no d evidence to show that

heterosexuals would be embarrassed undressing in front of same-gender

homosexuals, although there might be some initial embarrassment which, by and

large, could be overcome. Cameron id. aW.'s (1989) study (see Suedfeld's review,

above) cannot be taken as evidence to the contrary owing to their poorly worded

questions. According to Shawver (1991a), negative reactions of heterosexuals to living

in close contact with homosexuals are based primarily on ignorance and stereotyping,

and are subject to influence by education. For the most part, Shawver (p 19-20) cites

research which shows that homosexuals have been quite responsive to heterosexual

sensibilities and indicates that most would not violate social norms in bodily modesty

situations. She concludes, therefore, that discomfort caused by the presence of

known homosexuals would likely be minimal for most heterosexuals.

However, Shawver (p. 20) predicts that an unknown number of homophobic

persons--those who suffer fear and discomfort based on their own feelings about

sexuality--would experienc,-e extreme discomfort and difficulty around homosexuals.

Their reactions would tend to be those that heightened their masculinity, aggression,

etc., which could be disruptive of the group. This, however, would be a minority

phenomenon.

In focusing on potential problems in associating with or accepting homosexuals,

Shawver (1991b, p. 31), points out that the number of "pure homosexuals" is quite

small, but those with some homosexual tendencies or experience is quite large

(including "pseudo-heterosexuals", who hide their homosexual tendencies and

"bisexuals", who are sexually drawn to both sexes). Thus, heterosexuals interact on a

daily basis with many who are "more or less" homosexual persons. Given this

36
situation, the association of heterosexuals with homosexuals is unlikely to be harmful

or to interfere with their psychological or social functioning. Moreover, homosexuals

are generally reluctant to reveal their identity to heterosexuals, for fear of rejection, and

it is unlikely that many would "announce themselves" even if discriminatory policies

were revoked (Shawver, 1991b, p. 33).

As to disruption of groups, those homosexuals who are most likely to be

disliked and assaulted are those who do not conform to social norms -- unlikely to be

a widespread phenomenon in the military. Research evidence suggests that male

bonding is reduced in the presence of an anti-homosexual attitude, since men who are

anti-homosexual seem less capable of developing emotional closeness with other

men. Nevertheless, extreme heterosexual antipathy toward homosexuals could lead to

physical assault of homosexuals, which would create serious group dysfunction

(Shawver, 1991b, p. 35-36).

As regards the possibility of attitude change toward homosexuals, tolerance can

be taught through education, and if heterosexuals are more accepting of

homosexuals, they are likely to be more accepting of other out-groups (Shawver,

1991b, p. 37-38). Since anti-homosexual males tend to be concerned about

heightening their heterosexual image, if they become more tolerant they will be more

capable of intimacy in general, leading to more meaningful friendships, more social

bonding, contentment, etc. More tolerance would not increase homosexual actions

among heterosexuals unless tendencies were already there. On the negative side,

extreme homophobics, who have fears regarding their sexuality, could experience

"homosexual panic", and might need special attention (Shawver, 1991b, p. 34).

Overall, however, increased acceptance of homosexuals should strengthen social

functioning.

Finally, with respect to gender differences in tolerance toward homosexuality,

Shawver (1991c) notes that me, are about as tolerant of lesbians as are women, so

37
the problem is tolerance for male homosexuals, main by male heterosexuals. The

difference between men's and women's tolerance for homosexuality appears to lie in

the differences in role definition and role development between men and women,

which begin very early in the child's upbringing, are linked to perceptions of

masculinity and femininity and carry over into adult life. The fact that gender

differences in tolerance levels of male homosexuality may be based on social learning

means they may be subject to influence and change, in a positive direction.

