Unfriendly Fire Research Portal

Portal homepage
About this portal

Go to Unfriendly Fire: The Book

1. What Does the Research Say About the Likely Impact of Repeal on Cohesion, Morale, Readiness, Privacy, and Effectiveness?

While future outcomes of policy changes are never completely knowable, extensive research on the issue of gay service is available to help policymakers assess the most likely impact of allowing open gays to serve in the U.S. military. The research consists of over half a century of evidence gathered by university scholars, independent academic consultants, U.S. and foreign government researchers, and the U.S. military’s own research centers. The data come from four main areas: literature on cohesion and performance in large institutions; the experiences of foreign militaries, twenty-five of which currently allow openly gay service; American institutions, including fire and police departments and national security agencies; and the U.S. military itself, including historical episodes of racial integration, women in combat, and assessments of units in today’s military in which gays are known to be serving without impairment of cohesion.

The totality of this research strongly suggests that the net impact of repeal on cohesion, morale, readiness, privacy, and effectiveness will be positive and not negative, and that any impairment that might emerge would be negligible and could be easily managed. While each military, issue, and era are distinct, an enormous amount of relevant information is known about managing military personnel, including about the question of openly gay military service. Following are 20 studies that, taken together, show the negligible and manageable impact of repeal on military readiness. For research especially on foreign militaries, click here.

“Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer”

Nathaniel Frank, et. al.

In 2010, the Palm Center released one of the largest ever studies of service by gays and lesbians in foreign militaries. “Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer” found that transitions to non-discrimination policies have been uniformly successful and have had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military. In many of the twenty-five nations that now allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, debate before the policy changes was highly pitched and many people both inside and outside the military predicted major disruptions, none of which were borne out. Evidence also suggests that lifting bans on openly gay service contributed to improving the command climate in foreign militaries, including increased focus on behavior and mission rather than identity and difference, greater respect for rules and policies that reflect the modern military, a decrease in harassment, retention of critical personnel, and enhanced respect for privacy.1

“Sexual Orientation Disclosure, Concealment, Harassment, and Military Cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT Military Veterans”

Bonnie Moradi

Published in fall 2009 in the journal Military Psychology, Moradi’s study documents the tangible costs of forcing service members to conceal their identities. It is the first empirical analysis of the relationship between sexual orientation concealment and unit cohesion in the military. The study found that sexual orientation disclosure is positively related to unit cohesion, while concealment and harassment are related negatively, meaning they appear to reduce cohesion. This means that the only empirical evidence assessing the relationship between open homosexuality and unit cohesion shows the link to be positive, not negative, because of the damage of the closet to the morale and readiness of gay troops, and by extension to the readiness of units.2

“The Efficacy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”

Col. Om Prakash, United States Air Force

In October 2009, Joint Force Quarterly, the military journal published for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, published a study entitled, “The Efficacy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” written by Col. Om Prakash, an active duty officer in the Air Force. The report found “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” Based on this research, it concludes that “it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.” The article was selected as the first-place winner of the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.3

“Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members”

Bonnie Moradi and Laura Miller

A 2009 study by a University of Florida professor and RAND researcher published in Armed Forces & Society offered the first-ever statistical analysis of whether openly gay service has any impact on military readiness. The study shows that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member has no bearing on the unit’s cohesion, concluding that “the data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness.”4

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Time for Change”

Lt. Col. Irene V. Glaeser, U.S. Army War College

This March 2009 paper, a Strategy Research Project submitted as part of a Master of Strategic Studies degree, cites “exhaustive studies” of both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the experience of foreign militaries to argue that openly gay service does not impair the military and that current policy “needs to be revised and lifted.” Glaeser states that the U.S. has “entered an era of persistent conflict” and must be “broad-minded and agile enough to adapt.”5

“Report of the General/Flag Officers’ Study Group”

Brigadier General Hugh Aitken, Lieutenant General Minter Alexander, Lieutenant General Robert Gard, and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan

In July 2008, a bipartisan panel of retired flag officers released a report called the “Report of the General/Flag Officers’ Study Group,” that represented what John Shalikashvili called “one of the most comprehensive evaluations of the issue of gays in the military since the Rand study” in 1993. The panel, which studied the issue for over a year by drawing on live and written testimony from experts and a review of literature, found that lifting the ban is “unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.”6

“‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Does the Gay Ban Undermine the Military’s Reputation?”

