Pentagon Reworks Policy on Treatment of Gays

The Pentagon Friday closed the books on its most notorious case of anti-gay harassment, ordering further tightening of disciplinary rules but declaring the Army chain of command blameless in the slaying of a homosexual private.

One year after the murder of Army Pfc. Barry Winchell focused renewed attention on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the Pentagon broadened the definition of harassment and said that it would hold superiors accountable for condoning or “ignoring” illegal treatment of troops who are believed to be gay. Officials also directed a further expansion of training of members of the military at all levels.

Gay activists praised the Pentagon’s steps but complained that the emphasis on accountability is “incongruous” with findings that no one in a leadership position at Ft. Campbell, Ky., at the time of the murder had done anything wrong.

“It raises huge questions of why there was so little accountability at Ft. Campbell itself,” said C. Dixon Osburn, co-executive director of the Service Members Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group in Washington.

Winchell, 21, a member of the 101st Airborne Division, was fatally beaten with a baseball bat while he slept in his barracks on the evening of July 5, 1999. Two of Winchell’s fellow soldiers were convicted of the crime and are serving prison terms.

The crime brought a storm of criticism of the 7-year-old “don’t ask” policy, which was designed to permit gays and lesbians to serve so long as they do not engage in homosexual acts or disclose their sexual orientation.

President Clinton in December declared that the policy was “way out of whack, and I don’t think any serious person can say it’s not.”

But Pentagon officials, noting that the policy is law, have since been defending it and trying to make adjustments to keep it viable.

At a news conference Friday at the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense Bernard Rostker discussed an Army inspector general’s report concerning the Ft. Campbell incident and the recommendations on the harassment policy, made by a Pentagon “working group” that studied broader, related issues. He disputed Clinton’s conclusions.

“I don’t agree with [Clinton’s] characterization,” Rostker said. “I think the policy is working reasonably well to provide a degree of safety to those who want to serve in the military regardless of their sexual orientation.”

The working group’s proposals--which have been accepted by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen--will define harassment to include words and gestures, in addition to physical assaults. To mobilize commanders against harassment, the rules state that officials “must take appropriate action against anyone who ignores or condones harassment,” said Carol DiBattiste, the Air Force undersecretary.

The policy also requires annual, rather than “periodic,” training on harassment, and calls for training sessions at all levels.

DiBattiste, who chaired the departmental study group, said her panel took seriously a Pentagon survey of the services showing that 80% of those polled had witnessed anti-gay speech or actions.

Yet the study by the Army inspector general found that there was no overall climate of homophobia at Ft. Campbell.

With some exceptions “it was determined that the command climate at Ft. Campbell before 5 July 1999 was a positive environment,” the inspector general’s report said. It also said that the chain of command at Ft. Campbell, including Winchell’s company commander, “responded appropriately” when confronted with situations that appeared to violate the “don’t ask” policy.

Gay activists said that some evidence within the inspector general’s report contradicted that positive picture.

The report, for example, found “joking and bantering” at Ft. Campbell “on a regular basis . . . that could be viewed as harassment.” It pointed out the behavior of a noncommissioned officer in Winchell’s unit--since removed from command--who “improperly used terms derogatory to homosexuals.”

Rostker said there was a limit to how much even effective commanders could do. “In the final analysis, can we control three soldiers in a barracks? Ultimately, we can’t control every person in every situation.”