Shawver's (1991 a, b, c) comprehensive, focused analysis provides evidence

for the possibility of moving toward more tolerant norms regarding homosexuals in

society and in the CF. While she does not offer specific evidence on homosexuals

serving in military units, and tends to underestimate the amount of effort required to

overcome negative stereotypes and deep-seated beliefs held by heterosexuals, her

analysis suggests that many of the problems anticipated in homosexual-heterosexual

interaction and association may be greatly over-stated. The indicated potential for

positive change via education programs and other means to increase acceptance of

homosexuals by heterosexual males and females argues for accommodation and is

consistent with an equality rights approach to social change. These research-based

perspectives, translated into a legal argument, would be expected to weaken

considerably a case for the continuance of a discriminatory policy excluding

homosexual enrollment and retention under the terms of the Charter.

Summary: Research-Related Inputs. This summary review of the researchrelated documents shows that survey data produced by the CF do not provide dearcut evidence for banning known homosexuals. The flaws in the Zuliani (1986) and

UDG surveys themselves are only slightly compensated by the reviews of Henderson

and, to an even lesser extent, by those of Suedfeld (1991a,b,c); and they are greatly

undermined by the evidence and competing views of Kristiansen (1989) and Shawver

(especially 1991a and b). The latter are also more consistent with the context of

change, as embodied in equality rights legislation, as well as with the social imperative

38
model of military service. Overall, then, neither the CTF Report nor the research

inputs offer a basis for successful defence of the exclusionary policy. The next section

examines the impact of legal pressure on policy transition.

LEGAL IMPETUS FOR POMCY CHANGE

Second Phase Review. The impetus for a "second phase" examination of the

supporting documentation of the exclusionary policy on homosexuals was the

assumption there would likely be legal challenges and, as noted above, the CTF Final

Report rested on shaky underpinnings. The policy review continued, first by a

National Defence Headquarters (NDHO) committee and then (February, 1989) by an

NDHQ Office of Primary Interest (OPI). The latter worked in close liaison with the

Department of Justice, which represents the DND/CF in CHRA and Charter cases. A

re-examination of all the Charter-related documentation indicated a requirement for

additional supporting evidence for continuance of the exclusionary policy.

During the review period, it can be assumed that the undertakings agreed to by

the CDS during Parliamentary Committee hearings were indeed carried out, and that

identified homosexual cases were reviewed and approved either by the CDS or the

senior personnel authority, ADM(Per), before release action was taken. Though not

confirmed by documentation, given the uncertainty surrounding the final policy,

informal actions and decisions were likely taken to accommodate apparent shifts in

policy emphasis. The fate of serving homosexuals no doubt created pressure for a

formal, definitive direction from NDHQ to CF units.

Interim Policy. The first documented sign of policy change was the issuance of

an interim policy on homosexuality in January 1988, when a number of modifications

to CFAO 19-20 were introduced. CF members were no longer obliged to report

known or suspected homosexuals to their CO and "propensity" ceased to be a reason

for compulsory release. Admitted homosexuals were to have the choice of accepting

39
honourable voluntary release or retention with restrictions. These included: ineligibility

for conversion of terms of service, promotion, career development and training (except

as required for restricted employment), posting and transfer to the reserves. This did

not legitimize "active homosexuality" but "passive homosexuals* could remain in the

CF, albeit that their careers were, for all intents and purposes, at a dead end.

The homosexual exclusion policy was further weakened in November 1990,

when an external review by the Federal Security Clearance Committee of governmentwide security clearance procedures led to the suspension of the CF's Special

Investigation Unit's (SIU's) investigation of suspected homosexuals. Reference to the

SIU was deleted from CFAO 19-20 and all sexual behavioral issues were to be referred

to NDHO Personnel staffs (DND, 1990; 1992). This action indicates that sexual

orientation, in and of itself, was no longer considered relevant to security classification,

and that any a priori assumption of homosexuals as security risks was removed.

Court Challenge. The on-going policy review was hastened by a statement of

claim filed in the Federal Court of Canada, in January 1990, by Michelle Douglas, a

former Ueutenant in the CF, who was released in August 1989, under the interim

policy after she admitted to having been involved in homosexual activities. (There

were a number of other cases, but hers is of central interest). Her complaint was filed

under the provisions of the Charter, and she asked the Court to find that her rights

had been denied by the CF and that, more broadly, the CF's policy on homosexuality

was in violation of the Charter (Federal Court, 1992).

