Skewered Truth: They Didn’t Ask, So How Can You Tell?

A recent op-ed in the NY Times by retired army Merrill McPeak makes the false claim that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military will corrode “unit cohesion.”  The argument is an old, unsupportable position.  Aside from infuriate those advocating a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, it pollutes the market of truth with inaccurate and incomplete information about the alleged effects of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military.  Despite McPeak’s attempt to uphold an outdated and inherently discriminatory, the fact that the Times choose to publish such a factual inaccurate article is troubling and signals that the editors for the paper don’t understand their role in a free and open society.

I wasn’t sure which angle to take this one from.  There are two very important and significant issues at hand here:  civil rights and media responsibility.  There is no doubt that both issues are of paramount importance.  However, the role of the media as an apparatus of “truth” dissemination is less scrutinized despite its predominant role in the market place of ideas.  Thus, total breakdown in factual reporting notwithstanding, any lapse in media responsibility often goes overlooked, discarded as simply a gaff, or worse yet, as something expected.  So I will pay it some attention here.

The insidious nature of the Times op-ed isn’t that the author opposes repealing DADT.  There are legitimate concerns to be identified and debated.  The important thing is that they are discussed within the context of a fact-based debate, not one muddled by inaccuracies, falsehoods, and omissions of fact.  The Times op-ed falls squarely in the latter category.  McPeak’s article is a glaring example of outdated and inaccurate views on sexuality and the military.  However, the more troubling issue isn’t so much that McPeak’s views are off the mark.  What is more concerning is that the Times’ editors didn’t find it necessary to query on his so-called facts supporting his views.  Either that or perhaps they are just as ignorant as the author; if that’s the case, God help us.

McPeak’s position is that allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces would undermine unit cohesion.  There isn’t anything particularly insidious about this statement, even though it isn’t grounded in any fact-based analysis.  As long as claims are based on logical conclusions derived from sound facts there is nothing insidious about making a challenging claim.  In a society that operates on the foundation of the free market place of ideas, this is a fairly reasonable standard, especially for articles published in one of the most widely read newspapers in the world.  Unfortunately, McPeak’s op-ed doesn’t qualify as fact-based.  Quite the opposite, to the embarrassment of the Times.

His main critique is that those advocating for repealing  DADT haven’t researched the effects it would have on unit cohesion.  This is a completely erroneous statement. McPeak falsely claims that “advocates for gays in the service have by and large avoided a discussion of unit cohesion.”  This simply isn’t true.  There is plenty of scholarly research available that supports the notion gay soldiers can serve alongside straight soldiers without undermining unit cohesion or causing other problems that might worsen the military’s capability to carry out its missions.  The fact that the Times allowed McPeak to get away with saying something so blatantly false is troubling.

Since the Times is unable to fact-check themselves, I’ll do it for them, free of charge.  Contrary to McPeak’s bogus claim, there is plenty of research available that supports the notion that openly gay soldiers serving side-by-side straight soldiers has no harmful effects on unit cohesion, a total rebuttal of McPeak’s claim.  In fact, one such source is an article published last year by the the DoD’s own Joint Forces Quarterly, which argued that “the stated premise of [Dont' Ask, Don't Tell] — to protect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness — is not supported by any scientific studies.”

False information aside, another glaring deficiency in McPeak’s op-ed is, as Stephen Walt pointed out, “his failure to discuss any of the countries where gays do serve openly, such as Israel, Australia, Canada, or Great Britain.”  Available research, including the JFQ article, shows that countries that allow gays to serve openly do not suffer from a lack of unit cohesion, or any other detrimental effects.  Foreign militaries who have lifted bans on homosexual soldiers function just as efficiently as militaries who do, minus the inherent discrimination.  A recent report by the Palm Center notes:

“In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops.”

So, an article published by one of the world’s most influential “truth” disseminators contains one glaringly ignorant falsehood and one issue-skewering omission.   Setting aside the issue of civil rights, what is most egregious is that the Times allowed such a factually inaccurate article to run in their paper.  It would be one thing if this were some no-name, local newspaper.  It’s a whole other realm of reporting and news coverage when it’s The New York Times.

It all goes back to the importance of maintaining a reasonable standard for what is worthy to be released into the market place of ideas.  In order for a free and open society to function properly, there must be checks on what is granted “legitimacy” and “authority.”  Most people who read NYT, paranoid conservative dunces notwithstanding, are under the impression that what they are reading is fact-based reporting.  Moreover, when it comes to particularly tempestuous issues, like civil rights, there must be an even high standard of reporting and information diffusion.  Of course there’s no such thing as perfect reporting; it goes without saying that there will be bad articles written and inaccurate statements made.  However, when it comes to an especially controversial issue like DADT, there must be an especially high standard of reporting.  The Times really ought to be ashamed of itself for running such a shoddy piece given the magnitude of the issue being discussed.  This article in no way helps the ongoing debate about DADT.  It muddies the waters of an already murky river.

Healthy debate is an essential component of a society which makes its decision in the free market place of ideas.  Influential media outlets (e.g. the NYT) play an essential, if not paramount, role in ensuring the diffusion of “healthy” (i.e. accurate) information.  They are the parents and the citizens are the children.  The children eat what the parents feed them.  Healthy children have good parents.  Unhealthy children have irresponsible parents.  McPeak’s piece is a good example of what a bad diet looks like.

Rational decision making in the market place of ideas rests upon the ability to have intelligent, healthy debate.  Anything that obstructs this process muddles the debate process and leads to erroneous conclusions and bad decisions.  Perhaps the editors at the Times missed that memo.  I think the local community colleges offer courses in FACs.  Perhaps they should enroll.  Children shouldn’t eat pizza and ice cream for breakfast.  It’s bad brain food.

Haven’t you heard?  Wheaties is the breakfast of champions!