Monthly Archives: September 2011

Summary of DADT, Workplace Culture and the Impact of Repeal

Posted on by
Reply

On September 20th, 60 days after the repeal order was signed for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), it goes into effect. Popular media have covered Military preparations for the changes. Though many see this as a necessary step in the right direction (some think it was way overdue), no one thinks this will put an end to problems. The military has had little success with consistent enforcement of DADT.  Nor has the military dealt all that well with blackmail and intimidation that the secrecy of DADT fomented.  DADT may end discharges using sexual orientation as the stated reason but it will likely be the beginning of a number of other issues: Can hate-crimes be prosecuted within the service branches? Will spousal benefits become a part of the employee benefits package? and many other related cultural issues.

Sometimes we forget the serving in the military is a job-the employer is the federal government-and it is an American workplace or more accurately a collection of related but different (branches) workplaces.  The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal represents a significant philosophical departure from past practice and such will have workplace culture-changing repercussions. Creating a sound Military work culture requires attention to a number of different goals. If you are anti-war or anti-military you will take issue with this entire article. If you accept that a functioning military is necessary, I can imagine three different fundamental principles or philosophies, necessary for a sustainable military. First they must try to prepare humans who are otherwise peaceful creatures to kill others and destroy property. As American children grow up in a civilian world where these acts are against the law, it is a challenge to say the least whether or not you think it is wrong altogether. Second, this workplace must also try to respond humanely when service members are wounded physically and emotionally.  Finally, I would like to see a workplace free of abuse and intimidation among coworkers (pie in the sky, I know). I’m not sure how average service personnel think of the last goal but American employees have a right to work free of abuse, harassment and intimidation based upon American civilian law. If we are keeping score, the military is doing well with waging war but not so well with humane treatment of their wounded and really not well at all with the free-of-abuse-and-intimidation goals. While we don’t have current federal legislation making discrimination a crime based upon sexual orientation, many states have taken this step, including my home state of Maine.

Recent suicide statistics have given military management pause especially in the months in which suicides have outnumbered warfare deaths. Incidentally, it is difficult to find exact numbers for suicides and hostility-related deaths by month. Time magazine has covered this story extensively.  Increased suicides are both a comment on how horrible warfare is and the unfortunate way in which the military has handled personnel mental health needs. It’s not like the clinical expertise and strategies required to treat and prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) aren’t available. Ironically, most of the research that supported the formalization PTSD as a psychiatric diagnosis comes from research by the military on combat fatigue.

But the issue isn’t all black and white.  Military officers are not all narrow-minded conservatives.  There are military officers who are both strategic and progressive in their thinking and work approach.  I was struck by this when reading one of many quotes in a fascinating Gentlemen’s Quarterly article: “Tell: An Intimate History of Gay Men in the Military.” (Read more at: GQ, Sept 2011). The article notes stories from dozens of gay service men who served during war times from WW II to today.  These stories are mixed.  Yes, there are terrible stories of physical abuse, blackmail and intimidation (some are nauseating for sure) but there are hopeful stories in which those in charge refused to make being gay an issue even when disclosed. Some of this depended on the branch.  It seems that the most progressive branch, according to first-hand accounts is the Navy.  Generally, the Marine Corps was the worst from a hazing and harassment working-conditions standpoint.  But one gay Marine says that the Marine Corps was the best place to hide as long as you were tough and “straight-looking.” Some gay service men were very clever in how they maintained a neutral sexuality stance.  Some pretended to be straight.

Here is one of the stories I found optimistic:

A gay male Marine confided in a female friend/peer that he was gay.  When the two had a falling-out, the female attempted to get him in trouble by going to their superior officer with the disclosure.  The chief officer replied, “He’s a good Marine.  I’m not really interested in any of this nonsense ….Mind your own business.” That was the end of it. The gay Marine attributes his good fortune to his good job performance.  I think it also had to do with the ethical thinking on the part of the officer.

There is so much more to read-I highly recommend reading the entire article.  It is long and full of various different strategies for remaining “sane” while maintaining secrets.  It also describes the various different ways in which gay service members and their coworkers handled the excruciating contradiction of apparent neutrality (just don’t talk about it) with the psychological effects & risks of dangerous secret-keeping.

Researching this issue, I found a number of other resources for those who haven’t followed this issue up to now but who might be interested once the repeal takes effect on September 20th. I’m sure the issue will generate considerable media coverage next week.