Thus, in conjunction with information-gathering on the issues raised in the CTF

Final Report, carried out by the NDHQ OPI, discovery hearings, aimed at building a

foundation based on evidence, also commenced and periodic reviews of the evidence,

as it accumulated, where conducted (Personal Communications, Director General

Personnel Policy, February 1993). Given the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the

social and behavioral science research, indicated earlier, and the events that followed,

40
the evidence supporting the policy was considered inadequate to meet legal

challenge (see, e.g., Clark, 1993).

Counter-Arguments to Current Policy. As already indicated, neither survey

results nor external reviews yielded definitive proof that open employment of

homosexuals would lead to unmanageable negative effects on cohesion, morale, and

unit social and operational functioning. In fact, reports emanating from the U.S. during

the review period indicated that declared homosexuals successfully served during the

Persian Gulf War, and did not destroy cohesion and morale; known homosexuals in

the CF, being held under the interim policy, were not creating difficulties; and, the

Australian Defence Force, similar in many ways to the CF, was in the process revoking

its homosexual policy. These all represented counter-arguments to retention of

current CF policy.

Other issues considered in the review were medical risk and privacy concerns.

According to other information made public (DND, 1992), the risk of sexually

transmitted diseases (STDs) would unlikely be increased by the open employment of

homosexuals. For example, statistics being complied by Health and Welfare Canada

(1990) and reported in the media (Maclean's, 1990) indicated that the risk of HIV/AIDS

is the lowest among lesbians, and that there is very little difference in risk between

homosexual and heterosexual males. (As a matter of policy, CF members are not

routinely tested for HIV and their permission must be obtained for doing so). The

spread of other STDs can be controlled through conventional medical means. As to

risk of contamination from blood transfusions, the CF does not depend on individuals

to be walking blood banks; rather, they normally use Red Cross blood and plasma

and, where necessary, blood screening can be carried out using Red Cross criteria.

Risk to medical personnel can be reduced by normal precautions, which are already

part of standard operating procedures. Thus, the medical risk argument is largely one

of convenience and is not convincing.

41
As to privacy, the predicted negative impact of employing homosexuals is, at

best, highly speculative, given the questionable validity of the attitude survey data and

the lack of direct proof of effect on unit cohesion, effectiveness, etc. Shawver's

(1991a and b) assessments suggest that there is a basis for overcoming negative

reactions to privacy concerns that might disrupt operations at the unit level, and this

alternative carries as much legal weight as the untested assumptions and abstract

proofs advanced as evidence for homosexual exclusion. In short, the evidence

available for presentation to the Court would not have sustained a legal argument for

the exclusionary policy.

All of the above would have been obvious in October 1991, when, according to

media reports, the CF was ready to change the homosexual policy (Clark, 1993).

However, government approval was not obtained at that time, and the interim policy

remained in effect.

Court Declaration!Revocation of Policy. In April 1992, the court date for

Michelle Douglas versus Her Majesty the Queen was set for October 27, 1992.

Douglas was to be represented by one of Canada's most successful litigation lawyers,

and preparations for handling that case and others continued throughout the ensuing

period. However, the case was actually settled out of court (again, reinforcing the

appearance of weakness of the DND/CF position) but the Federal Court saw fit to

issue a declaration stating that CF's policies restricting the service of homosexuals

was in violation of Section 15 of the Charter. According to a Canadian Forces

Personnel Newsletter (CFPN) (1992) article prepared especially for the purpose of

communicating the policy change, the DND and CF agreed that this was the case and

all restrictive policies on homosexuals were revoked.

Imolementation-New Policy. Direction on the revocation of the policy to

commanders in the field was given separately by the CDS and, later, by the AssistantDeputy Minister (Personnel). Full support was expressed for the change, explanations

42
as to why the change was necessary were provided, along with a reminder of the

responsibility of leadership to support the change and an appeal to the sense of

fairness of members. There was also a clear implication that those who could not

support the policy change had the option of leaving the CF.

