Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al

Filing 145

DECLARATION of Aaron Belkin in Support of Opposition to MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint #136 filed by Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans. (Woods, Daniel)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAN WOODS (SBN: 78638) PATRICK HUNNIUS (SBN: 174633) WHITE & CASE LLP 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity, Defendants. Case No. CV 04-8425 VAP (Ex) DECLARATION OF AARON BELKIN IN SUPPORT OF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: April 26, 2010 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 2

LOSANGELES 858923 (2K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF AARON BELKIN I, Aaron Belkin, declare that: 1. I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at

the University of California, Santa Barbara. I am the founder and Director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California producing scholarship and disseminating research in the areas of gender, sexuality, and the military. 2. I have been retained by Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans to testify as

an expert witness in this case. 3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the original expert

report that I prepared in this matter. 4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the amended expert

report that I prepared in this matter. 5. Exhibit B is an accurate statement of my expert opinion in this matter

and sets forth both my qualifications and the factual basis for my opinion. 6. I have reviewed the government's memorandum of points and

authorities in support of its motion for summary judgment. I was surprised to learn that the government had misrepresented my opinions and testimony in this matter. 7. For example, the government's assertion that I "acknowledged that the

privacy basis is rational in circumstances such as combat where private accommodations are not possible" is a distortion of my deposition testimony and is misleading. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 21. 8. The government entirely omitted from its memorandum my statement

that "[t]he research shows that, no, a Don't Ask, Don't Tell situation would not further heterosexual privacy in combat situations where individual accommodations are not possible." Deposition of Aaron Belkin at 35, 17-20. 9. Furthermore, it is false to say, as the government's memorandum does,

that I acknowledged that Congress could have rationally credited the privacy and sexual tension rationales when it passed the statute 10 U.S.C. § 654.

LOSANGELES 858923 (2K)

Exhibit A

Witness report By Aaron Belkin, January 15, 2010
An overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that after gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, military readiness will not be compromised, and would in fact be enhanced. The data have been produced by a wide range of scholars including scholars at the Army Research Institute, the Rand Corporation, the Defense Personnel Security Research Center, and a large number of universities. No scholarly study has ever shown that allowing open gay service will compromise military effectiveness. Indeed, official documents confirm that the military has on a number of occasions ignored and even suppressed research which shows that gay and lesbian service members do not undermine readiness. Three types of evidence can be used to assess the nature and likelihood of any impact to the military following the decision to allow open gay service, and all three types of evidence suggest that there will be no negative impact on the military. Those three areas of evidence are: x x x Data about what happens in the U.S. military when gays and lesbians serve openly. Data from analogous institutions that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly Data about the logic unpinning the unit cohesion rationale, the notion that unit cohesion will suffer if gays and lesbians serve openly

Data about what happens in the U.S. military when gays and lesbians serve openly. The U.S. military suspended the discharge proceedings of a number of gay troops during first Gulf War, and sent those troops to the Middle East to fight in the war. There have been no indications of any detriment to unit cohesion or readiness during that war. In fact, the cohesion and readiness of the troops during the first Gulf War has been widely praised. Several studies have followed units in which American troops worked with and even took orders from openly
1

gay foreigners in integrated multinational units under the auspices of NATO, the United Nations, and other multinational organizations. No negative impact to cohesion and readiness was found. More recently, a survey was administered to 545 service members who had served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Respondents were asked about the presence of openly-gay members of their units, and also about their units' cohesion and readiness. Statistical analysis of results found that there is no relationship between the presence of openly-gay troops in a unit and the cohesion or readiness of the unit.

Data from analogous institutions that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly Twenty-five foreign militaries allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Not a single one has reported any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality. Ministry of Defense studies in Canada and Britain as well as scholarly studies published in peer-reviewed journals have confirmed the same finding: decisions to allow open gay service had no negative impact on cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed forces. In the more than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality. No American police or fire department that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly has reported any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality, and scholarly research has confirmed the lack of any decline. No federal agency that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly such as the CIA, FBI or secret service has reported any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality.

2

Data about the logic unpinning the unit cohesion rationale, the notion that unit cohesion will suffer if gays and lesbians serve openly The unit cohesion rationale is the claim that heterosexuals cannot form bonds of trust with gay people, and that if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly, units will fail to develop a sufficient amount of cohesion. As a result, military effectiveness will suffer. The rationale is premised on the assumption that heterosexuals cannot form bonds of trust with gay people. Empirical data, however, call this assumption into question. A recent survey of 545 service members who served in Afghanistan and Iraq found that 72 percent are comfortable working with gays and lesbians. Of the 20 percent who are uncomfortable, only 5 percent are "very uncomfortable", while 15 percent are "somewhat" uncomfortable. Four additional observations deserve mention. First, it is correct that many service members indicate on surveys that they do not want gays and lesbians to be allowed to serve openly. Roughly speaking, and triangulating among a number of surveys that have been administered, approximately 50+ percent of service members say that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to serve openly, while approximately 40+ percent say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly. The question, however, is not whether the troops want gays and lesbians to be allowed to serve openly. It is whether open gay service will undermine military effectiveness. Second, it is correct that not every service member or every military unit is perfect. The question, however, is not about whether every service member or unit is perfect, since that is not a useful standard. As the Joint Chiefs said clearly in 1993, the main question we must ask is

