Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al
Filing
154
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE (PAGES 1-600) In Support of Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint #136 filed by Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans. (Attachments: #1 Appendix LCR Appendix 1-200, #2 Appendix LCR Appendix 201-300, #3 Appendix LCR Appendix 301-400, #4 Appendix LCR Appendix 401-500, #5 Appendix LCR Appendix 501-600)(Hunnius, Patrick)
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al
Doc. 154 Att. 1
Appendix of Evidence in Support of Log Cabin Republican's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
LCR Appendix Pages 1-200 (Part 1 of 19)
Dockets.Justia.com
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 1 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 Reported by: EMI ALBRIGHT RPR, CSR No. 13042 Job No. 19676
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION _________________________________________________ LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. vs. ) ) CV04-8425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense, ) (VAP)(Ex) ) ) Defendants. ) ) __________________________________________________
DEPOSITION OF AARON BELKIN, Ph.D. March 5, 2010 San Francisco, California
LCR Appendix Page 0001
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 6 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 BY MR. FREEBORNE: Q Dr. Belkin, for the record could you AARON BELKIN, Ph.D., having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION San Francisco, California, March 5, 2010 9:01 a.m. - 2:53 p.m.
state your name and your address, please? A Aaron Belkin, 2208 Derby Street,
Berkeley, California 94715. Q A Q A Q witness? A like this. I testified in a case but it wasn't It is that I saw an instance of You understand you are under oath? I do. Have you been deposed before? No, this is my first time. You have never testified as a fact
harassment and I was called to say what I said. Q That was in an Equal Employment
Opportunity case? A Q No, I think it was criminal, actually. Did you testify at trial?
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0002
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 27 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 data. there is a range of knowledge. But on the polls,
at least Zogby and Military Times, there is a distinction between people who, quote, unquote, say they know for sure versus people who suspect. So that is as fine grained an analysis as we can do because that's what the questions ask. But I
take your point that there are many different ways of knowing something. But we only know in this
case of the distinction between know -- sorry -know for sure, suspect, and don't know. Q A Q Let's take know for sure and suspect. Uh-huh. And let's put aside the actual polling But why do you believe or do you believe
that if heterosexuals know or suspect that they are serving with gay and lesbian service members, that has an impact in evaluating the privacy rationale? A The privacy rationale is premised on
the assumption that after the repeal of the ban that conditions in living spaces will change. if it is true that service members are serving with people -- sorry -- that heterosexual service members know that they are serving with gays and lesbians now and if it is also the case that that
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
And
LCR Appendix Page 0003
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 28 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 is not likely to change or to change much postrepeal, then the privacy rationale by definition cannot be plausible because there would be no change in showers or barracks or intimate spaces. So the baseline condition of whether
people are serving with gays and lesbians now sustains that argument. That is point 1.
Point 2 is because the data to the extent that a significant portion of service members, straight service members know they are serving with gays and lesbians, that casts doubt on the heat surrounding the privacy rationale. you listen to the main proponents of the privacy rationale and the way they express their claims, their point is that there are no gays and lesbians serving -- there are no -- straights are not aware of any gays and lesbians in their units now. And If
if they were, we have a privacy disaster and the sky would fall. Well, the fact is to the extent that the data show that they are serving with people who they know to be gay, then the claim of the privacy rationale proponents is wrong because people are serving already. And also the claims
about the sky falling down are at very least cast
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0004
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 29 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 into significant doubt because, obviously, the sky hasn't fallen now. data are important. Q And in terms of the baseline that you So that's the reason why those
made reference to, why do you believe that the baseline would not change postrepeal? A It is two factors -- well, possibly
more than two factors, but I will start with two factors. One is that the literature suggests that what determines the level of outness, in other words, what derives a decision to reveal sexual orientation is not the presence or absence of a ban but it is the safety of the unit. is the service member's assessment of the climate -- the culture or the climate of the work environment. And not only is there scholarship on So And it
that but to me that makes intuitive sense. that's point 1. And point 2 is that in analogous
institutions that I have studied, we have not seen waves of mass disclosures postrepeal of a ban. And so that is what informs my conclusion. Q And with respect to the first basis,
when you say it is the service member's perceived
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0005
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 35 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 A Q A Under certain conditions? Yes? Absolutely, under certain conditions
private showers are not possible. Q Do you believe that would be important
to take into consideration in evaluating the privacy rationale? A I would say that if that were true --
and I have just acknowledged it is -- then the privacy rationale could be valid in those circumstances. Q Well, is it your opinion that a Don't
Ask, Don't Tell policy would be appropriate in, say, combat conditions but not in noncombat conditions where accommodations permit individual showers or more private accommodations? A The 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. Q What is that research that you are
referring to? A Q A Well, my research, for one thing. What research? The point -- well, it is many points.
