Levin OK With Pentagon's DADT Survey, Provided Results Don't Leak

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said on Tuesday that he supports an internal Pentagon survey of servicemembers' opinions of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", provided that the questions are phrased in a way that ensures the results won't affect policy.

But the Michigan Democrat, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee and is a vocal opponent of DADT, expressed deep concern that the survey results would be leaked, in an effort to launch a quasi-veto threat of DADT's repeal.

"I wouldn't call for them to be released at all. They will probably [be] leaked. But it won't be leaked at my suggestion," Levin said, during a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "It should not be released in my judgment. It was intended to be a private survey and it ought to stay that way. I have no hopes that that will be the case. But I obviously dream."

A bit of controversy erupted late last week when it was revealed that the Defense Department sent a survey to 400,000 servicemembers asking them for their opinions on DADT -- the discriminatory policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the armed forces. Critics noted that internal polling has not been done during other moments of desegregation within the military (both with women and African-Americans). Moreover, they expressed concern that the results of the findings could be used to stall congressional action in repealing DADT, or to institute a system of open segregation in the armed forces once congressional action is finished.

These are legitimate concerns, said Levin. And it is vital to dispel the notion that the survey's results will impact any future internal-military policy.

"It would be really, really unacceptable that the greater use of surveys might lead people of the military to believe it is a democracy," said the senator. "The military is not a democracy."

But while he has not seen the survey himself, Levin is willing to support its implementation, provided that the obvious pitfalls are avoided.

"If the survey were properly worded and got to all of the issues including the feelings about discrimination, I wouldn't have a problem with it," he said. "Even though it is kind of unprecedented. It did not happen when it came to the inclusion of women. It did not happen when it came to the ending of discrimination against African Americans. Those surveys weren't taken and I can understand the resentment, by the way, from the gay community that this occurs now but not with those other efforts..."

"It has to be clear that this is done by the leaders of the Defense Department to help them implement a decision that they have made that this discriminatory policy should end, so that the people filling out the survey don't get the impression that there is a veto they are going to help create if they vote no or against inclusion of gays in the military. Then I wouldn't have a problem with it."

Comments

[ElBruce]

02:51 AM on 07/22/2010

If one respects the service of our military, then one has to admit that their job is to do what is expected of them by the civilian administration. To allow the opinions of the military to influence policy is to violate the enter notion of service to civilian control.

[Jdaddy1951]

10:38 AM on 07/14/2010

No military personnel should participate in this survey until AFTER DADT is no longer law. Get rid of DADT, then we'll talk about surveys.

[rosiebond007]

10:04 AM on 07/14/2010

Providing there is no "leak" in the information ....................

That's a joke right there. There is always someone who gets their jollies providing a leak of personal info.

[Pippen]

07:32 AM on 07/14/2010

This story is just a small window into one command. You be the judge.

My best friend in the military was flaming gay but he kept it uniform military while on duty. He is sharp, very capable, and proven performance under pressure. He was an exemplary sailor. When DADT came out he decided he didnt agree with it and wanted to challenge it and was willing to put his life and his beliefs on the line. I respected that and cautioned him of the legal repercussions. He understood and committed to the challenge anyway.

He dressed in glossy red spandex pants that stopped above the ankle, glittery halter top open to the chest, make up and high heals and marched (swished) his way to the Captain's state room and demanded to be released from the service.

The Captain without looking up from his paper work blankly said, "...Go back to work your not going anywhere..."

[Buckeye54]

10:22 AM on 07/14/2010

Thank goodness I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this or I would have spit it all over my monitor.

"...Go back to work your not going anywhere..."

Yes....real military professional would react in just this manner.

[Hardyman1966]

01:42 AM on 07/14/2010

People serving in the military are not there to take surveys or offer opinion.

They are there to follow orders and carry our their job as best as possible.

If you're going to fall to pieces because there MIGHT be a gay guy in the room who you've already been serving with for several years, you have no business serving in the military in the first place and should go home and get a job at Wal Mart. Period.

[useyourbrain]

01:34 AM on 07/14/2010

Also, if our soldiers are scared to shower with gays then what kind of soldiers are they. Imagine in battle. What would they do if they run out screaming like a bunch of sissy girls because a gay is in the shower. And if "the straights" think straight guys don't check each other out in the showers to see how they "compare", then they are liars or liars.

[liberaldemdave]

08:41 PM on 07/13/2010

several thoughts for senator levin, who i respect:

1.) you're chairman of the senate arms services committee and you haven't seen the survery? (i may have been born at night but it wasn't last night, sir. hop on the internet and read the survey)
2.) while the glbt community is very upset at the affront to our very existence by the policy and the administration's acquiescence to the right in subjecting us to the indignity of the poll, what we have most against the poll are the misleading, not to mention LEADING questions ON the poll.
3.) "It was intended to be a private survey and it ought to stay that way." if it had remained private, we wouldn't be able to see the obvious bias written into the poll. shame on you for allowing the poll to even be sent, forget it or the results being "leaked".
4.) if you understand our resentment, repudiate the survey and call for it to be scrapped without any so-called analysis of the so-called survey. why give merit to an action that has no precedent?