3

whether open gay service will be followed by a general or overall decline in military effectiveness. Third, it is correct that a significant number of service members (between 10 and 20 percent) indicate that they will leave the military if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. Data suggest, however, that these predictions should not be taken seriously. In both Canada and Britain, two-thirds of male troops said they would not work with gays if gay bans were lifted. After the lifting of the bans, only a few people resigned in each country. Finally fourth, while the data show that allowing open gay service will not undermine the military, research suggests that a number of positive benefits will accrue. Repeal of the gay ban will 1. make it easier for gay troops to do their jobs; 2. save a small amount of money; 3. avoid the loss of talented service members; 4. eliminate a source of bad media publicity for the military; and 5. promote unit cohesion. A number of independent data-points indicate that openly gay troops are widely accepted by their peers, and that it is closeted gay troops who pretend to be heterosexual who are most likely to undermine cohesion and suffer harassment. The survey of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, mentioned above, found that 23 percent know for sure that at least one person in their unit is gay. Of these, 55 percent say that this fact is well-known in their unit. And 64 percent say it has no impact on the unit's morale. Taken together, the evidence on the ability of countries to lift their gay bans without problems is overwhelming.

4

1. The Crittenden Report from 1957 which found that gay troops did not present a security risk; 2. The PERSEREC study from 1988 which found the same thing as the Crittenden report, and also concluded that the rationale for the ban was unfounded and not based on evidence. 3. A 1992 draft report by the GAO suggesting that the military "reconsider the basis" of the gay exclusion rule; 4. A 1993 GAO study of four foreign militaries which found that "the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units." 5. A 1993 RAND study prepared by over 70 social scientists based on evidence from six countries and data analyses from hundreds of studies of cohesion that concluded that sexuality was "not germane" to military service, and recommended lifting the ban; 6. A 1994 assessment of the Canadian Forces by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences finding that predicted negative consequences of ending gay exclusion did not materialize following the lifting of the ban; 7. The assessments of the British Ministry of Defence in 2000 calling its new policy of equal treatment "a solid achievement" with "no discernible impact" on recruitment and no larger problems resulting from reform; and a 1995 assessment by a Canadian military office finding that there was no effect on readiness when the ban was lifted, despite enormous resistance and anxiety preceding the change; 8. Four independent academic studies conducted by the Palm Center at the University of California finding that lifting bans in Britain, Israel, Canada and Australia had "no impact" on

5

military readiness and that negative attitudes almost never translated into service member departures, recruitment problems or other disruptions; 9. A 2008 report by a commission of retired General and Flag Officers who concluded that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would pose no risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion." 10. A 2009 statistical analysis which shows that there is no correlation between whether or not a unit includes openly gay service members and the readiness or cohesion of the unit.

6

Bibliography Belkin, A. (2003). Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity? Parameters, vol. 33, no. 2, pp.108-119. Belkin A. and Levitt, M. (2001). Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" Armed Forces and Society, vol. 27, pp. 541-566. Belkin, A. and Embser-Herbert, M. (2002). A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military, International Security, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 178-197. Belkin, A. and McNichol, J. (2001). Homosexual Personnel Policy of the Canadian Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" International Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 73-88. Belkin, A. and McNichol, J. (2002). Pink and Blue: Outcomes Associated with the Integration of Open Gay And Lesbian Personnel in the San Diego Police Department, Police Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63-95. Benecke, M. and Dodge, K. (1990). Military Women in Nontraditional Job Fields: Casualties of the Armed Forces' War on Homosexuals. Harvard Women's Law Journal (13). Bčrubč, A. (1990). Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two. New York: Free Press. Bčrubč, A. and D'Emilio, J. (1984). The Military and Lesbians During the McCarthy Years. Signs (9), 759-775. Burrelli, D. F. (1993). Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy. Washington: Congressional Research Service. Canadian Forces (1995) Briefing Note for Director of Public Policy. Ottawa: Canadian Forces, 25 August. Cammermeyer, M. (1994). Serving in Silence. New York: Viking. Dyer, K. (Ed.). (1990). Gays in Uniform; The Pentagon's Secret Reports. Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc.

7

Frank, N. (2009). Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America. New York: St. Martin's Press. General Accounting Office (1992). DoD's Policy on Homosexuality. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, June 12. General Accounting Office (1993). Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Halley, J. (1996). The Status/Conduct Distinction in the 1993 Revisions to Military Anti-Gay Policy. GLQ, 3(2-3), 159-252. Herbert, M. S. (1998). Camouflage isn't Only for Combat; Gender, Sexuality and Women in the Military. New York: New York University Press. Herek, G. M., Jobe, J. B., & Carney, R. M. (Eds.). (1996). Out in Force; Sexual Orientation in the U.S. Military. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Humphrey, M. A. (1990). My Country, My Right to Serve: Experiences of Gay Men and Women in the Military, World War II to the Present. New York: HarperCollins. Kier, E. (1998). Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness. International Security (23), 5-39. MacCoun, Robert, Elizabeth Kier and Aaron Belkin (2006). "Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation In Combat? An Old Question with an Old Answer," Armed Forces and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 646-654. Meyer, L. D. (1996). Creating GI Jane; Sexuality and Power in the Women's Army Corps During World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Ministry of Defence (2000). A Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality. London: British Ministry of Defence, October 31. Moradi, B. and Miller L., "Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members," Manuscript in-press at Armed Forces & Society, 2009. Murphy, L. R. (1988). Perverts by Official Order: The Campaign Against Homosexuals by the United States Navy. New York: Harrington Park Press.

