Tech, you’ve heard a lot from me about different issues this semester.
I hope I have in some ways, whether you have agreed with me or not, helped you to look at issues that are important to this campus and community that may not have otherwise comet to your attention.
Today, I want to leave you with something that I can remind you about in the fall.
Something to look forward to after your travels, endless hours of work and hopefully some well-earned fun.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is the current policy that restricts openly gay and lesbian people from serving in the military, and it prohibits the military to pursue disclosure of sexual orientation of its service members.
However, if a person is discovered to be gay or lesbian during their service, they can be discharged.
When it began, DADT was an executive order issued by Bill Clinton in attempt to mitigate more restrictive legislation that made it possible for the military to pursue the disclosure of the sexual orientation of those serving.
It’s about time to mitigate the discrimination of DADT by holding our current president and congressmen accountable to repeal DADT.
We pride ourselves on being “modern,” rational and morally grounded, but we are schizophrenic in thinking so when our friends and neighbors in the LGBT community face discrimination in all tiers of society. Other groups such as women, ethnic minorities and especially immigrants face the same kinds of discrimination — but you’ve already heard me talk about them.
Look around, discrimination is everywhere, whether you choose to see it or not.
Aside from being unjustly discriminatory, DADT is a simply useless, failed policy. For those of you who may have issues with our friends and neighbors in the LGBT community, I challenge you to justify the senseless logic that restricts them from military service when that restriction is directly detrimental to the welfare of our military and national defense.
More than 13,000 people willing to serve our country have been discharged for being who they are, while over 65,000 continue to serve as they hide their identities in fear.
Of that 13,000, hundreds were people with specialized skills, including Arab linguists, who were critical to situations in current combat zones. Because of DADT, the military is discouraging tens of thousands of people who want to serve our country, while punishing and discharging others at a time when morale and recruitment are not favorable.
Not only is that discouragement stupid given our circumstances (to be blunt), it is expensive.
For every person discharged, the military has to spend between $22,000 and $43,000 to replace the spot. Sure, there’s a big disparity between those two figures, but multiply any number you want between them times 13,000 and see just how fiscally irresponsible it is.
I’m sure you could think of better things the military could use that money for rather than using it to send someone off who is willing and able to fight for our country and our home.
The DADT justification for its discrimination is laughable. The argument is essentially saying homosexuality undermines cohesion, unity and discipline in units.
I say this is laughable because dozens of other countries around the world, including our allies, operate with open service policies, meaning that their militaries do not discriminate sexual orientation.
They have had no problems with morale, cohesion, or discipline, and these open service units have worked side by side with our units many times around the world.
Even our own military leaders have acknowledged the need to repeal DADT, including Robert Gates, secretary of defense.
President Barack Obama said he would repeal DADT and it’s time we hold him accountable to do so. Contact your senators and tell them to support the repeal of DADT and support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act that would take its place.
Look for events on campus next semester that are devoted to raising awareness of repealing DADT, as well as other important issues like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Can’t wait until then? Check out the Voices of Honor Tour screening of “Ask Not,” on Wednesday, April 28 at 7 p.m. in Squires Colonial Ballroom. Admission is free.
A version of this article appeared in the Apr 27 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 8 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I don't agree with the fact that you can discriminate someone's sexuality. Quit whining and deal with your life choices and the consequences (good or bad) from them. DADT is the military's way of saying we don't care about that aspect of your life, just devote everything when you're serving PERIOD!
Reply to this Top
Another person who clearly isn't aware of all the implications of DADT. Sure, it sounds harmless at first glance. Just keep it to yourself. How hard can it be? But the policy has dozens of adverse side effects that weren't thought about and that, frankly, straight people often don't realize because they take the most basic things for granted.
