Minority Rights Advocate

Fighting for the smallest minority: The Individual

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 25 other followers

  • Topics

  • Old Posts

  • Top Posts

The Military is NOT Ready for the DADT Repeal: No matter what the spin. They Cannot Address the Questions from the Front line Leaders or front line members!

Posted by mrfixit on May 23, 2011

I’ve waited long enough; I’ve worked the “system”.  Despite this, it is now clear the system is broke.  I have copied an e-mail exchange received between a member of the Navy and the official in charge of the repeal implementation training.  After 3 weeks with no reply, no answer, and with this still going full speed ahead, some are losing patience and people need to know how bad this situation is.  I have a copy of the e-mail exchange, with the names and times removed, but I have verified and archived the original copy and ensured it is retained on multiple systems for verification.  This is verifiable, and it is confirmable, but the actual names are not relevant, so they have been removed.

I have also obtained a copy of the training materials, and when I have enough storage space on this site, I’ll attach that information also.  Let’s just say it provides as much opportunity for more questions, and does not really solve or address the very real issues this policy change will bring. It is actually quite disgusting on many levels.

Watch for updates to come, I’ll post them here:

DADT-Training_Presentation_-_Instructor_Lesson_Plan

DADT_Presenter%20Guidance

DADT_Training_FAQs

DADT_Training_Vignettes

THERE IS MORE! (07 July 2011):

Military Law Enforcement – Tier 1 Training – Slides

—–Original Message—–

From: Xxxxx, Xxxxx X CIV USFF, N1Z On Behalf Of repeal.policy

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 Xxxx PM

To: From: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx LCDR Xx x, NOSC Xxxx

Subject: RE: Questions from Tier 2 Training Still not Addressed in Training
Materials for FAQs

XO,

Thanks for the kind words and we really are trying to do this right. I concur with you that this policy change will have many challenges along the way and will bring up many questions that we may not be readily prepared to answer. I sincerely appreciate the homework you have done on this issue and thank you for the hard questions. Answering the hard questions along the way will benefit all of us. This is an important issue and a significant policy change. It is for that reason that CNO wanted Navy leaders to conduct this training face to face. We could have taken the easy route and done something through an e-solution but I think that would have created more questions than answered.

I’ll review your follow up questions and get back to you as soon as I can. FYSA, we are still talking about it but we are trying to figure out what to do with the Navy DADT website once we stand down this initial training. We know there still needs to be a repository for questions and guidance as well as a place where questions can be asked as we move forward. Will keep you advised!

Again, thanks for the email and the follow up questions. Will do our best to respond in an expeditious manner.

Have a great weekend!

Vr, Xxxxx Xxxx

—–Original Message—–

From: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx LCDR Xx x, NOSC Xxxx

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 XXxx

To: repeal.policy

Subject: RE: Questions from Tier 2 Training Still not Addressed in Training
Materials for FAQs

Mr. Xxxxx,

Thank you for the prompt response! – Impressive.

It is quite uncommon to get such rapid turnaround on when requesting resolution on various issues, I have had many questions at various levels over my 15 years, and I have to tell you never has a response and honest effort to address issues or concerns been handled so quickly! Well done.

I also appreciate the opportunity to ask follow up questions.

When I went to training I took it very seriously, and did my homework, likely more than most, because I feel this one is going to be a difficult transition, and to train and lead sailors and also be consistent on policy it was important that I would be prepared to offer a consistent and united response on contentious questions from sailors so they could fully understand and appreciate how to properly handle this transition.

In that effort I have studied the issues in great detail, what I found was more and more questions, so I’m hoping to get those resolved as well. I do appreciate your offer for an open dialogue.

In that light, I’ll as for some additional clarification and basis for the two answers offered in my original list of questions. From the answers provided to 1 and 5:

1. “ANS. – Differences between the sexes are overt while sexual orientation is not. Individuals can choose whether or not to disclose their sexual orientation. Known gay and lesbian Sailors are already sharing berthing facilities with their heterosexual peers without reported problems. We will maintain our current practices of physically segregating Service members according to gender. We will not create separate berthing facilities according to sexual orientation.”

I understand the basis for the policy leaving disclosure to be optional. That makes perfect sense. As professionals who do a job, it should not matter in any case.

However, I do question the basis for this statement: “Known gay and lesbian Sailors are already sharing berthing facilities with their heterosexual peers without reported problems.”

