HERE IN the year 2008 we often think we have reached a high point in inclusiveness as a diverse society, that we accept multiple viewpoints while trying to be as anti-discriminatory as possible. Of course, the reality is very different: There are still problems like racial profiling, housing discrimination and the glass ceiling women face across different fields. While governmental policies typically attempt to overcome such unfairness, there is one situation where that is not the case: the military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that was passed in 1993 at the beginning of the Clinton administration.
The goal of the policy was laudable as it sought to allow non-heterosexuals to serve in the military, something that had been technically illegal. When joining the military, recruits are not to be asked about their sexual orientation and precipitating investigations into the sexual proclivities of an individual cannot happen without first having reasonable evidence to scrutinize. Nevertheless, though the law was meant to open doors, the fact that it has compelled non-heterosexuals to hide their sexual orientation has created far more problems than it has solved. If someone who is gay or bi reveals their true nature in any public way (or private as it has often turned out), he or she can be discharged from the military, losing all benefits like health insurance and pensions. Imagine serving for 25 years as a non-commissioned officer and then being discharged when you were found out. As a “lifer” in the armed forces, who anticipated spending the career years of your life serving this nation, what options does such an event leave you?
Of course, the entire idea of allowing someone who does not follow a given set of social norms to serve in a group as long as that person conceals those differing qualities is plainly illogical. To analogize the policy to another important one in our military’s history, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be equivalent to Harry Truman having had black soldiers put on “white face” when he desegregated the military in 1948. Aside from the irrational nature of the policy, the inherently discriminatory nature of the law is the biggest issue. Someone who is brave enough to fight for the United States, to risk life and limb to protect the liberties enshrined in the Constitution, ought to be able to serve openly in the military. Similarly to how blacks fought in wars preserving this nation and its rights from the Civil War to Vietnam without actually having the rights they were protecting, why would non-heterosexuals join the military when they could be discharged at any moment for just being who they are? According to a report released in 2007 by 28 retired generals and admirals, there are 65,000 homosexual men and women in the military, all of whom are amazingly going through the effort to conceal their sexual orientation in order to protect this country.
Opponents of changing the military’s policy have their arguments, some homophobic and others considered attempts at reason. There is really only one contention worth discussing: the most often used one that claims “allowing gays to serve openly would harm unit cohesion.” According to this argument, if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were changed heterosexual soldiers would have difficulties with gay comrades-in-arms because of situations where there is extreme physical closeness in combat or perhaps because they have to shower together. Apparently heterosexual soldiers could not maintain a proper level of readiness or professionalism in the field because someone nearby is gay. To an extent I think this is just as insulting to heterosexual soldiers as it is to homosexual ones. This same theory was used when Truman desegregated the military. Perhaps it did cause problems for a short time but once thrown into the gauntlet of battle (in that case, the Korean War), skin color didn’t matter when the enemy was shooting at some white American soldier and the man next to him (black, Latino, Asian, whatever) was firing back with him. Furthermore, empirical evidence from other nations who have gone with non-discriminatory policies demonstrates the unit cohesion argument to be fallacious. The UK, Canada and Israel all have guidelines preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation and none have seen problems. Between the bigoted nature of the policy and the lack of any reasonable arguments for its continuation, there is no need for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In a pluralistic and democratic society such as ours, there is absolutely no room for policies with intrinsic prejudice against homosexuals. The military that fights our battles on land, on the sea and in the air should represent the ideals we Americans espouse and anyone who wants to serve this country’s military should be able to do so without limit. I do not need to elaborate on which candidate in the 2008 election favors a non-discriminatory policy and which one does not but Americans should expect that this prejudicial policy will soon come to an end.
Geoff Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