8

National Defense Research Institute. (1993). Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment (MR-323-OSD). Santa Monica: RAND. Osburn, C. D. (1995). A Policy in Desperate Search of a Rationale: The Military's Policy on Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, (64), 1, 199236. Pinch, F. (1994). Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian Forces. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Pond, F. (1993). A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Military Policies with Regard to Service by Gay Persons," in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Hearing Held by Senate Armed Services Committee. 103d Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Report of the General/Flag Officers' Study Group (2000). Santa Barbara: Palm Center. Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directions Dealing with Homosexuality, March 15, 1957 (Crittenden Report). Rimmerman, C. A. (Ed.). (1996). Gay Rights, Military Wrongs: Political Perspectives on Lesbians and Gays in the Military. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Sarbin, T. R and Kenneth E.K. (1988). Nonconforming Sexual Orientation and Military Suitability. Monterrey: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center. Scott, W. J. and Stanley, S. C. (1994). Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts. New York : Aldine de Bruyter. Shawer, L. (1995). And the Flag Was Still There: Straight People, Gay People, and Sexuality in the U.S. Military. New York: Harrington Park Press. Shilts, R. (1993). Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Wolinsky, M., & Sherrill, K. (Eds.). (1993). Gays and the Military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

9

Aaron Belkin

University of California

Aaron Belkin Associate Professor, Department of Political Science Director, Palm Center University of California, Santa Barbara [phone] (o); [e-mail] Higher Education University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley Brown University Teaching Univ. of California, Santa Barbara Hunter College, New York Stanford University Administration University of California, Santa Barbara, 1999-2009, Director and founder, Palm Center. Responsible for strategic planning, oversight of policy-relevant research, development (major donor and foundation), budget, communications, external relations, day-to day administration. Books United We Stand? Divide and Conquer Politics and the Logic of International Hostility. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005. Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Exploring the Debates on the Gay Ban in the U.S. Military, co-edited with Geoffrey Bateman. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives, co-edited with Philip E. Tetlock. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Articles "`The Importance of Objective Analysis' on Gays in the Military: A Response to Elaine Donnelly's Constructing the Co-Ed Military," Duke Journal of Gender and the Law, vol. 15, no. 2, 2008, pp. 419-448 "Spam filter: Gay rights and the normalization of male-male rape in the U.S. military," Radical History Review, vol. 100, 2008, pp. 180-185. 1998-2009 2006 1998 Associate Professor Associate Professor Visiting Lecturer Political Science Psychology Political Science 1991-1998 1991-1998 1984-1988 Ph.D. Political Science M.A. Political Science B.A. International Relations 1998 1992 1988

1

Aaron Belkin

University of California

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Does the Gay Ban Undermine the Military's Reputation?" Armed Forces and Society, vol. 34, no. 2, 2008 pp. 276-291. "Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation In Combat? An Old Question with an Old Answer," with Robert MacCoun and Elizabeth Kier, Armed Forces and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, 2006, pp. 646-654. "Reply to Schumm's Argument That Ending the Gay Ban Will Morally `Injure' Some Service Members," Psychological Reports, vol. 96, no. 2, 2005, pp. 334-336. "Coup-risk, Counterbalancing and International Conflict" (with Evan Schofer, Security Studies, vo1. 14, no. 1, 2005, pp. 131-166. "Toward a Structural Understanding of Coup Risk: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications," with Evan Schofer, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 47, no. 5, 2003, pp. 594-620. "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military," with Melissa S. Embser-Herbert, International Security, vol. 27, no. 2, 2002, pp. 178-197. "When Is Strategic Bombing Effective? Domestic Legitimacy and Aerial Denial," with Michael Clark, Gigi Gokcek, Robert Hinckley, Tom Knecht, and Eric Patterson, Security Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, 2002, pp. 51-88. "Pink and Blue: Outcomes Associated with the Integration of Open Gay And Lesbian Personnel in the San Diego Police Department," with Jason Mcnichol, Police Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1, 2002, pp. 63-95. "Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" with Melissa Levitt, Armed Forces and Society, vol. 27, no. 4, 2001, pp. 541-566. "Breaking Rank: Military Homophobia and the Production of Queer Practices and Identities", Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, vol. 3, no. 1, 2001, pp. 83-106. "Homosexual Personnel Policy of the Canadian Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" with Jason McNichol, International Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, 2001, pp. 73-88. "The Pentagon's Gay Ban is Not Based on Military Necessity," Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, pp. 103-119. "USSR's Third World Orphans: Deterring Desperate Dependents," with James G. Blight, Third World Quarterly, vol. 13 no. 4, 1993.