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0006
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 36 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 I will go over all the points, yeah, I will because you asked me the question. Q A Yes. First of all, because there will be no
change, no meaningful change among disclosure rates postrepeal. So whether you have -- and in
other words, even if you granted that every heterosexual person in the military is grossly discomfort in the nude around gays and lesbians, there will be no change in the privacy conditions even in combat postrepeal because again you won't have any difference in the shower because straights are already serving with people they know to be gay, and the extent to which that is true will not change in any meaningful way. that is one. Q Can I just stop? Can I stop you there So
just -- you want to finish? A Q A I actually would like to finish. That's fine. Second of all, because actually in
combat situations what we find is that you have men and women quartering together. And so
actually in combat the military realizes and in deployment situations when the bullets are flying,
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0007
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 37 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 those are the moments when the troops are most focused on the mission. And to the extent they
are most focused on the mission, other concerns recede to the background. And, third of all, because my research and others' research has shown that the level of extreme discomfort around gays and lesbians has diminished drastically, and so the percent of people for whom even in theory this could be an issue, which again would not change pre and postrepeal, is very tiny. So that is why I don't
believe that -- well, the research shows that whether or not you have a gay ban is immaterial for privacy in the shower. Q Okay. And correct me if I'm wrong.
The baseline reasoning that you just set forth that there would be no change in the percentage of acknowledged gay and lesbian service members between a prerepeal environment and a postrepeal environment is based upon your research of foreign militaries; correct? A I actually wouldn't say that. I
wouldn't say that is totally the case. Q A What would you say? I would say that it is based on -- it
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0008
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 38 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 is based on a range of data analogous in the institutions in the U.S. We did not have reports
of mass disclosures in police or fire departments, the CIA, basically any organization that changed from a discriminatory to an inclusionary policy. So we have never seen that. be Point 1. Point 2, in the U.S. military itself when the ban has been relaxed or softened, we did not see any change in disclosure rates. have evidence from our militaries. of all is the foreign militaries. And then fourth of all is the theoretical point -- it is not empirical but it is theoretical, but consistent with all the empirics, that what drives disclosure is not the presence or absence of a ban but the service member's read of the climate in the unit. Q And that finding applies across foreign So we So I guess that would
And then third
militaries that you studied, paramilitary organizations such as police departments, federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA, that permit the disclosure of one's sexual orientation? A Q Yes, and the U.S. military. Right. And describe for me the context
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0009
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 43 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 Q A Okay. Anything else?
Yes, but I'm not recalling off the top But if I remember later, then I hope
of my head.
I can say it later. Q A Q You can absolutely say it later. Okay. The third factor you set forth in
evaluating the privacy rationale was the counterfactual. on that one. What would be in the example of a counterfactual of the complete ban that you were referring to? A The counterfactual is a hypothetical. And I have to admit you lost me
It is a claim about something that never happened. And so if you made a hypothetical or counterfactual claim that God came in and told the military who every gay person was, even if they are closeted, have never -- they might not even know themselves they are gay, but just identified every person with a gay or possibly gay identity and just got them out of the military so the military was 100 percent straight, 100 percent straight, no gays whatsoever, no closeted gays, no future gays, what would happen in privacy
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0010
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 44 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 settings, in intimate settings in the shower in the barracks. experiment. And my argument is that to the extent you believe that the shower and barracks are places where privacy violations take place because of gays, then that hypothetical counterfactual world with no gays would still have just as many privacy violations involving just the same kinds of things that people who articulate the privacy rationale worry about now. And the reason for that is because straight service members have sex in the military with each other. And even if there were no gays, So that's the hypothetical
they would just go right on having sex with each other. And so to the extent that that's what you
are concerned about, kind of looking and sexual play and sex itself, that is actually not about gay people being in the military. That is a
phenomenon that is independent of whether or not gays are in the military. reasons why I know that. Q A What are those three reasons? There is statistical evidence, And there are three
ethnographic evidence, and legal evidence.