First, if this is in fact the case, it would have to be a problem by DEFINITION. The military requires order and discipline and adherence to rules and regulations. If we know we have OPEN serving members now, is that not admission that the members are defying the existing policy, and the superiors are also ignoring enforcement of standards? I would say the answer is an obvious YES, and that is in itself a problem. If we can’t follow policy and guidance now, how are we going to follow the policy when it changes?

The problem is the facts indicate the in any case open homosexuals will always be a minority. If they are permitted to be open, and we acknowledge the EXISTING lack of adherence to policy, then how can we assure they will be respected and not subject to undue discrimination, when we have sailors not following existing policy, and superiors also ignoring the policy? This is areal problem, I’m not sure it has been considered. In our efforts to show more inclusion and tolerance, we may well be setting conditions to create the opposite effect, and I’m concerned about this.

Additionally, I don’t know how we can back the notion that “Sailors are already sharing berthing facilities with their heterosexual peers without reported problems”. Is there quantitative data and study to confirm this? If so, then one might ask why we there was such a need to alter policy? If it was not a problem, why are we so eager, and so rapidly changing it?

I did some review of the DOD study on sexual assault in the military. The data contained there suggests that the notion we have no problems now is FALSE. The study clearly shows a sharp increase in MALE victims of sexual assault. The perpetrators for obvious reasons are almost always male, so that shows there is in fact a problem, and talking to many others serving in various parts of the Navy, anecdotal stories to support this data are not that hard to find.

The DoD study shows a doubling of the male victim percentage in the last 3 years, and with 11% of victims being male, that suggests a real problem, could shared berthing be part of that? – Well it seems quite likely it is at least a factor. If the military population is reflective of the Census data for the entire population, then the rate of male homosexual perpetrators of sexual assault is higher than what is reflected by their portion of the population (2-3% by census figures).

With that data it seems impossible to support the official answer, so is there some other data via official studies the refutes the DoD and Census information?

I’d really like to think there is, but I could not find it.

I happen to understand and support the rational reason we keep men and women separate, even though there are places, like many colleges, that don’t. However, I also think it is virtually the same reason we should not force sharing of facilities with open homosexuals and heterosexuals. When the individuals make their personal sexual preferences known, it will create tensions. I don’t see how we can enact policy that avoids this. I know we will try, but is it even possible? That is the concern on this. We acknowledge that in the military we have all kinds of standards for behavior that are required because of the nature of the mission, but we are saying there can be not standard to prevent mixing of heterosexuals and homosexuals at the same time, it does not seem to make logical sense. I know this is how many sailors feel, and I have a hard time explaining to them how this makes sense.

We are putting the military at risk if we establish special standard to protect individual choices of some, but then blatantly deny consideration of individual choices of others. I think it is fair to say that military service is by nature not compatible with all individuals, so why are we so eager to make drastic changes to support such a small percentage of the population at a time when recruitment and retention are non-issues and we are downsizing?

5. ” ANS. – Civilian clothes wear policy is gender specific and remains so regardless of DADT implications (i.e. wear civilian clothes specific to your gender), and any civilian clothing wear that is borderline gender neutral or crossing the line into cross-gender dress brings discredit upon the Naval Service, and is not allowed per uniform regulations.”

This one is interesting, because you cite “Civilian clothes wear policy”. I may have missed something, but I don’t recall a specific policy over my 15 year career (lifetime in military circles) that defines a policy that specifically says anything about gender specific civilian attire.

I’m not saying it is not in there somewhere, I can’t possibly know it all, but I can say that if I never heard of it, I’m not alone. I expect that many others don’t specifically know this either.

Can you cite the specific policy or regulation that covers this? I think we need to provide that specific information across the fleet, because it is apparent it is not well known.

The reason this is important for both leadership and the sailor is because we all know that sailors will push the limits. We also know as leaders we have to be specific and consistent in standards across the command. How can the sailor know the limits if it is unclear or obscure, and how can the leadership have any basis for enforcement or discipline when needed to keep the standard if they have no basis or clear understanding of the “policy”? I don’t think the website here is going to be authoritative in any disciplinary matter, and certainly not usable in a judicial matter. We would need the Navy Regulation or Policy that defines this to cite in order to enforce this. I understand the uniform regulations are clear, but the example I was referring to involves civilian attire, not uniform wear. I’m not aware of uniform regulations that specifically cover gender specific civilian clothes.