2

Aaron Belkin

University of California

"Triangular Mutual Security: Why the Cuban Missile Crisis Matters in a World Beyond the Cold War," with James G. Blight, Political Psychology, vol. 12 no. 4, 1991, pp. 727-745. Chapters "Sexual Orientation and Military Service: Prospects for Organizational and Individual Change in the United States," with Greg Herek, in Thomas W. Britt et. al., eds., Minds In The Military: Psychology And Life In The Armed Forces, Westport, CT: Praeger 2005. "Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics," with Philip E. Tetlock. In Tetlock and Belkin, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. "New Rules of the Road: U.S.-Soviet-Cuban Relations During the Cold War and After," with David Lewis and James G. Blight. In Wayne S. Smith, ed., The Russians Aren't Coming: Soviet Policy in Latin America After the Cold War. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1992. Reviews and encyclopedia entries "Officially Gay: The Political Construction of Sexuality by the U.S. Military," by Gary Lehring, in Armed Forces and Society, vol. 31, no. 3, 2005. "Gay Warriors: A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present," by B.R. Burg, in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 11, no. 4, 2002. "Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis," by Jutta Weldes, in American Political Science Review, vol. 95, no. 4, 2001. "Gays and Lesbians in the Military," in Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Professional activities Selected presentations International Society of Political Psychology Annual Scientific Meeting, Paris, July 12, 2008, "Male-Male Rape and Military Masculinity."

3

Aaron Belkin

University of California

San Francisco State University, Department of Human Sexuality Studies, March 20, 2008, "Military Masculinities and the Flight from Non-Normativity." American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Aug. 18, 2007, "Reputational Implications for the U.S. Armed Forces of `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" International Symposium for Military Ethics, January 26, 2007, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, San Jose, Oct. 16, 2006, "Purely By Force: Same-Sex Assault in the U.S. Armed Forces." Bristol University, Department of Politics, June 21, 2006, "Contamination and Purification in the U.S. Armed Forces." Dartmouth College, Legal Studies Workshop, January, 2005, "Constructing Military Citizenship: Race, Sexuality, Silence and the State." Milano School of Management and Urban Policy, New School University, December, 2004, "Framing the State of Our Art: Can and Should Social Science Play a Role in Public Policy?" Harvard University Law School, Conference on The Law of Dignity / The Politics of Shame: An Inquiry into the State of Our Art on Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Family, November, 2004, "Stoicism, Shame and Male/Male Violence in the Military." Inter-University Seminar, Chicago, October, 2003, "Constructing Normal Citizens: Militarism, Race, Sexuality and Gender." American Psychological Association Annual Meetings, Toronto, August, 2003: "Military Sexuality and Total Institutions." American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, New Orleans, November, 2002: "Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the Military." University of Toronto, Munk Centre for International Studies at Trinity College, October, 2002: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What's at State in the Debate over Military Diversity." Stanford University, Center for International Security and Cooperation, October, 2002: "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." Inter-University Seminar, Baltimore, MD, October, 2001: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Peek: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the Military." Tulane University Law School, October, 2001: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Peek: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the Military."

4

Aaron Belkin

University of California

Stanford University, Center for International Security and Cooperation, April, 2001: "The Effects Of Including Gays And Lesbians In the Military: Cross-National Comparisons." CUNY, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, New York, NY: March, 2001: "The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces: Appraising the Evidence." American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2000: "Breaking Rank: Military Homophobia and the Emergence of Queer Identity." American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September, 1999: "Civil-Military Relations as a Cause of Regional Instability: The Case of the Caucuses." American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September, 1996: "Historical Counterfactuals and Conditional Forecasts." (chair) University of Amsterdam, Department of Communication, June, 1996: "Counterfactual Arguments in World Politics." Harvard University, John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Cambridge, MA, June 1996: "Civil-Military Relations as a Cause of International Conflict." American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September, 1995: "Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics." (chair) American Political Science Association, New York, NY, September, 1994: "Contextualizing Psychology: Do Structural and Psychological Variables Interact." International Studies Association, Washington, DC, March, 1994: "An Overlooked Case of Nuclear Deterrence Failure: Domestic Survival Strategies and Syrian-Jordanian Involvement in the 1973 War." Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, RI, March, 1991: "Regional Conflict and Situational Perversity." School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, November, 1990: "Collective Security Then and Now; The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Current Dilemmas in the Persian Gulf." International Society of Political Psychology, Washington, DC, July, 1990: "Security Dilemmas and Mutual Security in the Cuban Missile Crisis."

5

Aaron Belkin

University of California

Referee and review University of Michigan Press, NYU Press, University of North Carolina Press, American Political Science Review, International Studies Quarterly, International Security, Security Studies, Armed Forces and Society, Journal of Homosexuality, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Psychological Reports, Research Grants Board, Economic and Social Research Council (UK), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Selected Recent Grants Anonymous Gill Foundation Walter and Evelyn Haas Jr. Fund Wells Fargo Foundation R. Gwin Follis Foundation Arcus Foundation Michael Palm Foundation Other professional activities Editorial Board, Journal of Homosexuality (2000-current) Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered in the Profession, American Political Association (2002-2005) Governing Council, International Society for Political Psychology (1999-2001) Honors Monette-Horowitz Trust, Annual award, 2008 Bristol University, Benjamin Meaker Visiting Professor, 2006 Outstanding Faculty Member, UC Santa Barbara, 2000, 2001, and 2002. MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellowship, University of California, Berkeley, 1996-1997. Predoctoral Fellowship, Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, 1995-6. Graduate Fellowship, National Science Foundation, 1992-5. First Prize, Alexander George Graduate Student Competition in Foreign Policy Analysis, International Studies Association, 1994. National Debate Championship, 1988. $134,000 $75,000 $75,000 $55,272 $40,000 $30,000 $1,000,000 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2007 2006