Aaron Belkin

A January 2008 article in Armed Forces & Society presents original empirical research to argue that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy harms the military’s reputation in several important ways: it is inconsistent with public opinion, it prompts many journalists to criticize the armed forces while attracting almost no favorable media coverage, it provides a vehicle for antimilitary protesters to portray military culture as conflicting with widely accepted civilian values, and it is inconsistent with the views of junior enlisted service members.7

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be: A Philosophical Analysis of the Gay Ban in the U.S. Military”

Alexander Raggio, United States Military Academy at West Point

In 2005, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point honored Cadet Alexander Raggio with the BG Carroll E. Adams award for best thesis for his paper, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be: A Philosophical Analysis of the Gay Ban in the U.S. Military.” It was the first time a military service academy granted an award to a paper about gays in the military. The thesis argues that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is out of step with the values of the military and the nation and widens the gap between civilian and military culture. It concludes that the “personal prejudices” and “faulty logic” that undergird the policy “not only fail to meet standards for reasonable policy but undermine the very legitimacy of the institution Army policy should serve.”8

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?”

Aaron Belkin

A decade after “don't ask, don't tell” was formulated, this study was published in Parameters, the official journal of the Army War College, arguing that lifting bans on homosexual personnel does not threaten unit cohesion or undermine military effectiveness.9

“A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military”

Aaron Belkin and Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert

Published in International Security in 2002, this article argues that lifting the gay ban will not undermine heterosexual privacy. Heterosexual service members already shower with known homosexuals, and according to research, lifting the ban is unlikely to substantially increase the number of homosexual service members who come out. Additionally, despite the presence of opposition in the ranks, few heterosexual service members are “extremely uncomfortable” around homosexuals, and discomfort that does exist will diminish after lifting the ban. Finally, same-sex desire and same-sex sexual encounters would occur even if all homosexuals were eliminated from the military. The study also concludes that the ban itself enables systematic invasions of heterosexual privacy.10

“Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces”

Aaron Belkin and Melissa Levitt

A 2001 paper in the journal of civil-military relations, Armed Forces & Society, argues that Israel’s 1993 decision to lift its gay ban did not influence military performance. It then assesses three arguments raised by experts who claim that Israeli experiences are not relevant for determining what would happen if the U.S. Congress and Pentagon lifted the American gay ban. In particular, it assesses the claims that most gay Israeli combat soldiers do not disclose their sexuality to peers, that some receive special treatment, and that cultural differences distinguish the U.S. and Israeli cases. The authors argue that the Israeli experience is not identical to the situation in the U.S., but that its lessons are instructive and lend weight to the claim that American military effectiveness would not decline if known homosexuals were allowed to serve.11

“A Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality”

Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)
A 2000 report from the UK Ministry of Defence said the lifting of the ban was “hailed as a solid achievement” that was “introduced smoothly with fewer problems than might have been expected.” The changes had “no discernible impact” on recruitment. There was “widespread acceptance of the new policy,” and military members generally “demonstrated a mature and pragmatic approach” to the change. There were no reported problems with homosexuals harassing heterosexuals, and there were “no reported difficulties of note concerning homophobic behavior amongst Service Personnel.” The report concluded that “there has been a marked lack of reaction” to the change.12

“Pink and Blue: Outcomes Associated with the Integration of Open Gay and Lesbian Personnel in the San Diego Police Department”

Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol

A Palm Center study of the San Diego Police Department in 2001 echoed the findings of an earlier RAND report, adding that nondiscrimination policies in police and fire departments did not impair effectiveness even though many departments were characterized as highly homophobic.13

“Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian Forces”

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

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences studied the situation and concluded in a report released in 1994 that anticipated damage to readiness never materialized after the ban was lifted: “Negative consequences predicted in the areas of recruitment, employment, attrition, retention, and cohesion and morale have not occurred since the policy was changed.”14

“Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessments”

RAND National Defense Research Institute

In July 1993, RAND researchers at the National Defense Research Institute, a think tank founded by Air Force officers, completed a study commissioned by Defense Secretary Les Aspin. Prepared by over 70 social scientists based on evidence from six countries and data analyses from hundreds of studies of cohesion, found that “none of the militaries studied for this report believe their effectiveness as an organization has been impaired or reduced as a result of the inclusion of homosexuals.” In Canada, where the ban had just ended, RAND found “no resignations (despite previous threats to quit), no problems with recruitment, and no diminution of cohesion, morale, or organizational effectiveness.” The same conclusions were reached about Israel. The study reported that even in those countries where gays were allowed to serve, “in none of these societies is homosexuality widely accepted by a majority of the population.” RAND recommended a policy in which sexual orientation alone was considered “not germane” in determining who should serve.

