Homosexuality in the Armed Forces
Dear Sir,
I have asked leave to present this memorandum since I believe that I am one
of the few people in this country equally familiar with the world of the Armed
Forces and with that of the ‘homosexual community’. More important, I am in
the fortunate position of being able to say so quite frankly.
My knowledge of the Armed Forces is based not so much on my own experience
as an infantry officer fifty years ago, in a large National Service army very
different from the small and highly professional services of today, as on the close
relationship I have maintained with all three services in the past forty years: as an
adviser on educational policy and organisation, and as a lecturer at service colleges
at every level from cadet colleges to the Royal College of Defence Studies. I have
also enjoyed the friendship, and the close confidence, of several generations of
senior officers, some of whom indeed were my pupils at Oxford.
My knowledge of the world of homosexuals comes from inside. I am myself
homosexual and enjoy the company of a wide range of homosexual friends. All
are honest, honourable, hardworking and patriotic people, many of whom have
achieved great distinction in their professions.
My service experience, both at first and at second-hand, makes me understand
very well why homosexuals present problems to the Armed Forces. I assume that
no one needs to argue that homosexuals of either sex are likely to be any less
courageous, reliable and efficient at their jobs than their heterosexual colleagues;
any such arguments are easily confuted by the factual record of the Second
World War. Nor are homosexuals in the Armed Forces any more likely to make
unwanted sexual advances to members of their own sex than are heterosexuals to
the opposite. If such cases do occur they are clear breaches of military discipline
and can be dealt with as such.
I suggest, therefore, that the problem arises primarily from the social
unacceptability of known homosexuals in units where combat efficiency depends
on a mutual understanding and comradeship of like-minded people who share
common values and – it must be said – common prejudices. In groups that
set a high value on ‘masculinity’ and whose life revolves, while young, around
the pursuit of girls and, when older, around the problems of married life,
homosexuals do not easily fit. Those who display their sexual orientations by
their actions or behaviour are likely – unless they have exceptional countervailing
qualities – to be ‘extruded from the herd’ whatever official policy may be on
the matter. Arguments drawn from the examples of classical Greece or Sparta,
or even from front-line experiences in two world wars, will cut little ice in
the sergeants’ or petty officers’ mess. Commanding officers may dislike such
prejudices, but they have to tolerate them. Their job is to run efficient units,
not schools for politically correct behaviour. Nevertheless, if they do allow
themselves to be affected by such prejudices, they may deprive them of the
services of some first-rate soldiers.
A lifetime of experience has shown me, however, that homosexuals are infinitely
diverse, and cannot be stereotyped. For many, their sexual inclination is the least
significant element of their personalities. Homosexuals come in all different shapes
and sizes. Among them are to be found large numbers of happy and respected
schoolteachers, nurses, academics, administrators and indeed servicemen, able to
make a unique contribution to the communities that they serve. Such people do
not consider themselves to belong to the ‘homosexual community’; they belong to
their own communities, whether schools, colleges, hospitals, villages, churches or,
given the chance, the Armed Forces, and they can bring to them special qualities
of dedication.
To arbitrarily exclude such people from the opportunity of serving in the
Armed Forces is not so much unjust as contrary to the best interests of the Armed
Forces themselves, especially in times of difficult recruitment. They have an
enormous contribution to make. It is illogical to deny people the opportunity of
serving in the Armed Forces for no other reason than that they are not attracted
to the opposite sex.
People should not be penalised or punished for what they are, but for what they do.
Unless the Armed Forces recognise this, their practice will be at variance, not only
with that of all other organisations in this country, including the fire service and
the police, but in conflict with enduring ethical values for which this country is
supposed to stand and has fought several wars in this century to uphold.
Yours Faithfully,
Michael Howard