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0011
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 45 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 Q And take me through each of those
pieces of evidence. A Well, the legal evidence is the queen
for a day exception, which has this lengthy history, that the military itself knows that this is going on which is why they need a queen for a day exception. If it wasn't going on, then they So
would not need a queen for a day exception.
the very fact that this regulation has lived in -well, in regulation and in statute for most of the last century is evidence that the military itself knows quite well that this is going on. The ethnographic evidence is just descriptions from the literature. wrote a whole study on this. I actually
But, for example, a
marine chaplain who says something to the effect of, oh, yeah, marines are always jacking off together in the showers, that is very common from what I have seen, so things like that. A unit of
navy seals that I know of where the seals all in a unit in a circle masturbate together, so things like that -- straight seals. And then the statistical evidence is that the best available evidence we have is that the percent of men -- gay men in the population
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0012
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 46 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 and the percent of gay men in the military is just about the same, very close to each other. However, if you look at statistical evidence about the frequency of male/male sex among veterans, it is much higher than in the general population. And what that -- it does not prove that the veterans are having the -- the straight veterans are having gay sex in the military because it is possible that veterans have more gay sex than civilians because they have their gay sex after their military service; that is absolutely possible. But I would say at the very least it is
not inconsistent with the notion supported by ethnographic and legal evidence that straight people are having gay sex in the military. And
even if you could get rid of all gays, they would just keep right on having that sex. It is kind of
like a fraternity ritual, I mean, some of the hazing rituals you hear about. So I actually make this argument at military academies when I go speak there. And you
get a perplexed look from some people, but a lot of people kind of nod and smirk and they know what is going on. Q The fourth factor or fourth layer of
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0013
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 74 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 Q All right. And what specific questions
did she say to anticipate in that regard? A I don't think she specified anything,
but she said that that was -- my memory is correct, she said that was an area where your side, the Government seems intent on trying to make a point. Q Okay. With respect to we talked
earlier about the privacy rationale, did the Israeli defense forces make any special accommodation for gays and lesbians or heterosexuals postrepeal? A Are you talking about special
accommodations in terms of systematic policy law or regulation or are you talking about special accommodations in terms of micro-practices, discretionary practices on the ground? Q Let's start with the latter. What I am
thinking of is either in terms of facilities or allowing heterosexuals, for example, to serve, to live at home if they had a particular privacy interest that they felt was being infringed upon by allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve. A I believe we found one case where a
commander had allowed a straight service member to
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0014
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 75 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 back. You have looked at the Canadian, Australian, Israeli, and Great Britain examples; right? A Me personally or the center?
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
shower at different times.
So I believe it was he
would not have to be in the shower with other people. And I believe we found one case where And I am
someone was allowed to live off base.
sorry I don't remember if that was the same person or not. Q member? A Q If my memory is correct. And the special accommodation that was So that was a heterosexual service
provided for that heterosexual member or members was based upon a privacy concern expressed by the heterosexual member? A I don't know the details but my strong
suspicion would be yes. Q A What is that suspicion based upon? That they wouldn't have done the --
they wouldn't have made the accommodation if there wasn't a concern. Q Did you find any other -- well, step
LCR Appendix Page 0015
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 209 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 the pluralistic ignorance hypothesis. get you references of that. And I could
It is a well
established hypothesis in the psychological literature. Q I only have one more question. You
submitted your report -- or we submitted your report to the Government on January 15th 2010. Has anything happened since then that either bolsters your expert opinion or is relevant to your expert opinion in this case? A Well, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff said that he thinks the policy compromises the integrity of the forces by forcing service members to lie. And a currently serving
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has never said that. And he said that our troops are pretty
robust and professional and that they can make the adjustment to an inclusive policy without problems. So I would say that that testimony
bolstered the research. And I would say in terms of the conviction, that people who express reservations about unit cohesion and privacy and things like that are not coming from a place based on evidence but are coming from a place based on moral
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0016
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 210 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
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
intolerance.