6

Exhibit B

Witness report By Aaron Belkin, March 25, 2010
An overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that after gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, military readiness will not be compromised, and would in fact be enhanced. The data have been produced by a wide range of scholars including scholars at the Army Research Institute, the Rand Corporation, the Defense Personnel Security Research Center, and a large number of universities. No scholarly study has ever shown that allowing open gay service will compromise military effectiveness. Indeed, official documents confirm that the military has on a number of occasions ignored and even suppressed research which shows that gay and lesbian service members do not undermine readiness. Three types of evidence can be used to assess the nature and likelihood of any impact to the military following the decision to allow open gay service, and all three types of evidence suggest that there will be no negative impact on the military. Those three areas of evidence are: Data about what happens in the U.S. military when gays and lesbians serve openly. Data from analogous institutions that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly Data about the logic unpinning the unit cohesion rationale, the notion that unit cohesion will suffer if gays and lesbians serve openly Data about what happens in the U.S. military when gays and lesbians serve openly. The U.S. military suspended the discharge proceedings of a number of gay troops during first Gulf War, and sent those troops to the Middle East to fight in the war. There have been no indications of any detriment to unit cohesion or readiness during that war. In fact, the cohesion and readiness of the troops during the first Gulf War has been widely praised. Several studies have followed units in which American troops worked with and even took orders from openly
1

gay foreigners in integrated multinational units under the auspices of NATO, the United Nations, and other multinational organizations. No negative impact to cohesion and readiness was found. More recently, a survey was administered to 545 service members who had served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Respondents were asked about the presence of openly-gay members of their units, and also about their units' cohesion and readiness. Statistical analysis of results found that there is no relationship between the presence of openly-gay troops in a unit and the cohesion or readiness of the unit.

Data from analogous institutions that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly Twenty-five foreign militaries allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Not a single one has reported any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality. Ministry of Defense studies in Canada and Britain as well as scholarly studies published in peer-reviewed journals have confirmed the same finding: decisions to allow open gay service had no negative impact on cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed forces. In the more than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality. No American police or fire department that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly has reported any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality, and scholarly research has confirmed the lack of any decline. No federal agency that allows gays and lesbians to serve openly such as the CIA, FBI or secret service has reported any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality.
2

Data about the logic unpinning the unit cohesion rationale, the notion that unit cohesion will suffer if gays and lesbians serve openly The unit cohesion rationale is the claim that heterosexuals cannot form bonds of trust with gay people, and that if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly, units will fail to develop a sufficient amount of cohesion. As a result, military effectiveness will suffer. The rationale is premised on the assumption that heterosexuals cannot form bonds of trust with gay people. Empirical data, however, call this assumption into question. A recent survey of 545 service members who served in Afghanistan and Iraq found that 72 percent are comfortable working with gays and lesbians. Of the 20 percent who are uncomfortable, only 5 percent are "very uncomfortable", while 15 percent are "somewhat" uncomfortable. Four additional observations deserve mention. First, it is correct that many service members indicate on surveys that they do not want gays and lesbians to be allowed to serve openly. Roughly speaking, and triangulating among a number of surveys that have been administered, approximately 50+ percent of service members say that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to serve openly, while approximately 40+ percent say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly. The question, however, is not whether the troops want gays and lesbians to be allowed to serve openly. It is whether open gay service will undermine military effectiveness. Second, it is correct that not every service member or every military unit is perfect. The question, however, is not about whether every service member or unit is perfect, since that is not a useful standard. As the Joint Chiefs said clearly in 1993, the main question we must ask is

3

whether open gay service will be followed by a general or overall decline in military effectiveness. Third, it is correct that a significant number of service members (between 10 and 20 percent) indicate that they will leave the military if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly. Data suggest, however, that these predictions should not be taken seriously. In both Canada and Britain, two-thirds of male troops said they would not work with gays if gay bans were lifted. After the lifting of the bans, only a few people resigned in each country. Finally fourth, while the data show that allowing open gay service will not undermine the military, research suggests that a number of positive benefits will accrue. Repeal of the gay ban will 1. make it easier for gay troops to do their jobs; 2. save a small amount of money; 3. avoid the loss of talented service members; 4. eliminate a source of bad media publicity for the military; and 5. promote unit cohesion. A number of independent data-points indicate that openly gay troops are widely accepted by their peers, and that it is closeted gay troops who pretend to be heterosexual who are most likely to undermine cohesion and suffer harassment. The survey of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, mentioned above, found that 23 percent know for sure that at least one person in their unit is gay. Of these, 55 percent say that this fact is well-known in their unit. And 64 percent say it has no impact on the unit's morale. Taken together, the evidence on the ability of countries to lift their gay bans without problems is overwhelming.
4

Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell" would undermine heterosexual privacy in showers, barracks or intimate spaces. There are several reasons for this. First, polls show that most service members are comfortable interacting with gay and lesbian peers. Second, polls show that most service members have access to single-stall showers most of the time. Third, polls and other studies show that most troops know or suspect that they know gay and lesbian peers in the military. If there the presence of openly gay and lesbian service members were the cause of privacy injuries in the military, we would have already heard about those injuries. Fourth, little if anything will change in showers, barracks, and intimate spaces following the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Studies suggest that the presence of absence of a gay ban has little effect on disclosure rates of sexual orientation. Very few additional gays and lesbians, in other words, will come out of the closet post-repeal. Hence, little if anything will change in the showers and barracks. Whether or not service members reveal their sexual orientation has to do with the perceived climate and culture of the unit, not the presence or absence of a gay ban. If anything, the elimination of "don't ask, don't tell" will improve privacy conditions for heterosexuals. The reason is that investigations into service members' sexual orientation can include interviews with parents, friends, lovers, family members, and other intimates of the individual under investigation. These investigations can involve highly intrusive and personal questions of the heterosexual intimates of the person under investigation, questions that have been documented in the literature. After the elimination of the ban, such investigations will no longer be needed. Perhaps even more seriously, research shows that some "butch" or "mannish" heterosexual women in the military sleep with men in order to prove that they are not lesbian. This dynamic would be mitigated as well by the elimination of the ban.
5