Part of the Rand study examined police and fire departments in several U.S. cities, which it regarded as “the closest possible domestic analog” to the military setting. Rand found that the integration of open gays and lesbians—the status of most departments in the United States—actually enhanced cohesion and improved the police department’s community standing and organizational effectiveness. 15

“Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries”

U.S. General Accounting Office

In 1993, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, now the U.S. Government Accountability Office) reported its findings from its study of twenty-five foreign militaries, with special focus on Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden. According to its final report, “Military officials in all four countries said that the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units.” A key factor, said the report, was that homosexuals are reluctant to openly admit their sexual orientation even once the ban is lifted.16

“Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality”

U.S. General Accounting Office

In 1992, the GAO conducted its own study of the gay exclusion policy. Its researchers looked at seventeen different countries and eight police and fire departments in four U.S. cities and reviewed military and nonmilitary polls, studies, legal decisions, and scholarly research on homosexual service. The GAO recommended in an early draft that Congress “may wish to direct the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the basis” for gay exclusion.17

“Preservice Adjustment of Homosexual and Heterosexual Military Accessions: Implication for Security Clearance Suitability”

Michael McDaniel, PERSEREC

The second of two studies commissioned by the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC), this report found that “the preponderance of the evidence presented indicates that homosexuals show pre-service suitability-related adjustment that is as good [as] or better than the average heterosexual,” a result that appeared to “conflict with conceptions of homosexuals as unstable, maladjusted persons.”18

“Nonconforming Sexual Orientation in the Military and Society”

Theodore Sarbin and Kenneth Karols, PERSEREC

The first of two studies commissioned by PERSEREC in 1988 pointed to growing tolerance of homosexuality and concluded that “the military cannot indefinitely isolate itself from the changes occurring in the wider society, or which it is an integral part.” It found that “having a same-gender or an opposite gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as being left- or right-handed.”19

The Crittenden Report

Board appointed by the Secretary of the Navy

In 1957, the Secretary of the Navy appointed a panel to investigate its homosexual exclusion policy. The outcome, known as the Crittenden report, stated that “the number of cases of blackmail as a result of past investigations of homosexuals in negligible” and “no factual data exist to support the contention that homosexuals are a greater risk than heterosexuals.”20

  1. Nathaniel Frank, et al, “Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer,” 2010. ↩
  2. Bonnie Moradi, “Sexual Orientation Disclosure, Concealment, Harassment, and Military Cohesion: Perceptions of LGBT Military Veterans,” Military Psychology, 21:513-533, 2009. ↩
  3. Col. Om Prakash, “The Efficacy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’,” Joint Force Quarterly (55): 88-94, 2009. ↩
  4. Bonnie Moradi and Laura Miller, “Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members,” Armed Forces & Society, XX(X): 1-23, October 2009. ↩
  5. Lt. Col. Irene V. Glaeser, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Time for Change,” U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project, March 2009. ↩
  6. Brigadier General Hugh Aitken, Lieutenant General Minter Alexander, Lieutenant General Robert Gard, and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, “Report of the General/Flag Officers’ Study Group,” Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2008. ↩
  7. Aaron Belkin, “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Does the Gay Ban Undermine the Military’s Reputation?” Armed Forces & Society, 34(2): 276-291, 2008. ↩
  8. Alexander Raggio, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be: A Philosophical Analysis of the Gay Ban in the U.S. Military,” United States Military Academy at West Point (senior thesis), 2005. ↩
  9. Aaron Belkin, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?” Parameters, Summer 2003. ↩
  10. Aaron Belkin, Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert, “A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Flawed Rationale for the Exclusion of Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military,” International Security, 27(2): 178-197, 2002. ↩
  11. Aaron Belkin and Melissa Levitt, “Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces,” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 27(4), 2001. ↩
  12. 2000 Ministry of Defence Report, quoted in Aaron Belkin and R.L. Evans, “The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces,” white paper, Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2000; 2000 Ministry of Defence Report, quoted in Aaron Belkin, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?” Parameters (summer 2003): 108-119, 2003. ↩
  13. Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol, “Pink and Blue: Outcomes Associated with the Integration of Open Gay and Lesbian Personnel in the San Diego Police Department,” white paper, Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001. ↩
  14. Franklin C. Pinch, “Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian Forces,” U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA, 1994. ↩
  15. RAND National Defense Research Institute, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessments (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1993). ↩
  16. “Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries,” U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), June 25, 1993. ↩
  17. “Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality,” U.S. General Accounting Office, June 12, 1992. ↩
  18. Michael McDaniel, Preservice Adjustment of Homosexual and Heterosexual Military Accessions: Implication for Security Clearance Suitability, Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center, January 1989. ↩
  19. Theodore Sarbin and Kenneth Karols, Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability, Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center, December 1988, http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/229.pdf. ↩
  20. Kaye Dyer, ed., Gays in Uniform: The Pentagon’s Secret Reports (Boston: Alyson Publications, 1990). ↩
A co-production with Palm Center