Resources from a variety of angles, appear below:

Historical summary

Good old Wikipedia can always be counted on for a historical summary that includes important dates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don’t_ask,_don’t_tell

The legislative process

The Human Rights Campaign website includes information about who worked on repeal wording and how it came about legislatively:

http://www.hrc.org/sites/repealdadt/index.asp?gclid=CL2qnr2spKsCFWsEQAodXEu80Q

Military communicating its position on the repeal

The Military’s official website includes a July 2011 video in which the Marine Commandant articulates how diversity and professionalism are consistent with lawfulness and the United States constitution.  Pretty clear statement though I realize that some service men and women to not behave consistently with the stated value or rules. Here is the video link:

http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/marine-commandant-on-dadt/1040941450001/

More specific legal matters affecting service members

The Service Member Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide legal guidance and support to gay service members.  To this point, support has centered around ensuring that legal rights are protected and providing a place for gay service members to turn when their orientation threatened their service.  This link is to a page that provides an excellent legal history of DADT and the site

http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

Transgendered service members

Often, discussion of GLBT issues are heavy on coverage of gays and lesbians and light on coverage of transgendered individuals.  According to the Service Member Legal Defense Network, transgendered individuals are barred from serving for reasons unrelated to DADT.  According the their website, the reasons are physical and mental while other sites describe the lack of care (drugs and counseling) within military service as the reason.  I am puzzled by a transgendered person who would want to serve in a military branch and subject themselves to this environment but they are protected from discrimination in several states who include gender identity in their anti-discrimination statutes. Here is an excellent legal discussion of the issue by the SLDN:

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/ncte-and-sldn-advise-transgender-service-members-coming-out-may-lead-to-dis/

List of equality issues remaining after repeal of DADT

Here is a list of military equality issues that still remain for the GLBT community according to this private nonprofit website: equalitygiving.org.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/DADT?page-version=0&date=20110917132057

I hope you find this material informative.

911, the Media and Human Trauma – It’s Complicated

Posted on by
2

I teach a psychology course, Trauma, Abuse and Recovery,  in which we discuss both personal trauma and more public, large-scale traumas like natural disasters.  In addition to natural disasters of course are those made by “man” including the 911 attacks on US soil.  Students have to prepare one paper on the trauma, suffering and responses to victims and survivors when a large-scale event takes place.  Among the questions they must answer are: What are survivor immediate needs? What kind of help was provided? Was that help effective? etc.  They can choose any event covered by the media in which 100 or more people are affected.

Media coverage of 911

The coincidental ten-year anniversary of 911 got me thinking that the trauma resulting from 911 is not a black and white thing– Islam is bad, Americans were attacked, American survivors are suffering.  It is so much more complicated than that.  Last week I talked about the re-traumatization survivors experience during media anniversary coverage each year.  I talked about how there was (at least I thought I remembered) a backlash regarding the graphic/sensationalized media coverage of the first anniversary in September 2002.  In my recollection, anniversaries since then were less sensationalized and more sensitive.  I searched extensively for popular media acknowledgement or mental health expert criticisms of first anniversary coverage but could find nothing specific.  I was looking for warnings that sensationalized coverage is harmful to survivors’ recovery or that graphic coverage was in bad taste after the 2002 anniversary. Nothing.

I did find articles offering several different perspectives on the traumas suffered right after the event and today that are complicated by political, economic, social and religious forces.  I provide a range of brief perspectives below along with article links and let readers follow up on areas of interest.

1.  How traumatized were Americans after 911?

Benjamin Radford,has characterized the idea of widespread, ongoing trauma as a patriotic myth, “the idea that most American’s lives profoundly changed after 9/11 is simply a patriotic myth.”  His perspective is that media accounts by their nature, focus on the most dramatic responses to an event – the most panicked the most emotive, etc.  He says that Americans getting on with their lives is not an interesting story and so, is not covered or discussed.

Link: http://news.discovery.com/human/americans-change-911-110909.html

2.  Children’s exposure to 24/7 news coverage – a caution to parents.

On September 13th, 2001, Laura Bush was interviewed on “Larry King Live” about the tragedy.  Literally two days later, Mrs. Bush knew that the experience of watching graphic video footage on CNN and other news channels was not good for children.  First, they would be suffering because their parents were upset and preoccupied.  Second, a small child is formulating his/her ideas about the world.  It just isn’t healthy to see buildings blowing up and people talking nonstop about how many people died. In fact, many networks (non-news channels) preempted regular coverage for days afterward. There is a good summary of what news channels did on Wikipedia (link below).  911 gave birth to the 24 hour scrolling ticker which remains today on most news stations. Mrs. Bush knew that good child development requires parents that reassure children, tell them they’re safe and that the adults are in control.  It was great advice that applied then and now.

Link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/13/se.54.html

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_audiovisual_entertainment_affected_by_the_September_11_attacks

3. PTSD, Self-care and managing the dose of re-creation exposure

The mental health community is well aware of the trauma symptoms many survivors are still suffering today. On September 8th this year, Mental Health America reminded Americans that the coverage would bring up memories and could result in troubling symptoms.  They provided a list of resources and some clinically sound alternatives to remember the day instead of watching graphic pictures and re-enactments.  Survivors will continue to re-experience the events for many years, depending upon their pre-event mental health and the amount of healthy support they receive, etc.  This would be the case if they were celebrating the anniversary of a very private event.  They would have some control over what images they “let in.” With 911, however, Mental Health America understands that the images of this event are out of each survivor’s control and are everywhere.  These external forces can often only be managed by turning off the television.  Something Laura Bush also advised parents to do in her 9/13/2001 discussion with Larry King.