1. The Crittenden Report from 1957 which found that gay troops did not present a security risk; 2. The PERSEREC study from 1988 which found the same thing as the Crittenden report, and also concluded that the rationale for the ban was unfounded and not based on evidence. 3. A 1992 draft report by the GAO suggesting that the military "reconsider the basis" of the gay exclusion rule; 4. A 1993 GAO study of four foreign militaries which found that "the presence of homosexuals in the military is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units." 5. A 1993 RAND study prepared by over 70 social scientists based on evidence from six countries and data analyses from hundreds of studies of cohesion that concluded that sexuality was "not germane" to military service, and recommended lifting the ban; 6. A 1994 assessment of the Canadian Forces by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences finding that predicted negative consequences of ending gay exclusion did not materialize following the lifting of the ban; 7. The assessments of the British Ministry of Defence in 2000 calling its new policy of equal treatment "a solid achievement" with "no discernible impact" on recruitment and no larger problems resulting from reform; and a 1995 assessment by a Canadian military office finding that there was no effect on readiness when the ban was lifted, despite enormous resistance and anxiety preceding the change; 8. Four independent academic studies conducted by the Palm Center at the University of California finding that lifting bans in Britain, Israel, Canada and Australia had "no impact" on

6

military readiness and that negative attitudes almost never translated into service member departures, recruitment problems or other disruptions; 9. A 2008 report by a commission of retired General and Flag Officers who concluded that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would pose no risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion." 10. A 2009 statistical analysis which shows that there is no correlation between whether or not a unit includes openly gay service members and the readiness or cohesion of the unit.

7

Bibliography Belkin, A. (2003). Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity? Parameters, vol. 33, no. 2, pp.108-1 19. Belkin A. and Levitt, M. (2001). Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" Armed Forces and Society, vol. 27, pp. 541-566. Belkin, A. and Embser-Herbert, M. (2002). A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military, International Security, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 178-197. Belkin, A. and McNichol, J. (2001). Homosexual Personnel Policy of the Canadian Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" International Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 73-88. Belkin, A. and McNichol, J. (2002). Pink and Blue: Outcomes Associated with the Integration of Open Gay And Lesbian Personnel in the San Diego Police Department, Police Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63-95. Benecke, M. and Dodge, K. (1990). Military Women in Nontraditional Job Fields: Casualties of the Armed Forces' War on Homosexuals. Harvard Women's Law Journal (13). Bčrubč, A. (1990). Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two. New York: Free Press. Bčrubč, A. and D'Emilio, J. (1984). The Military and Lesbians During the McCarthy Years. Signs (9), 759-775. Burrelli, D. F. (1993). Homosexuals and U.S. Military Policy. Washington: Congressional Research Service. Canadian Forces (1995) Briefing Note for Director of Public Policy. Ottawa: Canadian Forces, 25 August. Cammermeyer, M. (1994). Serving in Silence. New York: Viking. Dyer, K. (Ed.). (1990). Gays in Uniform; The Pentagon's Secret Reports. Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc.
8

Frank, N. (2009). Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America. New York: St. Martin's Press. General Accounting Office (1992). DoD's Policy on Homosexuality. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, June 12. General Accounting Office (1993). Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Halley, J. (1996). The Status/Conduct Distinction in the 1993 Revisions to Military Anti-Gay Policy. GLQ, 3(2-3), 159-252. Herbert, M. S. (1998). Camouflage isn't Only for Combat; Gender, Sexuality and Women in the Military. New York: New York University Press. Herek, G. M., Jobe, J. B., & Carney, R. M. (Eds.). (1996). Out in Force; Sexual Orientation in the U.S. Military. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Humphrey, M. A. (1990). My Country, My Right to Serve: Experiences of Gay Men and Women in the Military, World War II to the Present. New York: HarperCollins. Kier, E. (1998). Homosexuals in the U.S. Military: Open Integration and Combat Effectiveness. International Security (23), 5-39. MacCoun, Robert, Elizabeth Kier and Aaron Belkin (2006). "Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation In Combat? An Old Question with an Old Answer," Armed Forces and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 646-654. Meyer, L. D. (1996). Creating GI Jane; Sexuality and Power in the Women's Army Corps During World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Ministry of Defence (2000). A Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality. London: British Ministry of Defence, October 31. Moradi, B. and Miller L., "Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members," Manuscript in-press at Armed Forces & Society, 2009. Murphy, L. R. (1988). Perverts by Official Order: The Campaign Against Homosexuals by the United States Navy. New York: Harrington Park Press.
9

