{"id":8310,"date":"2010-12-01T03:11:47","date_gmt":"2010-12-01T08:11:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=8310"},"modified":"2013-10-04T20:47:13","modified_gmt":"2013-10-04T23:47:13","slug":"dadt-survey-doesn%e2%80%99t-say-what-you-think-it-says%e2%80%a6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2010\/12\/01\/dadt-survey-doesn%e2%80%99t-say-what-you-think-it-says%e2%80%a6\/","title":{"rendered":"DADT Survey Doesn\u2019t Say What You Think It Says\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2026or maybe it does.\u00a0 The report, entitled Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of \u201cDon\u2019t Ask, Don\u2019t Tell\u201d<\/em>, was released yesterday (available here<\/a>, or at the DoD DADT website<\/a>).\u00a0 The following\u00a0is a list of highlights from the report.<\/p>\n

Statistics and Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

As noted previously<\/a>, fun with numbers will likely allow both sides of the DADT debate to cite the report in favor of their position.<\/p>\n

For example, one of the most frequently cited statistics (as here<\/a>\u00a0and here<\/a>) is the statement that<\/p>\n

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit\u2019s ability to \u201cwork together to get the job done,\u201d 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

However, using precisely the same numbers<\/em>, one could also say<\/p>\n

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit\u2019s ability to \u201cwork together to get the job done,\u201d 62% of Service members predicted it would have a negative or\u00a0<\/strong>mixed effect<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Obviously, the second statement holds quite a different meaning than the first \u2013 yet both are entirely accurate.<\/p>\n

One of the main disconnects is that many reports have conflated the \u201cpositive\u201d responses toward repeal with the \u201cequally positive or negative\u201d or \u201cno effect\u201d responses.\u00a0 This is likely due to the report\u2019s openly stated bias toward repeal: The underlying question is \u201cWhat harm<\/span> would come from repeal?<\/em>\u201d rather than \u201cWhat good<\/span> would come from repeal?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the report equates \u201cno effect\u201d with\u00a0no “harm,” it supports the bias toward repeal.\u00a0 The report nowhere addresses the benefit<\/em> to the military<\/em> of repealing DADT (though President Obama said DADT “weakens…national security<\/a>.”).\u00a0 It even notes that discharges for homosexuality have accounted for a mere 0.33% of all dismissals, yet fails to describe how it would help the military to repeal the policy \u2013 particularly in light of the statistically significant \u201cnegative\u201d responses.<\/p>\n

When positive<\/span> responses are compared directly to negatives<\/span>, the results are significant.\u00a0 For example, the reported impact of repeal on morale was 4.8% positive to 27.9% negative.\u00a0 (This statistic was reported as \u201c62%…responded that repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on their morale.\u201d)\u00a0 If an institution of millions of people is faced with a choice that is only viewed by 5% as positive, what justification\u00a0could there be for instituting that option?<\/p>\n

Some critics, including US Senator John McCain<\/a>,\u00a0have asserted\u00a0the questions may be flawed on their face<\/a>.\u00a0 The questions essentially say<\/p>\n

If\u00a0the Soldier next to you was homosexual, could you still defeat the enemy?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When most Soldiers naturally answer \u201cyes,\u201d some\u00a0have taken it to mean they have \u201cno problem\u201d<\/a> with or are “ambivalent<\/a>” about serving with homosexuals, which is not at all what the question asks.\u00a0 (Even official DoD releases cite statistics saying a majority of troops “do not object,”<\/a>\u00a0though such a question was never asked.)\u00a0 In fact, the Soldier may simply be able to accomplish his mission despite<\/em> having serious<\/em> problems with the change in policy.\u00a0 That\u2019s like asking a Soldier if he could still accomplish the mission if he had his hand tied behind his back, no water or food for three days, and only three rounds of ammo.\u00a0 Most will still say \u201cyes;\u201d that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a situation they believe they should be in or support.<\/p>\n

Another misquoted statistic<\/a>:<\/p>\n

More than nine out of 10 troops said their unit’s ability to work with someone they thought was gay or lesbian was very good, good, or neither good nor bad.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The cited statistic was of people who thought<\/em> they might<\/em> have served with someone who was homosexual — thus, it is not an accurate picture of actual homosexual service.\u00a0\u00a0Also, they rated\u00a0the unit’s\u00a0“ability to work together,” not their ability to work with\u00a0“with someone [who] was gay.”<\/p>\n

Moral and Religious Concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n

The report did attempt<\/em> to address \u201creligious concerns\u201d (as noted at CNN<\/a>):<\/p>\n

[W]e heard a large number of Service members raise religious and moral objections<\/strong> to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay. Some feared repeal…might limit their individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. The views expressed to us in these terms cannot be downplayed or dismissed<\/strong>…\u00a0 A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such.<\/p>\n

However, the reality is that in today\u2019s U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions<\/strong>\u2014including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not\u2014and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist<\/strong>, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Unfortunately, the report \u201cdismisses\u201d the very concerns it says cannot be \u201cdismissed,\u201d and it uses debunked counter-examples (religion, abortion) in the process:<\/p>\n