New Study: No Negative Effects from DADT Repeal

The Palm Center, a research branch of the Williams Institute at University of California Los Angeles Law School, released the results of a study to highlight all of the negative consequences of Don't Ask/Don't Tell's repeal during the past year. They found nothing. No overall negative impact on military readiness. No problems with unit cohesion. No problems with recruitment. No problems with retention. And no problems with service member morale:

The authors of the study, who included professors at U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy and U.S. Marine Corps War College, arrived at this conclusion after soliciting the views of 553 generals and admirals who predicted that repeal would undermine the military, as well as conducting interviews with expert opponents of DADT repeal, a number of watchdog organizations and more than 60 active-duty heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual troops from every service branch.

They also observed several military units and administered several surveys, analyzed relevant media articles published during the research period and conducted secondary source analysis of surveys independently administered by outside groups.

"For almost twenty years, experts predicted that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would harm the military," said Aaron Belkin, the founding director of the Palm Center and lead author of the study. "Now the evidence is in, and the conclusion is clear: repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' did not harm the military, and if anything made it easier for the Pentagon to pursue its mission."

The biggest complaints I've heard have been from military chaplain groups -- and mainly retired military chaplain groups -- who have struggled with serving members of the military who are gay. They have struggled with serving gay and lesbian service members because homosexuality is against their religion. But they have somehow learned how to serve heterosexual service members who are Muslims, Pagans, or who belong to other religious groups -- something that also violates the tenets of their religion.