E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Asking Different Questions in a “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Army
Ian Ayres
Ian Ayres and Jennifer Brown
Imagine that every soldier upon entering the military was asked a simple question.
Would you prefer to serve in a command without any gay personnel?
Soldiers would know that if they answer “No” they would be assigned to an “inclusive” command, and that if they answer “Yes” they would be assigned to an “exclusive” command.
Asking this question does not violate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it does not ask a soldier about his or her own sexual orientation. But it nonetheless is likely to promote a kind of voluntary integration in the inclusive command. In an essay just published in the Michigan law review, we argue that:
The benefits of the inclusive units would be threefold: amelioration (of current discrimination), demonstration (that DADT is not necessary to preserve unit cohesion), and realignment of political allies and enemies (creating a common cause for pro-gay legislators on the left and pro-defense legislators on the right). The proposal is dynamic, not static. The hope is that inclusive commands would so effectively demonstrate the benefits of integration that, over time, increasing numbers of service members would opt for integrated units. From there, the step to universal, mandatory integration of sexual minorities into the armed forces would be smaller and more easily taken.
The inclusive command idea is a particular example of two themes that we explore in a variety of contexts in our forthcoming book, Straightforward: How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights: First, there are often valuable incremental strategies between seeming intractable dichotomies. And second, heterosexual allies often play a crucial role in effectuating these strategies. Posted
10:23 PM
by Ian Ayres [link]
Comments:
Huh, so you'd have gay units and a straight units? As long as the gay units were kept busy, maybe it would work...
both of the prior comments miss the point entirely. the post is not looking for "gay units", "straight units", or "homophobe units". the point is to give fresh recruits the opportunity to say whether or not they wish to serve in a unit that might have a gay person already serving in it. it would seem to me that those who say they don't mind will be entering a unit that is more cohesive because there is more of a likelihood that each member of the unit respects the others, regardless of their orientation; therefore, the unit is more likely to have higher morale, and by extension, greater cohesiveness.
by the same token, those who say they do not want to serve in a unit with gay soldiers and officers also get what they want. they don't have to have their sensibilities offended. they get the confidence, to whatever extent that might occur, that they are not serving alongside a gay person. they therefore also end up respecting their peers around them for what they are, stand up for their peers, and therefore develop the morale, cohesiveness and effectiveness as a unit.
in the long run, even if you view the "all straight" units as latently or blatantly bigotted, or the "all gay" units as morally reprehensible, isn't the ultimate point of the military unit to have high morale, cohesiveness and effectiveness as a unit?
You just know the "gay units" would be stigmatized in some way, and probably underestimated as members of a fighting force, Alexander the Great etc. irregardless. I'm kind of picturing the Monty Python "Trial of Sapper Walters."
Yes, there are homosexuals in the military proudly protecting your pathetic, bigoted behind -- there are and always have been. Why do you find that so unbelievable?
If you really think that all gay men are weak and limp-wristed I dare you to go into a gay bar or gay gym and yell "faggot."
At first, I thought Scott's second post made a surprisingly strong argument when he said, "Soldiers who have intimate relationships with other soliders, including all the petty jealousies, love triangles, and power stuggles between superior/suboridnate lovers, can come to play. None of these are addressed by this idea."
Thinking more about this though, it only makes sense if under the current system gay soldiers are never able to identify each other and form relationships. If they can, all of these issues would already be having an affect. In fact, considering that homosexual soldiers have always been in the military, if these were real problems they would have been problems throughout history.
However, Scott's point about exclusive units having to work with inclusive units in larger exercises is a real objection.
Sometimes the worst brings out the best in you, Sometimes the lowest tide ushers in the biggest change, Sometimes the gravest wounds translate into deepest wisdom, Sometimes the nadir leads you to the zenith - All you need to do is - To Hold On Agen Judi Online Terpercaya