This article examines data from the survey commissioned in 2000 by the Office of the Inspector General to “initiate an assessment of the environment at representative installations... within each Military Department with respect to the application of the homosexual conduct policy.” Analyses are designed to describe patterns in the factors related to awareness of harassment incidents based on perceived sexual orientation, and to test specific hypotheses related to the factors likely to predict awareness. Findings indicate that higher-ranking personnel report less awareness of harassment based on perceived sexual orientation, and that the US Air Force has the lowest percentages reporting such incidents. Interestingly, women officers are more likely to report awareness of harassment—suggesting they may be more likely to view incidents as harassment, or may be less insulated from harassing incidents than male officers. Perhaps most important, harassment is seen to occur during the typical course of military duty experiences. Ultimately we argue that the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy prevents open interaction between members of different sexual orientations, and instead may serve to perpetuate negative stereotypes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Mark Wolinsky and Kenneth Sherrill, Gays and the Military: Joseph Steffan Versus the United States (Princeton, NH: Princeton University Press, 1993.)
2.
Gregory M. Herek, “Gender Gaps in Public Opinion about Lesbians and Gay Men,”Public Opinion Quarterly66 (2002), 40–66; Jeni Loftus, “America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998,” American Sociological Review 66 (2001), 762–782; Clem Brooks, “Civil Rights Liberalism and the Suppression of a Republican Political Realignment in the United States, 1972 to 1996,” American Sociological Review 65 (2000): 483– 505; John Lofland, “Shades of Gay,” Newsweek, March 20 (2000): 46–49; Alan S. Yang, “Trends: Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” Public Opinion Quarterly 61(1997): 477–507; Kenneth Sherrill and Alan Yang, “From Outlaw to Inlaw, Anti-Gay Attitudes Thaw,” Public Perspective 11 (2000): 20–23; Richard Seltzer, “The Social Location of Those Holding Anti-homosexual Attitudes,” Sex Roles 26 (1992): 391–398.
3.
Herek, “Gender Gaps in Public Opinion”; Loftus, “America’s Liberalization”; Yang, “Trends: Attitudes”; Sherrill and Yang, “Anti-Gay Attitudes Thaw”; Seltzer, “Antihomosexual Attitudes.”
4.
Steven Epstein, “Gay and Lesbian Movements in the United States: Dilemmas of Identity, Diversity, and Political Strategy,” in The Global Emergence of Gay and Lesbian Politics: National Imprints of a Worldwide Movement, ed. Barry D. Adam, Jan W. Duyvendak, and Andre Krouwel (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2000), 30–90.
5.
Charles Moskos Jr., “From Citizens’ Army to Social Laboratory,” in Wilber J. Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley (eds.), Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 1994); David L. Leal, “The Multicultural Military: Military Service and the Acculturation of Latinos and Anglos,” Armed Forces & Society 29(2003): 205–226.
6.
John Fetto, “Gay Friendly?”American Demographics24 (2002): 16–16.
7.
Wolinsky and Sherrill, “Gays and the Military.”
8.
Scott and Stanley (eds.), “Introduction,” in Gays and Lesbians in the Military, p. xi–xi.
9.
David F. Burrelli, “An Overview of the Debate on Homosexuals in the U.S. Military,” in Gays and Lesbians in the Military (see note 5).
10.
Ibid.
11.
Scott and Stanley (eds.), “Introduction,” in Gays and Lesbians in the Military, p. xi–xi; Burrelli,“Debate on Homosexuals in the U.S. Military”; Moskos “From Citizens’ Army to Social Laboratory.”
12.
Reported in Gays and Lesbians in the Military, p. xi.
13.
Burrelli, “Debate on Homosexuals in the U.S. Military.”
14.
Wolinsky and Sherrill, “Gays and the Military.”
15.
Mary Kite and Bernard E. Whitley Jr., “Do Heterosexual Women and Men Differ in their Attitudes toward Homosexuality? A Conceptual and Methodological Analysis,” in Stigma and Sexual Orientation: Understanding Prejudice against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals, ed. Gregory M. Herek (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), 39–61; Bernard E. Whitley Jr., “Gender-role Variables and Attitudes toward Homosexuality,” Sex Roles 45 (2001): 691–721.
16.
Gerhard Kümmel, “When Boy Meets Girl: The ‘Feminization’ of the Military; An Introduction Also to be Read as a Postscript,”Current Sociology50 (2003): 615–639; Leora N. Rosen, Paul D. Bliese, Kathleen Wright, and Robert K. Gifford, “Gender Composition and Group Cohesion in Army Units: A Comparison of Five Studies,” Armed Forces & Society 25 (1999):365–386; Leora N. Rosen, Kathryn H. Knudson, and Peggy Fancher, “Cohesion and the Culture of Hypermasculinity in U.S. Army Units,” Armed Forces & Society 29 (2003): 325–351.