I just found out that, in fact,
General Conway of the Service Chief of the Marines is coordinating opposition to repeal efforts with Peter Pace. And Peter Pace is the former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was honest enough to admit when asked by the Chicago Tribune editorial board why we have a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, he was honest enough to admit it is because homosexual conduct is immoral. Now, he was rowdly criticized for that, but I was actually happy he said that because for the first time we had a military person being honest about the policy. So the fact that he is
back in the quarterback seat tells me -reinforces my conviction that this policy is not and never has been about cohesion or privacy or any other rational military ends but it is about promoting the moral convictions of a particular group of individuals. MS. FELDMAN: questions. MR. FREEBORNE: further questions. (Deposition concluded at 2:53 p.m.) Thank you, Doctor. No I have no other
LCR Appendix Page 0017
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 211 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 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
I hereby certify that I have read and examined the foregoing transcript, and the same is a true and accurate record of the testimony given by me. Any additions or corrections that I feel are necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet of paper to the original transcript.
_________________________ Signature of Deponent
I hereby certify that the individual representing himself/herself to be the above-named individual, appeared before me this _____ day of ____________, 2010, and executed the above certificate in my presence.
________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
________________________ County Name
LCR Appendix Page 0018
Aaron Belkin, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA
March 5, 2010
Page 212 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
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) : ss County of Alameda ) )
I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify: That the foregoing proceedings
were taken before me at the time and place herein set forth; that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim record of the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate transcription thereof. I further certify
that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any party to this action or relative or employee of any such attorney or counsel and that I am not financially interested in the said action or the outcome thereof; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed my name. Dated:____________________________
EMI ALBRIGHT, CSR No. 13042
LCR Appendix Page 0019
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 1 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
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION ----------------------------LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Plaintiff, vs. No. CV04-8425 (VAP) (Ex) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense, Defendants. -----------------------------
February 26, 2010 10:02 a.m. Deposition of Expert Witness NATHANIEL FRANK, Ph.D., held at the offices of White & Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, pursuant to Notice, before Theresa Tramondo, a Notary Public of the State of New York.
LCR Appendix Page 0020
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 8 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
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
NATHANIEL
F R A N K,
P h. D.,
called as a witness, having been duly sworn by a Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. FREEBORNE: Q. please. A. Q. A. Dr. Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. What is your address? Home address is 118 Gates Avenue, State your name for the record,
Brooklyn, New York 11238. Q. A. Q. Dr. Frank, good morning. Morning. I introduced myself this morning, I'm an I am
but my name is Paul Freeborne.
attorney at the Department of Justice.
counsel of record in the case captioned Log Cabin Republicans versus The United States. The action has been brought against the United States and Secretary Gates. As you
know, it involves a facial challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute. To my left is Ryan Parker. He's
LCR Appendix Page 0021
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 46 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 mean -Q. A. As an expert in this case. You mean LCRVUS or in this issue Frank irrational in a legal sense, but go ahead answer the question. Q. Are you entering any legal opinions
in this case? A. No. When you say "in this case," do you
we're discussing? Q. I see them as co-extensive, but in
"this case" being Log Cabin versus United States, as an expert, are you rendering any legal opinions? A. have -Q. I just note that because I am not Well, I am not a lawyer, so I
asking you for a legal conclusion. A. Q. Okay. When I use "irrational," I mean it
in a -- from the vantage point of expert opinion as a factual matter. A. this way: Let me try to answer that question Some people in the military have a
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0022
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 47 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 Frank desire not to serve with gay people because they feel that it is an invasion of their privacy. I'm not comfortable concluding that
some people's feelings and desires are irrational, that those people's desires and feelings are irrational. Q. that? A. Q. Do you have anything else to add on I don't want to cut you off? No. Have you ever been involved either
as an expert or a nontestifying expert in any other challenge to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? A. Q. A. Legal challenge? Legal challenge? I was involved as an expert witness
in a case -- a military criminal case of nonconsensual sex. My understanding is that
was not a challenge to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Q. Is that United States V Sergeant
Dale Boldware? A. Q. That's right. What did you do in that case?
