The Official Defense Department DADT Report Now Available To Read Online! Here's the link:

[Better Believe It]

Go here and click on:

DADT REPORTS
Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt

[tabatha]

1. People complained when this report was started.

But does it not completely refudiate McCain.

[MineralMan]

2. Link leads to a "Page not found" error.

Can you try again? It appears that the link did not truncate properly. It probably contains a character the algorithm can't interpret.

[MineralMan]

3. The link below, leads to the page that has a working link to

the document. For some reason DU scrambled the OP's link:

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/

[uppityperson]

4. got link in above reply, thanks, off to look at

[uppityperson]

5. USMC and "various combat arms specialties" had most problem.

Consistently, the survey results revealed a large group of around 50–55% of Service
members who thought that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have mixed or no effect;
another 15–20% who said repeal would have a positive effect; and about 30% who said it
would have a negative effect.7 The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses
were asked about whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for
their Service member’s future plans to stay in the military, 74% said repeal would have no
effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”8

To be sure, these survey results reveal a significant minority—around 30% overall
(and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties)—who predicted
in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal
of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Any personnel policy change for which a group that size predicts
negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a number
of other factors that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military
effectiveness is low.

The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S.
military, and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force
recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be
gay or lesbian.9 Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated
that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor,”
while only 8% stated it was “poor” or “very poor.”10 Anecdotally, we also heard a number
of Service members tell us about a leader, co-worker, or fellow Service member they greatly
liked, trusted, or admired, who they later learned was gay; and how once that person’s sexual
orientation was revealed to them, it made little or no difference to the relationship.11 Both
the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service
members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general
unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.

(clip. However, later on...)
However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warfighting units predict
negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire
military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with
someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about
the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their
unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.”18 Meanwhile,
in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units
and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally

[uppityperson]

6. more on what objections (beyond moral and religious) are

In the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that, aside from the moral
and religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about “open” service is
driven bymisperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay Service members
were allowed to be “open” about their sexual orientation. Repeatedly, we heard Service
members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt
displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome
advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of
conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these
concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about
their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences
of many Service members.

In today’s civilian society, where there is no law that requires gay men and lesbians
to conceal their sexual orientation in order to keep their job, most gay men and lesbians
still tend to be discrete about their personal lives, and guarded about the people with whom
they share information about their sexual orientation. We believe that, in the military
environment, this would be true even more so. According to a survey conducted by RAND of
a limited number of individuals who anonymously self-identified as gay and lesbian Service
members, even if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, only 15% of gay and lesbian Service
members would like to have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit.12 This
conclusion is also consistent with what we heard from gay Service members in the course
of this review:

[uppityperson]

15. Yes, the bold was put there by me, thought it relevant

[uppityperson]

7. the risks of repeal within warfighting units... remain within acceptable levels when coupled with..

"Thus, the survey results reflecting actual experience, our other engagements, and the
lessons of history lead us to conclude that the risks of repeal within warfighting units, while
higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with our
recommendations for implementation."

[uppityperson]

8. military's prior experiences w racial/gender integration are relevant

"Though there are fundamental differences between matters of race, gender, and sexual orientation, we
believe the U.S. military’s prior experiences with racial and gender integration are relevant."
(clip)
"The general lesson we take from these transformational experiences in history is that in
matters of personnel change within the military, predictions and surveys tend to overestimate
negative consequences, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate
within its ranks the diversity that is reflective of American society at large.
Our conclusions are also informed by the experiences of our foreign allies. To be sure,
there is no perfect comparator to the U.S. military, and the cultures and attitudes toward
homosexuality vary greatly among nations of the world. However, in recent times a number of
other countries have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gay men and
lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Israel.
Significantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated much
higher levels of resistance than our own survey results—as high as 65% for some areas27—
but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than
expected, with little or no disruption.'

[uppityperson]

9. Ooo, showers and living quarters recommendations...

In the course of our review we heard from a very large
number of Service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or
living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian. Some went so far to suggest that
a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may even require separate bathroom and shower facilities
for gay men and lesbians. We disagree, and recommend against separate facilities. Though
many regard the very discussion of this topic as offensive, given the number of Service
members who raised it, we are obliged to address it.

The creation of a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities and living
quarters, whether at bases or forward deployed areas, would be a logistical nightmare,
expensive, and impossible to administer. And, even if it could be achieved and administered,
separate facilities would, in our view, stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner
reminiscent of “separate but equal” facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s. Accordingly,we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting
assignments or the designation of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation. At the
same time, commanders would retain the authority they currently have to alter berthing or
billeting assignments or accommodate privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case
basis, in the interests of morale, good order and discipline, and consistent with performance
of mission.30 It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from
counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in
either living quarters or showers, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay
or straight.

Most concerns we heard about showers and bathrooms were based on stereotype—
that gay men and lesbians will behave as predators in these situations, or that permitting
homosexual and heterosexual people of the same sex to shower together is tantamount
to allowing men and women to shower together. However, common sense tells us that a
situation in which people of different anatomy shower together is different from a situation
in which people of the same anatomy but different sexual orientations shower together.
The former is uncommon and unacceptable to almost everyone in this country; the latter
is a situation most in the military have already experienced. Indeed, the survey results
indicate 50% of Service members recognize they have already had the experience of sharing
bathroom facilities with someone they believed to be gay.31 This is also a situation resembling
what now exists in hundreds of thousands of college dorms, college and high school gyms,
professional sports locker rooms, police and fire stations, and athletic clubs around the
nation. And, as one gay former Service member told us, to fit in, co-exist, and conform to
social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or
threatened in these situations.32

[uppityperson]

10. People kicked out for DADT can apply for reentry (hope it's ok I am reading/posting)

In the event of repeal, we recommend that Service members who
have been previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be permitted to apply for reentry
into the military, pursuant to the same criteria as others who seek reentry.

[uppityperson]

11. UCMJ and sex things

We support the pre-existing proposals to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and remove private consensual sodomy between adults as a criminal
offense. This change in law is warranted irrespective of whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is
repealed, to resolve any constitutional concerns about the provision in light of Lawrence v.
Texas38 and United States v. Marcum.39 We also support revising offenses involving sexual
conduct or inappropriate relationships to ensure sexual orientation neutral application,
consistent with the recommendations of this report. For example, the offense of adultery
defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial should be revised to apply equally to heterosexual
and homosexual sex that is engaged in by or with a married person.

[TheWraith]

13. Not bad.

Frankly I think it's kind of archaic that the military still treats adultery as a criminal offense instead of something to be dealt with with your spouse, but we need to take the victories we can get.

[uppityperson]

12. Thanks for changing the link.

Hope it's ok if I posted what I read. If not, aw well. I found it quite interesting and well reasoned. Exchanging fears and stereotypes for reality and viola, it works.

Thinking about this and race, wondering how or if the military integrating helped the civilian world integrate after WW2.

[Better Believe It]

14. I don't know why the DOD doesn't have a direct link to the PDF report.