Link: http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=45008779-1372-4D20-C85EB2D2F8972872

4.  Brain changes and PTSD

Emily Sohn wrote a piece in September 2010 entitled: “911 Imprint Persists in American Brains, Bodies” in which she quotes Barbara Ganzel, neuroscientist at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. “It makes sense that our experiences would affect our brains and bodies.” This article includes a discussion of studies showing strong chemical reactions in the amygdala, the part of the brain that forms emotional memories when 911 survivors were shown emotional images. This differed the reactions of those who were less directly affected by the 911 tragedy. Dr. Ganzel has also studied resilient individuals who somehow make sense of the trauma, experience healing and return to a pre-trauma level of functioning.

Link: http://news.discovery.com/human/memories-psychology-9-11.html

5.  Litigation

Apparently one case is winding its way through Manhattan courts in which the mother of Mark Bavis, a passenger on one of the planes that crashed into the towers, alleges that she is owed compensation.  This compensation is for suffering the unimaginable “21 minutes of terror” just before the plane crashed into the tower. I wonder if this mother has allowed her mind to process or picture what it might have been like for passengers. What it would be like to see the towers coming closer as the plane approached. I heard one voice recording of a flight attendant describing the plane as “way too low” and then her voice cuts off.  One of the reasons I can’t watch re-enactments of the events of flight 93 is that I can’t keep my mind from imagining just such an experience.  It is almost too much for me to process, too painful.  Mark Bavis’s mother is holding on to this pain and doing what she feels is right by trying hold someone accountable for the horror. I wonder if this will actually help her heal but that’s the thing.  In my own mental health practice I see patients healed or at least helped by things I would have cautioned against.

Linked in: http://news.discovery.com/human/911-victims-suing-110803.html

6.  Positive use of the media for social change, advocacy

I learned a new phrase,  “mediated suffering.” It refers to when the media covers devastating suffering so that people far from the event can understand it. This phenomenon can be used so that the world will not ignore human suffering even if it takes place on the other side of the world.  The 2011 white paper is: “Suffering up Close: the Strategic Construction of Mediated Suffering on Al Jazeera English,” credited to Tine Ustad Figenschou at the University of Oslo, Norway. In summary, media coverage that brings the view in close and personal to human suffering can engender awareness, empathy and  potentially give rise to “political argument and institutional strategy,” in other words, positive change.

Link: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/851/521

7. Trauma and suffering by innocent Islamic Americans and visitors

This is an angle that received far less media attention in the early aftermath of 911 and still does today.  One theory is that this view was drowned out by right-wing politics.  I don’t have an opinion on all the forces that might be responsible.  It’s complicated.  But something I found on this site surprised me.

I came across a web page that brought  home a new aspect of suffering that I had only abstractly considered before reading the material.  If I had close friends who practiced Islamic traditions or who wore traditional garb, I would have felt this more deeply, earlier. The page is sponsored by the Study of Islam Section of the American Academy of Religion.  This is a nonprofit group founded in 1909 with 10,000 members today. Members are largely faculty and graduate students at colleges, universities, and divinity schools in North America.   The mission is “furthering knowledge of religion and religious institutions in all their forms and manifestations . . seeking to enhance its broad public understanding.”

Six days after the 911 attack, this group released a statement signed by 38 religious scholars from around the globe titled “Scholars of Islam speak out against terrorism; clarify position of Islam.” There are several statements and resources noted but the one I was struck by, characterized the attacks on US soil as “murder,” indefensible, and not a part of Islamic teaching.  The narrative goes on to say that Muslim students were afraid to wear traditional garb and that some had fled the country in fear. Many of their students were citizens of non-middle eastern countries and had nothing to do with middle eastern politics. The materials and references on this web page were created on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks. According to the site, this material has been used as a scholarly source by individuals around the globe to provide balance to anti-Islamic sentiment both right after the event and today.

Reading this material helps me to picture a young Muslim American studying at one of the 38 colleges noted on the page, watching the planes crashing into the World Trade Center with horror not only for the deaths and aftermath, but thinking, “Now, I am not safe.”

I wonder if Muslim Americans might not have felt safe in the following months of 2001 to come out against the attacks.  Perhaps they were fearful of drawing any attention to themselves.  Perhaps this was one of the reasons for the 38 scholars to make as large a list as possible before signing the document. I heard then and continue to hear now urgings by non-Muslims for members of the religion to help us understand how radical Islamist connect their terrorism to what is an otherwise a peaceful religion. 

Link: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

I’m glad the anniversary has passed and hope survivors find some peace and healing.