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0023
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 111 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 Q. Frank Do you believe that General
Powell's testimony in that record was based upon a moral animus towards gay and lesbian service members? A. Q. Based on that assertion, no. Do you believe that he was
motivated by an animus towards gay and lesbian service members in providing the testimony he did before the Senate? A. What I say in my report is that
Powell is one of the people who argued for the band based on personal reasons. I don't
know that that rises in his case to moral animus. I believe that he believed that open
homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military but didn't base that belief on military necessity. belief. Q. It was a personal
I am not calling it animus. Do you agree or disagree that his
concern with privacy was based upon his professional military judgment? A. His concern with privacy as a
general matter may certainly be based on his professional military judgment, but what he
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0024
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 112 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 Frank says here does not constitute an argument for keeping out open homosexuals. Q. A. Why is that? Because what he says here is that
service members are required to serve with very little privacy, so it doesn't make any sense to me to conclude from that that there is a justification to exclude open homosexuals since he's just acknowledged that part of being in the military means sacrificing privacy. Q. Isn't it fair to say that the
concern that he was expressing is that if the military were to permit gay and lesbian service members to serve openly that that would infringe upon the privacy interests of heterosexual service members? A. No. More than all of the other
infringements of privacy he just said service members would have to endure. Q. privacy -A. It is consistently infringed in the Right. He's recognizing the
military; hence, my interpretation when he
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0025
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 113 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 Frank draws a line in the sand around gay people, that reflects a personal basis because it's inconsistent with his acknowledgment that military service requires that privacy be sacrificed. Q. I direct your attention further This is in reference to The sentence that
down that same page.
the sexual tension point.
reads "The separation of men and women is based upon the military necessity to minimize conditions that would disrupt unit cohesion, such as the potential for increased sexual tension that could result from mixed living quarters." Powell. Then it goes onto quote General
He states, "Cohesion is strengthened
or weakened in the intimate living arrangements we force upon our people. Youngsters from different backgrounds must get along together despite their individual preferences. Behavior too far away from the In
norm undercuts the cohesion of the group. our society gender differences are not
considered conducive to bonding and cohesion within barracks living spaces."
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0026
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 114 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 A. Q. Frank Do you see that? Yes. Then he goes on to -- well, do you
have any reason to question the testimony he gave as it relates to the accommodation we must make for men and women? A. If I could have a second to read it
over again. Q. A. Sure. Again, you ask me if I agreed with It's a contradictory
his assertion there?
statement as it relates to -- as it relates to an argument in favor of excluding open gays. He says "Youngsters from different
background must get along together despite their individual preferences." And then he
says "Behavior too far away from the norm undercuts cohesion of the group," having just said that youngsters must get along despite individual preferences. confusing to me at best. Q. Do you take issue with the separate So the assertion is
accommodations that the military provides for men and women?
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0027
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 118 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 Frank according to this concern if it were to be fully honored, you couldn't put individual gay males together either because then they could be uncomfortable undressing in front of one another. Q. Beyond the financial cost, what
other costs are you referring to? A. Costs to cohesion; for instance,
General Carl Mundy, who is former opponent of allowing open gay service has said nevertheless that if open gay service is to be the new policy there should not be separate facilities, a finding that echoed in the RAND study, because that breeds resentment and undercuts the cohesiveness of the force by separating people out that need to be training and living together. Q. Part three of your report you
attribute certain statements to Senator Nunn. If you could return back to your expert report and look at part three, I ask you where I could find the statements that you attribute to Senator Nunn? page 5.
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
I am sorry.
On
LCR Appendix Page 0028
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 119 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 A. Frank Well, I would recommend looking in
my book where I believe those quotes appear with footnotes. Q. Okay. Describe for me the conversations you had with Professor Moskos? A. I first interviewed Professor
Moskos about this issue in the year 2000 for an article I wrote. I focused in part on the
question of unit cohesion and began examining what, if any, evidence there might be for the argument that open homosexuality creates a risk to unit cohesion. I spoke to him and
e-mailed him across a period of months probably at that time for that article, and subsequent to that I had several conversations, again e-mail, phone and in person, over the course of another eight years. Not frequent but from time to time.