National Defense Research Institute. (1993). Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment (MR-323-OSD). Santa Monica: RAND. Osburn, C. D. (1995). A Policy in Desperate Search of a Rationale: The Military's Policy on Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, (64), 1, 199236. Pinch, F. (1994). Perspectives on Organizational Change in the Canadian Forces. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Pond, F. (1993). A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Military Policies with Regard to Service by Gay Persons," in Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, Hearing Held by Senate Armed Services Committee. 103d Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Report of the General/Flag Officers' Study Group (2000). Santa Barbara: Palm Center. Report of the Board Appointed to Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directions Dealing with Homosexuality, March 15, 1957 (Crittenden Report). Rimmerman, C. A. (Ed.). (1996). Gay Rights, Military Wrongs: Political Perspectives on Lesbians and Gays in the Military. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Sarbin, T. R and Kenneth E.K. (1988). Nonconforming Sexual Orientation and Military Suitability. Monterrey: Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center. Scott, W. J. and Stanley, S. C. (1994). Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts. New York : Aldine de Bruyter. Shawer, L. (1995). And the Flag Was Still There: Straight People, Gay People, and Sexuality in the U.S. Military. New York: Harrington Park Press. Shilts, R. (1993). Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Wolinsky, M., & Sherrill, K. (Eds.). (1993). Gays and the Military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

10

Aaron Belkin

University of California

Aaron Belkin Associate Professor, Department of Political Science Director, Palm Center University of California, Santa Barbara [phone] (o); [e-mail] Higher Education University of California, Berkeley, 1991-1998 University of California, Berkeley, 1991-1998 Brown University 1984-1988 Teaching Univ. of California, Santa Barbara 1998-2009 Hunter College, New York, 2006 Stanford University, 1998 Ph.D. Political Science M.A. Political Science B.A. International Relations 1998 1992 1988

Associate Professor Political Science Associate Professor Psychology Visiting Lecturer, Political Science

Administration University of California, Santa Barbara, 1999-2009, Director and founder, Palm Center. Responsible for strategic planning, oversight of policy-relevant research, development (major donor and foundation), budget, communications, external relations, day-to day administration. Books United We Stand? Divide and Conquer Politics and the Logic of International Hostility. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005. Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Exploring the Debates on the Gay Ban in the U.S. Military, co-edited with Geoffrey Bateman. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives, co-edited with Philip E. Tetlock. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Articles "`The Importance of Objective Analysis' on Gays in the Military: A Response to Elaine Donnelly's Constructing the Co-Ed Military," Duke Journal of Gender and the Law, vol. 15, no. 2, 2008, pp. 419-448 "Spam filter: Gay rights and the normalization of male-male rape in the U.S. military," Radical History Review, vol. 100, 2008, pp. 180-185.

1

Aaron Belkin

University of California

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Does the Gay Ban Undermine the Military's Reputation?" Armed Forces and Society, vol. 34, no. 2, 2008 pp. 276-291. "Does Social Cohesion Determine Motivation In Combat? An Old Question with an Old Answer," with Robert MacCoun and Elizabeth Kier, Armed Forces and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, 2006, pp. 646-654. "Reply to Schumm's Argument That Ending the Gay Ban Will Morally `Injure' Some Service Members," Psychological Reports, vol. 96, no. 2, 2005, pp. 334-336. "Coup-risk, Counterbalancing and International Conflict" (with Evan Schofer, Security Studies, vo1. 14, no. 1, 2005, pp. 131-166. "Toward a Structural Understanding of Coup Risk: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications," with Evan Schofer, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 47, no. 5, 2003, pp. 594-620. "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military," with Melissa S. Embser-Herbert, International Security, vol. 27, no. 2, 2002, pp. 178-197. "When Is Strategic Bombing Effective? Domestic Legitimacy and Aerial Denial," with Michael Clark, Gigi Gokcek, Robert Hinckley, Tom Knecht, and Eric Patterson, Security Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, 2002, pp. 5 1-88. "Pink and Blue: Outcomes Associated with the Integration of Open Gay And Lesbian Personnel in the San Diego Police Department," with Jason Mcnichol, Police Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 1, 2002, pp. 63-95. "Homosexuality and the Israel Defense Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" with Melissa Levitt, Armed Forces and Society, vol. 27, no. 4, 2001, pp. 541-566. "Breaking Rank: Military Homophobia and the Production of Queer Practices and Identities", Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, vol. 3, no. 1, 2001, pp. 83-106. "Homosexual Personnel Policy of the Canadian Forces; Did Lifting the Gay Ban Undermine Military Performance?" with Jason McNichol, International Journal, vol. 56, no. 1, 2001, pp. 73-88. "The Pentagon's Gay Ban is Not Based on Military Necessity," Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, pp. 103-119. "USSR's Third World Orphans: Deterring Desperate Dependents," with James G. Blight, Third World Quarterly, vol. 13 no. 4, 1993.

2

Aaron Belkin

University of California

"Triangular Mutual Security: Why the Cuban Missile Crisis Matters in a World Beyond the Cold War," with James G. Blight, Political Psychology, vol. 12 no. 4, 1991, pp. 727-745. Chapters "Sexual Orientation and Military Service: Prospects for Organizational and Individual Change in the United States," with Greg Herek, in Thomas W. Britt et. al., eds., Minds In The Military: Psychology And Life In The Armed Forces, Westport, CT: Praeger 2005. "Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics," with Philip E. Tetlock. In Tetlock and Belkin, eds., Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. "New Rules of the Road: U.S.-Soviet-Cuban Relations During the Cold War and After," with David Lewis and James G. Blight. In Wayne S. Smith, ed., The Russians Aren't Coming: Soviet Policy in Latin America After the Cold War. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1992. Reviews and encyclopedia entries "Officially Gay: The Political Construction of Sexuality by the U.S. Military," by Gary Lehring, in Armed Forces and Society, vol. 31, no. 3, 2005. "Gay Warriors: A Documentary History from the Ancient World to the Present," by B.R. Burg, in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 11, no. 4, 2002. "Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis," by Jutta Weldes, in American Political Science Review, vol. 95, no. 4, 2001. "Gays and Lesbians in the Military," in Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Professional activities Selected presentations International Society of Political Psychology Annual Scientific Meeting, Paris, July 12, 2008, "Male-Male Rape and Military Masculinity."