It was pointed out that the exclusion policy was consistent with previous

Canadian attitudes and legislation but that both attitudes and legislation had changed,

and that "the policy no longer serves the best interests of the CF and its members"

(CFPN, p. 2). At the same time, it was emphasized that inappropriate sexual conduct

by all members of the CF was unacceptable and would not be tolerated; in this

regard, policy and guidance on the changed situation were forthcoming.

Other Actions. The policy change was implemented within the overall context of

equality rights and non-discrimination, but without any special education or training

centered specially on sexual orientation policy. The approach was deliberately low-key

with specific emphasis placed on the responsibility of all levels of leadership to make

the change work. However, coincidental with the cancellation of CFAO 19-20 on

Homosexuality-Sexual Abnormality, Investigation and Medical Examination and

Disposal, were the following: the issuing of a new CFAO 19-36, Sexual Misconduct,

which specified "zero tolerance" of both homosexual and heterosexual misconduct;

amendment to CFAO 19-39, Personal Harassment to include homosexual harassment,

and CFAO 19-38, Mixed Gender Relationships, to include homosexual relationships or

restrictions thereof. Taken together, they represent a substantial regulatory framework

governing heterosexual and homosexual interaction, and they provide policies and

guidelines for conduct and procedures for dealing with violations. These CFAO

documents have been widely distributed. The focus on the unacceptance of sexual

misconduct and harassment, from whatever source, and the removal of all specific

references to homosexuality has signalled the CF's intention to treat all members

equally. This applies both positively and negatively.

43
Henceforth, there can be no attempt to elicit an applicant's or a member's

sexual orientation; nor if homosexuals choose to declare themselves can that

knowledge be used to justify restrictions. CF members do not have the right to

determine with whom they will or will not work or share facilities, and there is no

expectation that this will change with the new inclusion policy.

Outstanding Issues. There are, of course, outstanding issues to be resolved,

especially since the policy change carries with it a statute of limitations of seven years,

dating back to when Section 15 of the Charter came into effect. Human and Charter

rights complaints can be expected from former members or from those who were

denied entry, owing to sexual orientation, as well as redresses of grievance from those

serving, whose careers have been adversely affected by the policies. At least 12 of

the latter have already filed (Clark, 1993). Negotiatea settlements are being reached

with those who have filed complaints through the courts, and those filed with the

CHRC will be dealt with in the same way. Those who were restricted under the interim

policy have been notified that their restriction is now lifted, and each case will be

examined to determine if they have been disadvantaged by the application of the

policy. If affirmative, then adjustments will be made on a case-by-case basis. Those

who were released before the interim policy came into effect are not part of the review

but they are eligible to apply for re-entry.

Impact of Policy Change. Despite the dire predictions, there has thus far been

no noticeable impact on recruitment, employment, attrition, retention, cohesion or

morale: that is, as nearly as can be determined. There is no systematic monitoring of

effects, but if there were major problems they would probably be evident in some part

of the military system. Commands, recruiting regions, and NDHQ staffs report that

there has been virtually no change since the policy has been announced, and it is not

known whether or not homosexuals who were serving have declared themselves -

which would constitute a test of the reactions of heterosexuals.

44
There are possible explanations for this lack of effect. First, there was a long

lead time from October 1991 to October 1992, when it was expected that a policy

change announcement was imminent, and this may have permitted CF members to

become accustomed to the outcome. Second, since the issue was discussed during

senior staff visits from NDHO to subordinate commands and units, much of the heat

may have been taken out of the negative arguments for those who were most

adamantly opposed. In many cases, they would have had benefit of the factors upon

which the policy had to be defended, including the counter-arguments for policy

change. Third, the fact that a great deal of effort was being expended in dealing with

discriminatory attitudes toward women and with issues of sexual and personal

harassment may have helped create an atmosphere of greater tolerance. Fourth, the

fact that the CDS and senior leadership took a positive and supportive approach may

have reinforced acceptance of the policy change; the low-key but firm leadership

expectation strategy, combined with an effective regulatory framework may have acted

as a signal to both homosexuals and heterosexuals that safeguards were adequate to

support the change. Fifth, there are a number of other confounds, such as poor job

market conditions, low levels of recruitment, and a CF personnel reduction program

that may have the effect of suppressing reactions; CF members may well feel it is

better to have a job than to tilt against the system.