You know, a couple of years -- a few years. In one of the early conversations in 2000 for the article I was writing at the time, I asked him about the role of unit cohesion in this argument and that's when he
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0029
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 120 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 Frank dismissed unit cohesion saying "fuck unit cohesion, I don't care about that," and told me instead that his argument for supporting a band on open service had to do with a moral concern about the right, as he saw it, of straight people not to have to share intimate quarters with a gay person. Q. It's the privacy concern that we
have been discussing that Colin Powell expressed for one? A. That's right. But Professor Moskos
didn't always rely exclusively on the privacy argument alone. Q. Based upon your interaction with
Professor Moskos, did you have any reason to believe that he had a personal animus towards gay and lesbian service members? A. Q. A. Yes. What was that based upon? He often used to joke that he knew
he served with gay people, but it worked out because they didn't hit on him, which implied to me a personal belief that gay people were more likely to be sexual predators than
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0030
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 192 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 Frank proximity' and soldiers 'are told whom you're going to live with' and because it is such an important institution of American power Powell said, 'We have to be careful when we change the policy.'" Q. The quotes that Dr. Frank -- those
are from Colin Powell, correct? A. Q. Yes. Why are you being critical of Colin
Powell here? A. Because in my view he's -- these
assertions are irrelevant to the question of whether openly gay service undermines the military, so to repeat assertions that are not untrue necessarily but are not relevant to the question at hand in my view in order to make a reform in policy seem difficult and dangerous is arguing in bad faith. Q. A. Why is it arguing in bad faith? Because he's saying these things as
though simply by saying them people should understand that there is great risk to letting gay serve in the military when, in fact, in my view there isn't.
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0031
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 193 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 Q. Frank Because you believe the privacy
rationale to be irrelevant? A. The privacy rationale to propping
up the policy? Q. The privacy rationale that we
discussed earlier that Colin Powell espoused during the Senate hearing? A. I believe that people's genuine
discomfort in terms of the impact of known gays on their privacy does not rise to the level of undercutting military effectiveness. Q. Dr. Frank, I would like to now mark
as Defendants' Exhibit 17 another opinion piece that appears in the Huffington Post on January 22, 2010. (Defendants' Exhibit 17, opinion piece appearing in the Huffington Post entitled "Refuting the Latest Arguments Against Gay Troops," marked for identification, as of this date.) Q. This article is entitled "Refuting
the Latest Arguments Against Gay Troops." Again, it appeared in -Let me step back. We have a posted
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
LCR Appendix Page 0032
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 233 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
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT
I hereby certify that I have read and examined the foregoing transcript, and the same is a true and accurate record of the testimony given by me. Any additions or corrections that I feel are necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet of paper to the original transcript.
_________________________ Signature of Deponent
I hereby certify that the individual representing himself/herself to be the above-named individual, appeared before me this _____ day of ____________, 2010, and executed the above certificate in my presence.
________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
________________________ County Name MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
LCR Appendix Page 0033
Nathaniel Frank, Ph.D. New York, NY
February 26, 2010
Page 234 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
Alderson Reporting Company 1-800-FOR-DEPO
CERTIFICATE STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss. COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
I, THERESA TRAMONDO, a Notary Public within and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: That NATHANIEL FRANK, Ph.D., the witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am not related to any of the parties to this action by blood or marriage, and that I am in no way interested in the outcome of this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of March, 2010.
