Issue Number 1014 | Ma’am, Would You Care for Some Facts With That? | Advocate.com Ma'am, Would You Care for Some Facts With That?  |  | Advocate.com

Advocate.com health Channel
||  POLITICS  ||
 
Ma'am, Would You Care for Some Facts With That?
Judging from her congressional testimony, Elaine Donnelly may be the most strident civilian opponent of lifting "don’t ask, don’t tell." Too bad her reasons for keeping the policy in place aren’t sound.
From The Advocate  September 9, 2008
Ma'am, Would You Care for Some Facts With That?

Elaine Donnelly made quite a name for herself at the "don’t ask, don’t tell" hearing held by the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23. A die-hard advocate of minimizing the role of women in the service, Donnelly, the head of the Livonia, Mich.–based Center for Military Readiness, is now arguably the strongest civilian voice for the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. But her testimony before Congress was fairly bizarre -- she warned of an increase in “HIV-positivity” if gay soldiers were allowed to serve openly, and she stated that gay people engage in “passive/aggressive” behavior with heterosexuals -- which provoked a backlash among many of her questioners. Arkansas Democratic congressman Vic Snyder, for one, told Donnelly that her arguments were “just bonkers” and “dumb.”

We thought so too, so we checked the facts of four of her main arguments.

Argument 1: Sexual tension caused by gay soldiers will hurt morale and discipline.
Ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Donnelly argued, would “impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions.”

But a 1993 RAND Corp. study concluded that gay military personnel could serve openly without detriment to readiness. Furthermore, male and female soldiers have worked together for years, and the military hasn’t collapsed. Helena Carreiras, a sociology professor at Lisbon University in Portugal and author of the book Gender and the Military: Women in the Armed Forces of Western Democracies, says she knows of no studies “that can point to a pattern of problematic situations resulting from the integration of women in the Armed Forces, deriving from sexual tension.” And gay and straight soldiers already work side by side -- tension or no tension.

Argument 2: More gay soldiers equals more HIV infections.
“Given the officially recognized correlation between homosexual conduct and HIV infection,” Donnelly asserted, if “great numbers of men having sex with men are inducted into the military,” there would naturally be an increase in infections.

By Donnelly’s line of reasoning, as Snyder said at the hearing, “we ought to recruit only lesbians…because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country.” And if you exclude gay men, shouldn’t you also exclude African-Americans? The two groups are the most “at risk” for HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The British military allows gays to serve openly, and according to Craig Jones, a former lieutenant commander in the British navy, there’s been no evidence of an increase in HIV rates for frontline troops.

Page: 1 | 2
Additional reporting by Hannah Wareham

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

  • Name: Andre
    Date posted: 2008-08-25 4:35 PM
    Hometown: West Bloomfield, MI.

    Comment:

    You know, I live in Michigan and this type of nonsensical thinking and uncanny ability for people to try and make illogical arguments logical is certainly not rare. I have no idea how she managed to get herself all the way to the US Congress to testify, because she really was only successful in making herself look foolish.


  • Name: Mario
    Date posted: 2008-08-21 4:30 PM
    Hometown: Pinehurst

    Comment:

    Why did she testify to Congress, exactly? She made a stronger argument against DADT than most people who officially oppose it.


  • Name: Moondancer Drake
    Date posted: 2008-08-15 4:35 PM
    Hometown: Milwaukee, WI

    Comment:

    It boggles the mind why anyone would put this woman in charge of anything with her slip-shot research and blatantly biased arguments. She’s a PR nightmare for any organization, much less our own government which honestly doesn’t need any more bad press right now.


  • Name: Pepe N. Johnson
    Date posted: 2008-08-13 1:08 PM
    Hometown: Dallas, Texas

    Comment:

    Thanks for a great piece, short and to-the-point. Most Americans can see through Ms. Donnelly's rhetoric, and so can most military service members. The public is ready for change, the military is capable of handling the change, only the politicians aren't too excited about doing anything. Hopefully, they will act in the next year. Time is wasting.


Back to top

Submit a comment for this story:

*Type your comment here (Required, 1000 characters max.):

*Name (Required): 

*Hometown (Required): 

*E-mail address: (Required, but will not be displayed)

Is this comment for publication? 
Yes   No

Daytime phone number: (Required for print publication only and will not be displayed)

Please enter the words you see in the box, in order and separated by a space. Doing so helps prevent automated programs from abusing this service.

  

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above. 

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.