It is possible that all of these and others unnamed are at work; it is also

possible that the affective and potentially dysfunctional side of this change has yet to

be worked throuigh. This is somewhat doubtful, however, since both the law of the

land and the policy framework itself are strong and logically consistent, and the

change is backed by a solid majority of the Canadian public: 67%, according to the

most recent poll (Clark, 1993).

Moreover, the CF plans to include homosexual and heterosexual harassment as

part of a comprehensive video-based training and education program, and this is

bound to have some positive effect. Regardless of the short-term effects, which at this

45
point appear to be no effect at all, most of the necessary supports are in place or in

development to accommodate acceptance of homosexual employment in the long

term.

CONCLUSIONS

Concluding Comments. This paper has provided a framework through which

to view change on one of the most controversial issues faced by the CF or, indeed,

any military: the lifting of prohibitions on the employment of homosexuals. The initial

arguments advanced for retaining the policy of exclusion were highly consistent with

the operational imperatives conception: homosexuals threaten military group norms

and values, and their inclusion risks disruption to group functioning and operational

effectiveness. The arguments in favour of inclusion were consistent with the social

imperatives conception that the military should reflect changing norms and values of

its host society, particularly those that remove discriminatory practices and extend

individual rights and opportunities for employment. The removal of restrictions on

homosexuals is associated with influential factors in the changing socio-legal context,

as they are embodied in strong, effective Canadian human and equality rights

legislation; this change brings CF institutional practices more into line with others in

Canada, which is the way Canadians want their military to operate.

It is too early to assess fully the various long-term implications of the policy

change, but it may be anticipated that most difficulties to be dealt with will have less to

do with negative impacts on cohesion, morale and effectiveness than with the

provision of equitable levels of compensation and benefit support for same-sex

families. At present, the Canadian government defines marriage in terms of opposite

gender couples. However, at least two provincial governments and an increasing

number of employers are providing leave and other marital/fam-iily-related benefits on

the basis of same-sex co-habitational arrangements; this trend is likely to continue. At

46
some point in the future, the CF may have to confront these logical extensions of

policy change now in effect.

While we recognize that other Western countries are subject to similar social

currents, there is enough uniqueness in the Canadian case to restrict generalizability

to other nations' armed forces, including the U.S. That homosexual policy in the latter

can or should be changed is obviously a matter for the U.S. government, society and

the military to decide. However, it is hoped that this report contributes to identifying

some of the key issues and influences that surround such change, and to show that in

the short-term, at least, there have been virtually no consequences of lifting the ban on

known homosexuals in the CF for all important dimensions.

47
REFERENCES

OQpe Litrature:

Bibby, R. (1990). Mosaic madness. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company Ltd.

Bradford, Z. B., & Brown, F. S. (1973). The United States Army in transition. Beverly

Hills: Sage.

Cameron, P., Cameron, K., & Proctor, K. (1989). Effect of homosexuality upon public

health and social order. Psychological Reoorts, 64, 1167-1179.

Clark, J. (1993). The Armed Forces join the parade. Xtra 214, 1-3.

Cotton, C. A. (1979). Military attitudes and value of the army in Canada. Toronto:

CFPARU (Report 79-5).

Cotton, C. A. (1981). Institutional and occupational values in Canada's Army. Armed

Forces and Society, 8, 99-110.

Cotton, C. A., Crook, R. K., & Pinch, F. C. (1978). Canada's professional military: The

limits of civilianization. Armed Forces and Society, 4, 365-390.