For example:
- Can't list partners on notification lists in case they are killed or injured. They'd be notified last
- Can't take leave if partner is ill, daying or dead (this actually happened with both civilian and military partners. e.g.: http://www.gaymilitarysignal.com/0808Obrien1.html)
- Partners and children don't have access to the extensive support networks for spouses. In general, the military does tons of stuff for families
- Family doesn't have access to benefits like health care or base access
- Partners can't be present at ceremonies when service members leave for deployments and when they return. At least there can't be hugs and kisses like with everyone else
- There is no secure communication with home when deployed. Email and phone calls can be monitored (people have been discharged over this)
- Can't take partners to official functions, except maybe as "friends"
- No confidentiality with clergy and medical professionals. So people don't always receive the help they need (fortunately this recently changed)
Reply to this Top
Continued...
- National Guard and Reserve members (even in the Inactive Reserve) also live under DADT even when they aren't currently doing military duties
- DADT doesn't just apply to on-duty time, but regulates lives 24/7 wherever a service member is. Lots of people have been discharged because they were seen off base kissing someone or just holding hands. Not necessarily by fellow soldiers but civilians too. Imagine looking over your shoulder all the time. (A good and sad story about this: http://izzyjames.blogspot.com/2009/11/gay-navy-wife-seeks-serenity-to-accept_17.html)
- People naturally share part of their private lives and support each other with problems. Especially on deployments.
- It says "don't ask", but people ask all the time. They ask what you did on the weekend, if you are dating someone or whatever. This becomes worse the older you get and people wonder why you aren't married yet. Gays then play silly games, change pronouns, tell white lies or simply retreat and don't socialize much (which has a clearly NEGATIVE effect on unit cohesion).
- the "don't harass, don't pursue" party of the policy are usually ignored. The early years of DADT saw horrible and simply illegal witch hunts. There were never any clear rules about enforcement and if they were, they weren't taught
Reply to this Top
Continued...
- can't wear a ring or have a picture in the office. Leaving letters and photos around openly is risky. Think of barracks inspections and the like. Or a roommate may find them and turn you in
- enforcement is completely arbitrary and usually depends on superiors' whim. Some enforce it strictly while others ignore even blatantly obvious evidence. There are countless anecdotes of people serving more or less openly for years without adverse affects. This is even more true in times of war when everyone is needed. But it's simply risky to come out. For everyone who gets away with it, there seems to be a story about someone who doesn't
- Confiding in people forces them to lie too or at best share the burden of keeping a secret
- Women are disproportionally affected by DADT and discharged at twice the rate that they are part of the military. Common phenomena are claiming that a woman who refuses sexual advances is a gay, or threatening a DADT investigation on someone who reports sexual harassment or rape
- DADT allows people to blackmail gays. That's especially true for junior ranks having power over superiors. Writing someone a bad evaluation can be risky. People have been discharged over that
Reply to this Top
Continued...
Generally, this issue has been studied to death. Every study ever made by the US government (and there about a dozen), even just prior to enacting DADT in 1993, came to the conclusion that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly has no adverse effects. That's borne out by over two dozen other countries that already allow it. People sometimes made the same dire predictions and nothing of the sort happened. Those militaries may be different all in all, but on the level of a platoon or a company, where unit cohesion really matters, they are exactly the same. In the end it's about people getting along.
Another good read about the topic that has more details about some of the points I mentioned above and a bunch of stories and anecdotes showing that it really doesn't matter:
http://www.palmcenter.org/system/files/Frank091504_GaysAtWar.pdf
Reply to this Top
Let the gays in and do away with the lower standards for women on physical fitness tests. I'd rather have a gay that can carry his own gear than some woman that can't. The discrimination based on gender and having different fitness requirements is so old and outdated and needs to be turned back.
Reply to this Top
Women have their own physical fitness requirements because they are forbidden by law from being combat troops. The need to perform in combat is a reason for those higher standards for men.
Reply to this Top
No, women have different standards because they cannot physically do what men do. If the military made the standards even, fewer women would be allowed in, and then feminists would complain about discrimination. The argument of "women aren't combat troops" is bogus in the battlefields of today.
The standards don't get lowered for non-combat males. Nor do they get lowered for injured males.
Top