17.
John Hockey, “No More Heroes: Masculinity in the Infantry,” in Paul R. Higate (ed.), Military Masculinities; Identity and the State (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 15–25.
18.
See, for example, the fourteen articles in Paul R. Higate (ed.), Military Masculinities; Identity and the State (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003).
19.
Rosen, Knudson, and Fancher, “Cohesion and the Culture of Hypermasculinity”; Leora N. Rosen and Lee Martin, “Sexual Harassment, Cohesion and Combat Readiness in U.S. Army Support Units,”Armed Forces & Society24 (1997): 221–224; Juanita M. Firestone and Richard J. Harris, “Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Individual and Environmental Contexts,” Armed Forces & Society 21 (1994): 25–43; Juanita M. Firestone and Richard J. Harris, “Changes in Patterns of Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: A Comparison of the 1988 and 1995 DoD Surveys,” Armed Forces & Society 25 (1999): 613–632; Aaron Belkin and Melissa Levitt, “Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces: Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?” Armed Forces & Society 27 (2001): 541–565.
20.
One challenge in analyzing these data is that many of the potential independent variables were asked only of those who reported some awareness of harassment behavior. As a result, multivariate analysis is precluded because the “independent” variables essentially define the dependent variable, awareness of harassment (see the summary of results and table 5 for an illustration).
21.
C. L. Marton, “Attitudes and Expectations about Children with Nontraditional and Traditional Gender Roles,”Sex Roles22 (1990): 151–165.
22.
Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women; Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1997).
23.
One question on the survey allows a response of having been harassed by “both men and women,” another allows a response of by “both enlisted and officers.” Since both cases are not individual-based harassment, we classified them as group harassment, but we do not know how many individuals participated.
24.
See, for example, M. L. Patrow and R. Patrow, “The Leathernecks: A Few Good Men...and Women,” in Life in the Rank and File; Enlisted Men and Women in the Armed Forces of the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, eds. D. R. Segal and H. W. Sinaiko (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1986), 153–183.
25.
Charles C. Moskos, “From Institution to Occupation: Trends in Military Organization,”Armed Forces & Society4 (1977): 41–50.
26.
We received access to the data using an open records request. None of the authors was employed by DoD at the time we wrote this article, although one had been an officer in the air force and was recalled during the operation in Afghanistan and has since also served in Iraq.
27.
Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of Defense, Military Environment with Respect to the Homosexual Conduct Policy, Report D-2000-101 (Arlington VA: OIG, Department of Defense, 2000). This brief report summarizes some findings from the survey; however, it does not test any hypothesis, complete multivariate analyses, provide statistical assessments of relationships, or create a profile of those aware of harassment as we do in this analysis.
28.
To protect confidentiality, no names or identifying numbers were used on the questionnaires. Data were collected by DoD team members working on the project, but no detailed infor-mation was provided to explain exact procedures utilized. On page 8 of the Inspector General’s report, the authors state “to protect anonymity our sample was not selected by individual service member...” See Military Environment with Respect to the Homosexual Conduct Policy, p. 8–8.
29.
William S. Cohen, Annual Report to the President and Congress, Office of the Secretary of Defense. US Department of Defense, May 31, 1999 (Washington, DC: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2001).
30.
See Military Environment with Respect to the Homosexual Conduct Policy, p. 10–10.
31.
Rupert Brown, Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups (Cambridge, MA:Blackwell Publishers, 1988).
32.
Military Environment with Respect to the Homosexual Conduct Policy, p. 31–31.
33.
Here we present a profile of those aware of harassment and compare the characteristics of those reporting awareness to the military overall, rather than testing a hypothesis. We are examining the composition of those reporting awareness in part because those not reporting awareness were not asked questions that would allow for direct comparisons. Thus the percentages describe those reporting awareness of harassment, rather than predicting awareness versus lack of awareness (sometimes conceptualized as row versus column percentages).
34.
The large sample size means that all bivariate relationships are statistically significant; therefore, we focus on strength rather than significance as the basis for assessing relationships.
35.
It is not possible to determine whether sexual discrimination is compounded in the reports of these two categories.
36.
The R statistic is a measure of partial correlation, calculated as a transformation of the Wald statistic [R SQRT((Wald-2k)/-2LL(0))]. It is useful for determining the relative importance of the statistically significant variables. As is evident in table 5, however, it does not discriminate among the weaker, nonsignificant variables, often displaying a value of .0000 in these cases.
37.
One solution to this problem may be to include a multidisciplinary team of researchers— including sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and military professionals—when developing the research design for a large survey.