Cotton, C. A., & Pinch, F. C. (1985). The winds of change: Manning the Canadian

enlisted force. In David R. Segal and H. Wallace Sinaiko (Eds.), Ufe in the Rank

and He. Pp. 232-253, New York: Pergamon and Brassey.

Fars, J. H. (1984). Economic and non-economic factors of personnel recruitment and

retention in the AVF. Armed Forces and Society, 8 (Spring), 138-174.

Federal Centre for AIDS. (1990). "Surveillance update: AIDS in Canada."

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. (1992). Reasons for iudgment: Michelle

Douglas vs. Her Majesty the Queen (December).

Harries-Jenkins, G., & Moskos, C. C. (1981, Winter). Armed Forces and Society.

Current Sociology, (2M. 3.

Hauser, W. (1973). America's Army in crisis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Henderson, W. D. (1990). The imoact of cohesion on the combat performance of

militaUr units.

49
Henderson, W. D. (1991). Analysis of the report on the Canadian forces internal survey

on homosexual issues (An addendum to "The Impact of Cohesion on the Combat Performance of Military Units August 1990.')

Henderson, W. D. (1992). Analysis of the Canadian forces survey on homosexual

issues by Major R. A. Zuliani. September 1986 (An addendum to "The Impact of

Cohesion on the Combat Performance of Military Units August 1990.*)

Huntington, S. (1957). The soldier and the state. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

James, J. A. (1981). Sources of information about the Canadian Forces: A preliminary

analysis of the APS 79/80. Willowdale: Canadian Forces Personnel Applied

Research Unit.

Janowitz, M. (1960, 1971). The Drofessional soldier. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Kasurak, P. (1982). Civilianization and the military ethos: Civil-military relations in

Canada. Canadian Public Administration, (2W,) 1 (Spring), 108-129.

Kristiansen, C. M. (1989). The Canadian forces survey on homosexual issues reconsidered: An external review of the Deoartment of National Defence charter force

rep.ort. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.

Lang, K. (1973). Trends in military Prccupational structure and their political implications. Journal of Political an6 A,4ilitary Sociology, 1, 1-18.

Loomis, D., & Ughtburn, D. (1980). Taking into account the distinctiveness of the

military from the mainstream of society. Canadian Defence Quarterly, 10

(Autumn), 16-22.

Maclain's. (1990). AIDS virus spreads in new directions. 1990, v103, 20.

MacRae, D. (1976). The social function of social sciences. New Haven and London:

Yale University Press.

Moskos, C. C. (1973). The emergent military: Civil, traditional, or plural. Pacific Sociological Review, 16, 255-279.

Moskos, C. C. (1977). From institution to occupation. Armed Forces and Society, 4,

41-50.

50
Moskos, C. C. (1991). The post-modern military. Luncheon address at the Biennial

Conference of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Societ, Baltimore, Maryland.

Noone, M. F. (1989). Military social science and the law. Armed Forces and Society,

15, 193-307.

Olsen, M. E. (1978). The orocess of social organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

Winston.

Pinch, F. C. (1991 a). Canada's post-cold war military. Paper oresented at the International Conference on The Military in a Warless Society, Baltimore, MD.

Pinch, F. C. (1991 b). Social change and individual rights in the Canadian military.

Paper presented at the International Conference on Armed Forces and Military

Service in Democratic States, Moscow.

Pinch, F. C. (1982). Military manpower and social change assessing the institutional fit.

Armed Forces and Society, 8 (Summer), 575-600.

Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational. natural and open systems. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Segal, D. R. (1993). Organizational designs for the future army (ARI Special Report 20).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (AD B172 341)

Segal, D. R., & Segal, M. W. (1983). Change in military organization. Annual Review of

Sociology, 2, 151-170.

Segal, D., Blair, J., Newport, F., & Stephens, S. (1974). Convergence, isomorphism

and interdependence at the civil-military interface. Journal of Political and Military Socioloy, 2 (Fall), 157-172.