_____________________ THERESA TRAMONDO
LCR Appendix Page 0034
LCR Appendix Page 0035
LCR Appendix Page 0036
LCR Appendix Page 0037
LCR Appendix Page 0038
LCR Appendix Page 0039
LCR Appendix Page 0040
LCR Appendix Page 0041
LCR Appendix Page 0042
LCR Appendix Page 0043
LCR Appendix Page 0044
LCR Appendix Page 0045
LCR Appendix Page 0046
LCR Appendix Page 0047
LCR Appendix Page 0048
LCR Appendix Page 0049
LCR Appendix Page 0050
LCR Appendix Page 0051
LCR Appendix Page 0052
LCR Appendix Page 0053
LCR Appendix Page 0054
LCR Appendix Page 0055
LCR Appendix Page 0056
LCR Appendix Page 0057
LCR Appendix Page 0058
LCR Appendix Page 0059
LCR Appendix Page 0060
LCR Appendix Page 0061
LCR Appendix Page 0062
LCR Appendix Page 0063
LCR Appendix Page 0064
LCR Appendix Page 0065
LCR Appendix Page 0066
LCR Appendix Page 0067
LCR Appendix Page 0068
LCR Appendix Page 0069
LCR Appendix Page 0070
LCR Appendix Page 0071
LCR Appendix Page 0072
LCR Appendix Page 0073
LCR Appendix Page 0074
LCR Appendix Page 0075
LCR Appendix Page 0076
LCR Appendix Page 0077
LCR Appendix Page 0078
LCR Appendix Page 0079
LCR Appendix Page 0080
LCR Appendix Page 0081
LCR Appendix Page 0082
LCR Appendix Page 0083
LCR Appendix Page 0084
LCR Appendix Page 0085
LCR Appendix Page 0086
LCR Appendix Page 0087
LCR Appendix Page 0088
LCR Appendix Page 0089
LCR Appendix Page 0090
LCR Appendix Page 0091
LCR Appendix Page 0092
LCR Appendix Page 0093
LCR Appendix Page 0094
LCR Appendix Page 0095
LCR Appendix Page 0096
LCR Appendix Page 0097
LCR Appendix Page 0098
LCR Appendix Page 0099
LCR Appendix Page 0100
LCR Appendix Page 0101
LCR Appendix Page 0102
LCR Appendix Page 0103
LCR Appendix Page 0104
LCR Appendix Page 0105
LCR Appendix Page 0106
LCR Appendix Page 0107
LCR Appendix Page 0108
LCR Appendix Page 0109
LCR Appendix Page 0110
LCR Appendix Page 0111
LCR Appendix Page 0112
LCR Appendix Page 0113
LCR Appendix Page 0114
LCR Appendix Page 0115
LCR Appendix Page 0116
LCR Appendix Page 0117
LCR Appendix Page 0118
LCR Appendix Page 0119
LCR Appendix Page 0120
LCR Appendix Page 0121
LCR Appendix Page 0122
LCR Appendix Page 0123
LCR Appendix Page 0124
LCR Appendix Page 0125
LCR Appendix Page 0126
LCR Appendix Page 0127
LCR Appendix Page 0128
LCR Appendix Page 0129
LCR Appendix Page 0130
LCR Appendix Page 0131
LCR Appendix Page 0132
LCR Appendix Page 0133
LCR Appendix Page 0134
LCR Appendix Page 0135
LCR Appendix Page 0136
LCR Appendix Page 0137
LCR Appendix Page 0138
LCR Appendix Page 0139
LCR Appendix Page 0140
LCR Appendix Page 0141
LCR Appendix Page 0142
LCR Appendix Page 0143
LCR Appendix Page 0144
LCR Appendix Page 0145
LCR Appendix Page 0146
LCR Appendix Page 0147
LCR Appendix Page 0148
LCR Appendix Page 0149
LCR Appendix Page 0150
LCR Appendix Page 0151
LCR Appendix Page 0152
LCR Appendix Page 0153
LCR Appendix Page 0154
LCR Appendix Page 0155
LCR Appendix Page 0156
LCR Appendix Page 0157
LCR Appendix Page 0158
LCR Appendix Page 0159
LCR Appendix Page 0160
LCR Appendix Page 0161
LCR Appendix Page 0162
LCR Appendix Page 0163
LCR Appendix Page 0164
LCR Appendix Page 0165
LCR Appendix Page 0166
LCR Appendix Page 0167
LCR Appendix Page 0168
LCR Appendix Page 0169
LCR Appendix Page 0170
LCR Appendix Page 0171
LCR Appendix Page 0172
LCR Appendix Page 0173
LCR Appendix Page 0174
LCR Appendix Page 0175
LCR Appendix Page 0176
LCR Appendix Page 0177
LCR Appendix Page 0178
LCR Appendix Page 0179
LCR Appendix Page 0180
LCR Appendix Page 0181
LCR Appendix Page 0182
LCR Appendix Page 0183
LCR Appendix Page 0184
LCR Appendix Page 0185
LCR Appendix Page 0186
LCR Appendix Page 0187
LCR Appendix Page 0188
LCR Appendix Page 0189
LCR Appendix Page 0190
LCR Appendix Page 0191
LCR Appendix Page 0192
LCR Appendix Page 0193
LCR Appendix Page 0194
LCR Appendix Page 0195
LCR Appendix Page 0196
LCR Appendix Page 0197
LCR Appendix Page 0198
LCR Appendix Page 0199
LCR Appendix Page 0200
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?