I also think we are on shaky ground as we move to be tolerant of individual life styles and preferences if we say on one hand open expression is now OK, but not when open expression includes civilian attire. Are we not being judgmental and discriminatory if we say cross dressing brings “discredit upon the Naval Service”? It seems to me that would assume that the official Navy line is gender must be specifically maintained with clothing choices; meaning expression of a preference for behavior and activity connected with the opposite gender is somehow worthy of “discredit”. If that is the case, does it not suggest that we may in fact be saying we support “open” service, but then oppose “open” expression? Are we not setting up homosexuals for an even more difficult and impossible set of rules to live under?

I’m not sure we are really helping homosexuals if we say it is OK to be open, but don’t be open. Seems to me this is problematic.
Am I missing something?

I’d like to conclude with a final note of appreciation for your efforts. I know this is a difficult task, and I ask my questions to offer positive feedback to help this transition, I do not mean to be contentious. It is my hope we can do this without creating additional tensions or problems in our Navy, and to be consistent with the law. I know that is also your goal, as well as all involved in this effort, but I’m concerned that the speed at which this process has progressed has made it difficult to anticipate and address all valid concerns. I think I’d be negligent if I had reservations and unresolved concerns, but then kept them to myself and did not seek an official answer or resolution. I appreciate your efforts to provide this opportunity to provide that method of communication.

V/R

Xxxx X Xxxxx LCDR, USNR

Executive Officer

XXXX Xxxxx Xxxxx Det X (RUIC XXXXX), XXxxx, XX

—–Original Message—–

From: Xxx, Xxxx CIV USFF, N1Z On Behalf Of repeal.policy

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 Xxxx AM

To: Xxxx X Xxxxx LCDR Xxxxx  , NOSC Xxxx;
repeal.policy

Subject: RE: Questions from Tier 2 Training Still not Addressed in Training
Materials for FAQs

XO,

Thank you for your email. To date, we have officially received 76 questions that have been staffed or are in the process of staffing. You may have been misinformed about where the questions and responses are being posted. The FAQs were questions developed early in the process and provided to us by OSD at the beginning of the training process. Once we started Navy-wide training, we did not want people to have to go back through the FAQs so we began posting them on the Navy DADT website under “Sailor Q&A.” http://www.dadtrepeal.navy.mil/ There are currently 53 questions and answers posted and your questions 1 and 5 have been asked already with responses posted. I provided the responses to questions 1 and 5 below.

I will take questions 2, 3, and 4 and add them to the tracker for staffing. I submit the updated tracker to OPNAV every Wednesday and they have a small team of 0-6’s that conduct the initial staffing. If they cannot answer the question, they are sent to the SME’s for a response. Once I have an approved response, I will send you a personal response and then post them to the Navy DADT website.

Hope this helps and standing by for any additional questions.

Vr, Xxx Xxxx

Xxxx X. Xxx

Director, Fleet Personnel Development

U.S. Fleet Forces (N1Z)

1562 Mitscher Ave Suite 250

Norfolk, VA. 23551-2487

Tel: (757)
836-XXXX

DSN: 836-XXXX

Email: Xxxx.Xxx@navy.mil

—–Original Message—–

From: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx LCDR Xx x, NOSC Xxxx

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 XX:XX

To: repeal.policy
Subject: Questions from Tier 2 Training Still not Addressed in Training
Materials for FAQs

Mr. Xxxx,
I attended DADT Repeal Tier 2 training on March 1st. At which time I provided questions and suggestions to the facilitators about some issues that came up during my review of the training materials. These questions also came up during the training and there was no official answer that adequately addressed these concerns. The facilitators advised us to look out for updates on the FAQ on the website since they were submitting feedback for consideration, however, it has been almost 2 months, and I have not seen any update to address these concerns.

This is going to be a real problem if we cannot answer these reasonable questions, leaders will lose credibility within their commands and it will have adverse effects on operational effectiveness.

Please address these questions and add them and acceptable official answers to the FAQ in the training materials.

1. – Why must we continue to segregate by gender?

(It is somehow OK to prohibit segregating by sexual attraction / orientation for homosexuals, but then to have forced segregation of heterosexuals by gender? What is the basis to segregate men and women in bathrooms and berthing, if we are to ignore the salient factor of sexual preference and attraction? This may seem ridiculous, but it is serious. Some Colleges no longer separate genders, so it has been done, if we acknowledge this would not work in the military, then how can we assume the mix of open homosexual and heterosexuals is going to be acceptable and not create real cohesion issues? )

***Based on the training, we were told that separate berthing is based on gender. Why do we have separate berthing for professional men and women?

