Following a string of scandals involving sexual misconduct by military personnel, Defense Secretary Cohen created a special panel to review mixed gender training. The panel's report - released Tuesday, December 16th - is discussed by its leader, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, followed by a debate between two experts who disagree over the panel's findings.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We get two more views now. Susan Barnes is president of the organization Women Active in our Nation's Defense. Charles Moskos is a military sociologist at Northwestern University. Susan Barnes, you heard Sen. Kassebaum Baker say that the way training is shaped today isn't providing cohesion for the young recruits. What's your response to that?

SUSAN BARNES, Women Active in our Nation's Defense: Well, the response of the military women on our network would be that they just would simply disagree. Separate is never equal, and those of us who have been through--and I'm speaking now of the army women I was talking with just this morning on the telephone on these issues--who've been through the old system, where women were trained separately and have observed the more recent system with young men and young women trained together, would tell you very strongly and very forcefully that the new system is much better than the old. And, more importantly, there is some good data out there which supports that view, that is good sociological data. And one of the concerns we have is that these good citizens on the committee, they worked hard and certainly we have great respect for Sen. Kassebaum and the other members, but you didn't hear them talk about what the studies have shown about the effect of gender-integrated training on readiness. And readiness must always be the key.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So, Ms. Barnes, do you think that even cutting it down to 30 percent not integrated training, apparently about 70 percent will still be integrated, you think that could be bad for the recruits?

SUSAN BARNES: Oh, I think that our military women think so, especially since they would dispute the 70 percent factor. But let me make a point here. The Marines, who happen to have terrific public relations, are very proud of their separate training system. But there's no correlation between separate training and reduction of sexual harassment rates. The fact is it's the Marines have the very highest sexual harassment rate, and the Navy, for example, which has cut down its sexual harassment rate, did so and went to gender-integrated training after they discovered that one of the factors in influencing or keeping high sexual harassment rates was separate training. So what's being recommended here, according to a lot of the sociological data, is not consistent with the goal of reducing sexual harassment, if that's why we're here at all with respect to this particular task force.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Moskos, what does your sociological data tell you about this?

CHARLES MOSKOS, Northwestern University: Well, I think the report is really a step forward toward common sense and reality. In the long term if these recommendations are put into effect, it's going to enhance gender integration. What I think the report should be really recommended for is it avoids the true pitfalls of one--of blaming the macho culture or saying it's--with regards to sexual harassment, it's just a problem of a few bad apples. It makes concrete organizational changes, which are both I think readily to be implemented, and I'd add if you look at the big three, which is essentially separate dormitories or barracks by gender, same-gender platoons or divisions and consistent physical standards, all of these could be done very easily. The Air Force I might add too, to add to Sen. Kassebaum's remarks, has never had integrated dormitories in basic training, so there's another service which has essentially moved into this direction, with a very low sexual harassment rate, I might add. On the sociological data that Ms. Barnes reports, you know, it is--there are countervailing views. Other studies show there are approximately 70 percent of the men believe that gender-integrated basic training demeans the toughness and the physicalness, but I think whatever we're saying, we should always keep the basic purpose of basic training is not to reduce sexual harassment, is to make better soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. And this is what the report keeps its focus on.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ms. Barnes, is the report a move to common sense?

SUSAN BARNES: No, I don't think so. The report doesn't focus on that at all. What Mr. Moskos is ignoring is the fact that the Army Research Institute has a very fine three-year study out which impaired test results from people in basic training who had trained in one unit sexually that is, separate sex basic training, and compared the test results with young recruits who had trained in gender-integrated troops. And guess what? In three of the four soldiering categories tested the people who had trained together, that is, men and women trained together, scored higher, both men and women scored higher than those who had trained separately, and that included such things as rifle marksmanship, so there's no empirical evidence out there that that training separately or training, that is training together, adversely impacts readiness, and we have to keep the eye on the ball here with respect to readiness. I couldn't agree more that this is probably not an appropriate way of approaching the problem of sexual harassment because, quite frankly, the fact is that the sexual harassment problem in services has never been a matter of peer sexual harassment. It has been a matter of superiors inappropriately pressuring junior people for sex. And that's not going to be solved by putting young men and young women in separate barracks and that sort of thing.

CHARLES MOSKOS: Well, there has been a problem, though, of same rank sexual behavior, which does undermine cohesion in the report, by advocating a separation by dormitory of the sexes, is certainly going to reduce that kind of same rank sexual activity, which does have an undermining effect in basic training, as well as later. And the report is very commonsensical on that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Ms. Barnes, what about Sen. Kassebaum Baker's point that because of the no touch, no talk restrictions, there was just no cohesion in the units that were mixed at this basic platoon level and the equivalent units in the other services?

SUSAN BARNES: Well, I first of all in talking with military people today after watching the press conference, there was some disagreement as to whether there's no touch, no talk is really enforced, or whether it's really--has an adverse impact where it is enforced on cohesion. Cohesion is a much more--a much bigger issue, and it comes from people training together and learning to trust each other and from good leadership. And I think Mr. Moskos would agree, lots of elements go into unit cohesion. The problem that I have with what the committee has done here is that they seem to be relying on anecdotal evidence. And while that's fine, and they worked hard, you want to be very careful before drawing overall conclusions. Let me also--

CHARLES MOSKOS: Ms. Barnes, you know, better a good anecdote than a slippery statistic. You know, we can argue about what the data show, and I have a different interpretation of those findings too, but that's neither here nor there. What is here and there is what is the purpose of basic training, and it's to turn civilians into soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and this is what the report directly addresses.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Ms. Barnes, excuse me one minute. Are you worried that a message is being sent here that women are somehow disruptive? What is your main concern about that?

SUSAN BARNES: Well, the main concern of the women that I work with is simply that the message is being sent that women are going to be--are less than equal soldiers. When your segregating out the sexes, what you're doing is you're saying someone can't be trusted to train together. And that's just contrary to what the army's own data shows. So I'm surprised at Mr. Moskos' comments.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Moskos, you don't--

SUSAN BARNES: I think we have to proceed really carefully here. And let me also point out that these task forces are a classic Pentagon way of dealing with difficult political issues, and there's a lot of stuff that goes into this, but hopefully Secretary Cohen will take into account what the secretaries have to say about the--excuse me--the service secretaries have to say about the report and it'll be part of what he'll consider, but it will not be the determinative.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And, Mr. Moskos, just quickly, what about that point that--

CHARLES MOSKOS: The point here is that it isn't women are disruptive, as Susan alleges the commission's report. It's that sex is disruptive. And this is done usually in a consensual way, and that's what the report tries to address. Let me make a final comment too here, which is we should always keep our eye on the fact that 90 percent of all women are enlisted women. They're not officers, and it's the concerns of enlisted women which should be the highest priority, and I think this is what the commission report addresses.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Well, thank you both very much.