Shawver, L (1991 a). Essay 1: The development of bodily modesty. Paper Drepared for

the DND under contrac.

Shawver, L (1991 b). An assessment of potential problems resulting from association

with or accepting homosexuals. Paper Drepared for the DND under contract.

Shawver, L (1991c). The effect of gender difference on the tolerance of homosexuality.

Paner prepared for DND under contrac.

51
Suedfeld, P. (1991 a). Privacy in the peron-environment transaction: Implications of

the osychological literature. University of British Columbia.

Suedfeld, P. (1991 b). Addendum to "Privacy in the person-environment transaction:

Implications of the osychological literature." University of British Columbia.

Suedfeld, P. (1991c). Second addendum to "Privacy in the person-environment transaction: Implications of the psycholoaical literature." University of British

Columbia.

Urban Dimensions Group, Inc. (1991). Canadian Forces (CF) internal survey on homosexual issues. A report prepared for DND under contract. Toronto.

Zuliani, R. A. (1986). Canadian forces survey on homosexual issues. A report prepared

for the Charter Task Force. Ottawa: DND.

Government of Canada:

(1978). The Canadian Human Rights Act. Ottawa: Department of Supply and

Services.

(1982). "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms," in The Constitution Act of

Canada. Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1985). 'Equality Issues in Federal Law: A Discussion Paper." Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1985). 'Equality for All: Report of Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights.!

Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1986). Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on

National Defence (15 April).

(1986). Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on

Human Rights (17 June).

(1987). Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on

Human Rights (11 February).

(1986). 'Toward Equality.' Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1986). 'Record of Hearings of the Standing (Parliamentary) Committee on

Equality Rights.' Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

52
Government of Canada (continued):

(1987). Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on

Human Rights. Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

Deoartment of National Defence:

(1961). Canadian Army Policy Statement on Sexual Offenses. Ottawa: Queen's

Printer.

(1962). Royal Canadian Navy Administrative Order 19.00/1 --Disposition of Cases

of Unnatural Offenses--Naval Personnel. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.

(1964). Royal Canadian Air Force Order C19.00/17--Homosexuality and Gross

Indecency--Investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal. Ottawa: Queen's

Printer.

(1972 and 1973). Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 19-20, Sexual

Deviation--investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal (Amendments).

Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1976, 1987, 1989, 1990). Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20, Homosexuality-Sexual Abnormality Investigation, Medical Examination and Disposal

(Amendments). Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1983). CFAO 34-20, Psychoneurotic Disorders--Medical Examination and

Disposal. Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1986). National Defence Headquarters Action Directive D2/86, Charter Task

Force. Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1986). Charter Task Force: Final Report. Ottawa: Department of Supply and

Services.

(1988). CFAO 19-38, Mixed Gender Relationships. Ottawa: Department of

Supply and Services.

(1989, 1990). CFAO 22-3, Special Investigation Unit Responsibilities (Amendments). Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1992). Recruiter's Handbook for the Canadian Forces. Ottawa: Department of

Supply and Services.

53
Deoartment of National Defence (continued):

(1992). Chief of the Defence Staff. Unclassified Message on Homosexual Conduct (27 October).

(1988, 1992). Personal Harassment. Ottawa: Department of Supply and

Services.

(1992). CFAO 19-36, Sexual Misconduct. Ottawa: Department of Supply and

Services.

(1992). Change to CF Sexual Orientation Policy. News Release. AFN 57/92

(27 October). Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1992). Assistant Deputy-Minister (Personnel). CF Changes Policy on Homosexuality. Canadian Forces Personnel Newsletter 6/92, p. 1-2. Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1992). Assistant Deputy-Minister (Personnel). Revocation of CF Policy: PostAnnouncement Action (Letter and background information). Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

(1993). Chief of the Defence Staff. Letter on CFAO 19-36, 12 January. Ottawa:

Department of Supply and Services.

(1993). Status Report on Integrated Employment of Women. Ottawa: Department of Supply and Services.

54 940316