3

Aaron Belkin

University of California

San Francisco State University, Department of Human Sexuality Studies, March 20, 2008, "Military Masculinities and the Flight from Non-Normativity." American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Aug. 18, 2007, "Reputational Implications for the U.S. Armed Forces of `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" International Symposium for Military Ethics, January 26, 2007, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of `Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, San Jose, Oct. 16, 2006, "Purely By Force: Same-Sex Assault in the U.S. Armed Forces." Bristol University, Department of Politics, June 21, 2006, "Contamination and Purification in the U.S. Armed Forces." Dartmouth College, Legal Studies Workshop, January, 2005, "Constructing Military Citizenship: Race, Sexuality, Silence and the State." Milano School of Management and Urban Policy, New School University, December, 2004, "Framing the State of Our Art: Can and Should Social Science Play a Role in Public Policy?" Harvard University Law School, Conference on The Law of Dignity / The Politics of Shame: An Inquiry into the State of Our Art on Sex, Sexuality, Gender and the Family, November, 2004, "Stoicism, Shame and Male/Male Violence in the Military." Inter-University Seminar, Chicago, October, 2003, "Constructing Normal Citizens: Militarism, Race, Sexuality and Gender." American Psychological Association Annual Meetings, Toronto, August, 2003: "Military Sexuality and Total Institutions." American Anthropological Association Annual Meetings, New Orleans, November, 2002: "Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the Military." University of Toronto, Munk Centre for International Studies at Trinity College, October, 2002: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: What's at State in the Debate over Military Diversity." Stanford University, Center for International Security and Cooperation, October, 2002: "A Modest Proposal: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the U.S. Military." Inter-University Seminar, Baltimore, MD, October, 2001: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Peek: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the Military." Tulane University Law School, October, 2001: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Peek: Privacy as a Rationale for Excluding Gays and Lesbians from the Military."

4

Aaron Belkin

University of California

Stanford University, Center for International Security and Cooperation, April, 2001: "The Effects Of Including Gays And Lesbians In the Military: Cross-National Comparisons." CUNY, Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, New York, NY: March, 2001: "The Effects of Including Gay and Lesbian Soldiers in the British Armed Forces: Appraising the Evidence." American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2000: "Breaking Rank: Military Homophobia and the Emergence of Queer Identity." American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September, 1999: "Civil-Military Relations as a Cause of Regional Instability: The Case of the Caucuses." American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, September, 1996: "Historical Counterfactuals and Conditional Forecasts." (chair) University of Amsterdam, Department of Communication, June, 1996: "Counterfactual Arguments in World Politics." Harvard University, John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Cambridge, MA, June 1996: "Civil-Military Relations as a Cause of International Conflict." American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September, 1995: "Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics." (chair) American Political Science Association, New York, NY, September, 1994: "Contextualizing Psychology: Do Structural and Psychological Variables Interact." International Studies Association, Washington, DC, March, 1994: "An Overlooked Case of Nuclear Deterrence Failure: Domestic Survival Strategies and Syrian-Jordanian Involvement in the 1973 War." Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, RI, March, 1991: "Regional Conflict and Situational Perversity." School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, November, 1990: "Collective Security Then and Now; The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and Current Dilemmas in the Persian Gulf." International Society of Political Psychology, Washington, DC, July, 1990: "Security Dilemmas and Mutual Security in the Cuban Missile Crisis."

5

Aaron Belkin

University of California

Referee and review University of Michigan Press, NYU Press, University of North Carolina Press, American Political Science Review, International Studies Quarterly, International Security, Security Studies, Armed Forces and Society, Journal of Homosexuality, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Psychological Reports, Research Grants Board, Economic and Social Research Council (UK), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Selected Recent Grants Anonymous Gill Foundation Walter and Evelyn Haas Jr. Fund Wells Fargo Foundation R. Gwin Follis Foundation Arcus Foundation Michael Palm Foundation Other professional activities Editorial Board, Journal of Homosexuality (2000-current) Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered in the Profession, American Political Association (2002-2005) Governing Council, International Society for Political Psychology (1999-2001) Honors Monette-Horowitz Trust, Annual award, 2008 Bristol University, Benjamin Meaker Visiting Professor, 2006 Outstanding Faculty Member, UC Santa Barbara, 2000, 2001, and 2002. MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellowship, University of California, Berkeley, 1996-1997. Predoctoral Fellowship, Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, 1995-6. Graduate Fellowship, National Science Foundation, 1992-5. First Prize, Alexander George Graduate Student Competition in Foreign Policy Analysis, International Studies Association, 1994. National Debate Championship, 1988. $134,000 $75,000 $75,000 $55,272 $40,000 $30,000 $1,000,000 2008 2008 2008 2007 2007 2007 2006

6