[formerroadie]

04:49 PM on 07/13/2010

I honestly don't care what other servicepeople think. DADT is wrong.... period. It matters not what the haters say. The fault lies with the bigots, not with those discriminated against.

[RockyMissouri]

06:02 PM on 07/13/2010

Fanned....thank you!

[Omnix]

03:43 PM on 07/13/2010

The military may not be a democracy; but soldiers are the paragon of American citizen. Thus, their voice deserves to be heard over many others. Don't confuse the ravings of self-serving Generals to be the general consensus (no pun intended). Soldiers know better than most what is at stake, and know what it really feels like to put your life in another persons hands. They should have a voice in this decision; and I believe this survey is one of the best ways to get a picture of what they (collectively) believe. Having said that, though, our representatives are commissioned with the task of deciphering this and other information, and assessing the impact of lifting the DADT policy. Having served in the Air Force, I doubt it will make much difference to most of the heterosexual soldiers - and it should be par for the course for the Navy guys... :)

Seriously, though, the DADT policy was a step in the right direction, at the time; but it's time to move on. Gay and bi-sexual soldiers have served in all ranks and branches of the military with distinction and honor, and should not be penalized because of their sexual orientation. The only obstacle is overcoming the machismo-driven, patriarchal subculture that exists within certain branches/careers in the military; so the government should ensure that openly gay soldiers are not mistreated, assaulted, or worse. Otherwise, it really shouldn't have any impact besides ending the senseless condemnation of soldiers.

[RockyMissouri]

06:06 PM on 07/13/2010

Fanned..another brave American speaking the truth....thank you!

[useyourbrain]

01:38 AM on 07/14/2010

Maybe they should ask gay soldiers in an anonymous survey if they have issues serving with straights.

In EVERY U.S. war gays and lesbians were conscripted and served. They were fodder like all the others. If they came back alive, however, they were dishonorably discharged only to be called back again for the next war.

The military has lowered its standard to take felons and people with less than normal intelligence -- but not gays.

And what about the gays that don't serve in barracks? What about the 100+ translators that were kicked out. They spoke Pharsi and were able to translate the thousands of communications between the terrorists -- but Bushbaby fired them. That'll show us!

[RockyMissouri]

06:47 AM on 07/14/2010

Fanned.....Thank you.

[bakesnake]

03:16 PM on 07/13/2010

I am in the military and have recently completed the DADT survey. There are a couple of points to clear up some of misunderstanding/misinformation out there:

1. The DADT survey does not ask for soldiers' opinions on whether or not DADT should be repealed. The survey does not "poll" soldiers on DADT.

2. I would offer that one of the reasons why the military did not conduct surveys for racial integration or for women in the military is due to cost and feasibility. In the age of computers and the internet, it is much easier to disseminate a mass survey. I've been in the military since 1991 and can personally attest that number of surveys I've been asked to complete have grown from 0 to about 5 per year.

3. Also, racial integration and women in the military were issues faced by the draft Army. Military leaders did not have to worry about retention rates or volunteers, so there was literally no need to find out what soldiers felt about issues.

The questions in the survey I completed indicate to me that the military is simply trying to gauge the overall impact of the decision. For an organization that is conducting two major operations with soldiers all over the world in a variety of living arrangements, this is not only prudent, but necessary.

The repeal will happen. Just a matter of time.

[random thought]

06:44 PM on 07/13/2010

Thanks for your input - and your service.

[Pippen]

06:38 AM on 07/14/2010

Thanks bakesnake I hope the audience here reads your post. Glad to see your around, stay that way and thanks for serving.

[Hillbilly49]

02:44 PM on 07/13/2010

What if Harry Truman had taken a survey and see if the military wanted integration in 1948?

"That would be great!"

If Faux News existed in 1948 one could only imagine how they would spin that.

[FoonTheElder]

02:35 PM on 07/13/2010

Perhaps they should survey the armed forces and ask them if they want to be in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

[calindi]

02:24 PM on 07/13/2010

Should anti-semitic views be surveyed as well, Senator Levin?

[Marie Gage]

02:13 PM on 07/13/2010

4.4 million dollars of waste -

[RockyMissouri]

06:09 PM on 07/13/2010

You said it..4.4 million, for nothing! Wasteful.

[taxpaying]

02:06 PM on 07/13/2010

The article states, 'But while he has not seen the survey himself, Levin is willing to support its implementation, provided that the obvious pitfalls are avoided.' Obviously, the obvious pitfalls haven't been avoided because Senator Levin is supporting a survey he hasn't even seen!

Senator, wasn't there a general who testified before Congress that some mission failed because of the homosexuals? Didn't the Pentagon hire this so called independent firm to devise this survey? You think they may have chose the firm that would word it to support their position just like investment banks hire ratings agencies to give them the rating they want?