Cover image for Don't : a reader's guide to the military's anti-gay policy
Title:
Don't : a reader's guide to the military's anti-gay policy
Author:
Halley, Janet E., 1952-
Personal Author:
Publication Information:
Durham, NC : Duke University Press, 1999.
Physical Description:
xiv, 159 pages ; 21 cm.
Language:
English
Reading Level:
1460 Lexile.
ISBN:
9780822322856

9780822323174
Format :
Book

Available:*

Library
Call Number
Material Type
Home Location
Status
Central Library UB418.G38 H35 1999 Adult Non-Fiction Non-Fiction Area
Searching...
Central Library UB418.G38 H35 1999 Adult Non-Fiction Central Closed Stacks
Searching...

On Order

Summary

Summary

In Don't Janet E. Halley explains how the military's new anti-gay policy is fundamentally misdescribed by its common nickname, "Don't Ask/Don't Tell." This ubiquitous phrase, she points out, implies that it discharges servicemembers not for who they are, but for what they do. It insinuates that, as long as military personnel keep quiet about their homosexual orientation and desist from "homosexual conduct," no one will try to pry them out of their closets and all will be well.
Not so, reveals Halley. In order to work through the steps by which the new law was ultimately drafted, she opens with a close reading of the 1986 Supreme Court sodomy case which served as the legal and rhetorical model for the policy revisions made in 1993. Halley also describes how the Clinton administration's attempts to offer Congress an opportunity to regulate conduct--and not status--were flatly rejected and not included in the final statute. Using cultural and critical theory seldom applied to explain the law, Halley argues that, far from providing privacy and an assurance that servicemembers' careers will be ruined only if they engage in illegal conduct, the rule activates a culture of minute surveillance in which every member must strictly avoid using any gesture in an ever-evolving lexicon of "conduct that manifests a propensity." In other words, not only homosexuals but all military personnel are placed in danger by the new policy. After challenging previous pro-gay arguments against the policy that have failed to expose its most devious and dangerous elements, Halley ends with a persuasive discussion about how it is both unconstitutional and, politically, an act of sustained bad faith.
This knowledgeable and eye-opening analysis of one of the most important public policy debates of the 1990s will interest legal scholars, policymakers, activists, military historians and personnel, as well as citizens concerned about issues of discrimination.


Summary

In Don't Janet E. Halley explains how the military's new anti-gay policy is fundamentally misdescribed by its common nickname, "Don't Ask/Don't Tell." This ubiquitous phrase, she points out, implies that it discharges servicemembers not for who they are, but for what they do. It insinuates that, as long as military personnel keep quiet about their homosexual orientation and desist from "homosexual conduct," no one will try to pry them out of their closets and all will be well.
Not so, reveals Halley. In order to work through the steps by which the new law was ultimately drafted, she opens with a close reading of the 1986 Supreme Court sodomy case which served as the legal and rhetorical model for the policy revisions made in 1993. Halley also describes how the Clinton administration's attempts to offer Congress an opportunity to regulate conduct--and not status--were flatly rejected and not included in the final statute. Using cultural and critical theory seldom applied to explain the law, Halley argues that, far from providing privacy and an assurance that servicemembers' careers will be ruined only if they engage in illegal conduct, the rule activates a culture of minute surveillance in which every member must strictly avoid using any gesture in an ever-evolving lexicon of "conduct that manifests a propensity." In other words, not only homosexuals but all military personnel are placed in danger by the new policy. After challenging previous pro-gay arguments against the policy that have failed to expose its most devious and dangerous elements, Halley ends with a persuasive discussion about how it is both unconstitutional and, politically, an act of sustained bad faith.
This knowledgeable and eye-opening analysis of one of the most important public policy debates of the 1990s will interest legal scholars, policymakers, activists, military historians and personnel, as well as citizens concerned about issues of discrimination.


Author Notes

Janet E. Halley is Professor of Law at Stanford University.


Janet E. Halley is Professor of Law at Stanford University.


Reviews 2

Booklist Review

If you thought the policy changes that came out of the gays-in-the-military fracas in Clinton's first term made things easier for gay soldiers, you're wrong, Halley says. Meticulously tracing the paper trail of how the changes were formulated, she argues that the new policy is more oppressive. Under wording that allows separation proceedings to be initiated if a soldier is perceived to manifest the propensity for homosexuality, the new policy blurs the distinction between homosexual conduct and homosexual status. The policy's ostensible defense mechanism for accused soldiers--that the presumption of homosexuality is theirs to rebut--is largely illusory, for successful rebuttal requires denying the accuser's perception. As for "commanders, don't ask" and "soldiers, don't tell," which many think characterize the new policy--neither is in it. Indeed, a commanding officer may initiate investigation upon any perception of possible homosexuality: this is license for the kind of witch-hunting advocates of change wanted squelched for good. Excellent exposition on its subject, though not exactly easy reading. --Ray Olson


Booklist Review

If you thought the policy changes that came out of the gays-in-the-military fracas in Clinton's first term made things easier for gay soldiers, you're wrong, Halley says. Meticulously tracing the paper trail of how the changes were formulated, she argues that the new policy is more oppressive. Under wording that allows separation proceedings to be initiated if a soldier is perceived to manifest the propensity for homosexuality, the new policy blurs the distinction between homosexual conduct and homosexual status. The policy's ostensible defense mechanism for accused soldiers--that the presumption of homosexuality is theirs to rebut--is largely illusory, for successful rebuttal requires denying the accuser's perception. As for "commanders, don't ask" and "soldiers, don't tell," which many think characterize the new policy--neither is in it. Indeed, a commanding officer may initiate investigation upon any perception of possible homosexuality: this is license for the kind of witch-hunting advocates of change wanted squelched for good. Excellent exposition on its subject, though not exactly easy reading. --Ray Olson


Table of Contents

Acknowledgments
Introduction
The Negotiations and the Players
Clinton Is to Conduct as Congress Is to Status
But Everyone Agrees on the Propensity Clauses
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Acknowledgments
Introduction
The Negotiations and the Players
Clinton Is to Conduct as Congress Is to Status
But Everyone Agrees on the Propensity Clauses
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography

Google Preview