Description
Book SynopsisExplains how the American military's anti-gay policy is fundamentally misdescribed by its common nickname, 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell.' This title shows that this ubiquitous phrase implies that it discharges service members not for who they are, but for what they do. It is suitable for legal scholars, policymakers, activists, and military historians.
Trade Review“For more than a decade, Janet E. Halley’s groundbreaking work in queer legal theory has made hers a central voice in law and sexuality studies. For anyone interested in understanding the rhetorical battlefield of the U.S. military’s anti-gay policies,
Don’t is a must.”—Kendall Thomas, Columbia University School of Law
“Janet Halley's extraordinary book shows us how political analysis, linguistic reading, and legal strategy and philosophy can work together at their best. She has stunned and moved her readers time and again by challenging the apparent oppositions that inform tactical thinking in lesbian and gay legal studies. Hers is a vision complex, learned, practical, brilliant, inspiring, and radical.
Don’t is something everyone must do!”—Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor, University of California at Berkeley
“Halley’s book is a valuable and much-needed salvo in the war on an archaic and constitutionally compromised policy.” -- Christopher Capozzola * CLGH Newsletter *
"If you thought the policy changes that came out of the gays-in-the-military fracas in Clinton’s first term made things easier for gay soldiers, you’re wrong, Halley says. Meticulously tracing the paper trail of how the changes were formulated, she argues that the new policy is more oppressive. . . . Excellent exposition on its subject . . . ." * Booklist *
"This, the penultimate year of the Clinton administration, may be a good time to review some of his so-called achievements, among them the attempt to lift the ban on gays in the military. And Janet Halley’s
Don’t is a great place to start. . . . The outstanding contribution of
Don’t is its review of how the language of policy led to such disastrous results. . . . Halley makes her intricate and thoughtful argument memorable through several key phrases: the conduct/status distinction, the queen-for-a-day defense, and the two models of propensity—the actuarial and the psychometric. Like great pamphleteers before her, these phrases help fix the argument in readers’ minds without detracting from the analysis. . . . Offering suggestions . . . takes this book beyond most polemics: it can be useful." * Boston Book Review *
"What accounts for the shift from the old policy to the new one, and then to the new statute? What is the meaning of this shift? Janet Halley attempts to answer these questions not on the basis of interviews or conventional investigative techniques, but with close readings of the new policy and law, and with an exhaustive examination of the public record (hearings, press conferences, speeches, congressional debates). Halley thinks that this system is ‘
much, much worse than its predecessor’. . . . One of Halley’s most interesting discussions involves the post 1993 emphasis on [the] idea of ‘propensity,’ a genuine innovation, not to be found in any predecessor and provision." -- Cass R. Sunstein * The New Republic *
Table of ContentsAcknowledgments
Introduction
The Negotiations and the Players
Clinton Is to Conduct as Congress Is to Status
But Everyone Agrees on the Propensity Clauses
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