ANS. – Differences between the sexes are overt while sexual orientation is not. Individuals can choose whether or not to disclose their sexual orientation. Known gay and lesbian Sailors are already sharing berthing facilities with their heterosexual peers without reported problems. We will maintain our current practices of physically segregating Service members according to gender. We will not create separate berthing facilities according to sexual orientation.

2. – Why does the training mention the military policy on HIV? How does this pertain to the repeal of DADT?

(DoDI 6485.01, October 17, 2006, this grants a special protection to HIV, protection that seems to be unique to this condition. Many others are separated for more minor, and less expensive or restrictive medical issues. How is this justified?)

3. – How can it be said there is no impact on medical readiness when we mention a specific serious issue here by noting the special protected status of HIV?

(the majority of HIV cases are among MSM (men who have sex with men) – 57% by US CDC data, and US Census data suggests a total population of about 2-3%, which suggests a REAL and strong connection indeed!).

4. – How can we strive to maintain “Equal” Opportunity when those with some medical “risks” are ignored, but others with different medical “risks” are processed out?

(We routinely separate those who survive cancer and are then considered in remission, but we specifically do not do permit this for HIV, which happens require constant and expensive medical care, and can obviously incur additional risks, and even risks of spreading the disease to others. How can this be justified?)

5. – How do we handle the situation if a sailor crosses dresses for attendance at a Navy social event?

(If we can have standards and restrictions that differ from the normal freedoms enjoyed in the civilian world, where this would have to be permissible as free expression, then how can we on one hand enforce the acceptance of an open homosexual lifestyle, and then on the other hand restrict activity and expressions that often are often associated with this lifestyle. Isn’t that creating a very difficult and near impossible set of policies and circumstances which will ultimately erode good order and discipline?)

*** Appropriate civilian attire – What is the Navy policy on cross dressing?
Has this topic been deeply discussed for guidance post-repeal?

ANS. – Civilian clothes wear policy is gender specific and remains so regardless of DADT implications (i.e. wear civilian clothes specific to your gender), and any civilian clothing wear that is borderline gender neutral or crossing the line into cross-gender dress brings discredit upon the Naval Service, and is not allowed per uniform regulations.

Thank you for your consideration on these serious questions and the efforts to figure out how to best make this work, without serious disruptions to the Navy.

V/R

Xxxx X Xxxxx LCDR, USNR

Executive Officer

XXXX Xxxxx Xxxxx Det X (RUIC XXXXX), XXxxx, XX

Previous Post on Topic, with many others:

https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/serious-honest-difficult-but-respectful-questions-for-military-members-to-ask-that-are-based-policy-implementation-for-use-at-the-military-required-dadt-repeal-training-that-is-rapidly-being-implem/

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Military is NOT Ready for the DADT Repeal: No matter what the spin. They Cannot Address the Questions from the Front line Leaders or front line members!”

  1. bobmontgomery said

    Well, that didn’t take long, did it? Into the cross-dressing thing already. Soon it will be lipstick and earrings. But just wait til ACLU and GLAAD and all the LGBT (Has the Navy heard of the T’s? What about the Q’s? and the I’s and A’s and S’s?) advocacy and legal groups get geared up; Oh, these boys and girls and in-betweens are going to get settlements, honey!

    • mrfixit said

      You are correct, this would not be the end, only a step toward continued madness, and yes those many other special groups that would push for more and more special protections and special rights. It is insane given that the current policy already grants special protections to the current group, at the expense to the taxpayer, and simultaneously permits the denial of opportunities to others at the same time. There is much more to this than just the DADT repeal.

  2. mrfixit, please contact me at lheckerman@gmail.com. I would like to share an experience I had early in my Army career regarding sexual assaults on male service members and how the command covered it up and transferred the victim out of the unit.I agree with your assessments regarding the use of the military as an incubator for progressive public policy that undermines and threatens the readiness of our armed forces.

  3. […] Posts The Military is NOT Ready for the DADT Repeal: No matter what the spin. They Cannot Address the Ques…The Modern Feminist (Left wing) Movement: Not about femininity at all, it is about POWER! AboutThe […]

  4. […] How Congress Was Duped into Repealing Military Gay Ban   The DADT Repeal Whitewash   The Military is NOT Ready for the DADT Repeal: No matter what the spin. They Cannot Address the Ques…   How exactly is any of this in line with the Fed’s responsibility to provide for the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: