Very often political institutions reflect
the will of society and set the precedent for norms that will be expected of
its members. The United States Military is still enforcing archaic policies
which threaten to harm the principles our nation was founded upon. The
principles of freedom and equality are those that every American holds closest
to their heart, that is unless you are in the military and are gay. The issue
of gays in the military has developed into a case of whether our country should discriminate
against a group merely because of involuntary sexual orientation. Two
persistent principles are
evident within this topic: that homosexuals are ever
present throughout all branches of the military and a persistent hostility against this group is
in American society and the military. In order to effectively examine this
topic the following concepts will be discussed: an analysis of the current
Department Of Defense policy concerning gays, solutions to reduce homophobia in
the military, a policy model concerning homosexuals in the military ( Lepicer
1-14 ).
Prior to the arrival of the Clinton
Administration with its agenda to radically revise military policy regarding
the acceptance and treatment of homosexuals, Department of Defense policy was
well established and clear. Legal questions began to be raised in civilian
courts challenging the military exclusion and discharge policies in the 1960's
and 1970's. The services were forced to explain and clearly justify specific
limits and procedures used in relation to service members claiming to be
homosexual or convicted of such behavior. During the Carter Administration a
clear policy was signed into law. It reads:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military
service. The presence in the military environment of
persons who engage in homosexual conduct or
who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in such conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment
of the military mission. The presence of such
members adversely affects the
ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and
morale: to foster mutual trust and
confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank
and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service
members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording
minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services: to
maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches
of security ( Lepicer ).
Everyone agrees that gays were already in
the military, but gays want to serve their country out of the closet. This
concept pitted the gay community against the traditionalists who want to keep
them out. The result is a compromising "Don't ask / Don't Tell" policy which prevents recruiters from
inquiring about an enlistees sexual preference. The purpose of the military is
to kill people and complete the mission at hand. Therefore anything that
hinders the military from fulfilling this role is a potential threat to
national security and must be looked at in an objective manner. The military's
attitude towards homosexuals dates back to the Revolutionary War when General
George Washington approved the discharge and court martial of an officer for
attempted sodomy. Every year more than 800 service members are separated from
the military based on sexual orientation. The Department Of Defense current
policy is both discriminatory and ineffective. Homosexuals should have the
right to serve their country as long as their job performance is not affected
by their private life. Currently the military does not actively seek out and
prosecute heterosexual service members who engage in sodomy but they will go to
great lenghts to investigate mere claims of homosexual conduct. Often history
repeats itself and the integration of African Americans into the military was
one which met great opposition but is now an accepted principle. We as a
country can see the foolishness and downright prejudice that was involved in
the opposition of integration of minorities
into our military, one which in 20 years we may equate with the current
arguments involving gays in the military ( Wornsop 195-212 , Schlueter
393-432).
In his article , "Not Asking or
Telling: No remedy," in the March 25, 1995, edition of the National
Journal, David Morrison suggests that President Clinton's policy of "Don't
ask , Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" has done little to end the controversy.
The new policy is nothing more than a reworded version of the old policy. The
new policy forbids inquiries based on "rumor, suspicion, or capricious
claims regarding a member's sexual orientation." But in reality this has
not stopped some commanders. The Service Members Legal Defense Network cites
these cases: a service member investigated after an anonymous phone call, and
another investigated because he had taken notes for a class on homosexuality.
These cases show clearly how military leaders blatantly violate both current
policy and individual rights (Morrison 748-749).
Defense Department officials say that the
policy appears to be working because the number of discharges is down. There
appears to be a distinct conflict between the cases that are reported and the
Pentagons statements that center around the premise that there have been no
violations of the policy. In her book , Homosexuals And The Right To Serve,
Major Melissa Wells-Petry discusses the military's objections to lifting the
ban. One of the main issues is that of gender segregation. The author explains
that gender segregation is based on two principles: " People have a
preference for people of the opposite sex and they should be allowed to choose
to whom they expose an aspect of their sexuality." Lifting the ban would
expose the charade that their are no homosexuals in the military. The argument
is often brought up that says the presence of homosexuals detracts from the
military mission is present in both written policy and actual belief. In
reality anyone engaging in any sexual activity in the military environment
threatens the mission of the military. The distinction of homosexual activity
has no validity or bearing on the truth of the matter. It is impossible to see
how homosexuals can detract from the maintenance of good order when nearly 75%
of those already in the military are never discovered. If a person causes a
problem with order, morale or discipline they should be separated from service
regardless of sexual orientation
( Wells, Davis 54-107).
The idea that homosexuals pose a security
risk is clearly unfounded since in a House Of Representatives Committee on
National Security report proves gays are less of a risk. Of the 117 reported
espionage cases between 1945 and 1991 only 6 involved homosexuals. The key to
ending discrimination based on sexual orientation in the military is to bring
an end to homophobia or antigay bias. In the book After The Ball : How America Will Conquer
It's Fear & Hatred Of Gays In The 90's, the authors explore the ways to
help America accept homosexuals. The techniques proposed are desensitization,
jamming, and conversion. Desensitization aims at attempting to lower the level
of anti-gay rhetoric. If we can effectively integrate homosexuals in the
military then the novelty of homosexuals will diminsh and so will the
associated prejudice. Jamming is an aggressive and active approach which uses a
psychological process that uses two competing theories that are associated. One
example of jamming the military could
use is sensitivity training which will
both educate the ignorant individual and also get the individual to feel shame
for having such an unsupported prejudice for an oppressed group. The concept of
of conversion is actually changing ones views and beliefs. This idea is most
effective when people are exposed to homosexuals in their everyday lives. If
the military continues to create conditions which discourage an individual from
openly declaring their homosexuality then prejudice will continue and the us
vs. them mentality will flourish. If someone discovers a friend is homosexual
but is still very much like themselves then the concept of homosexuality
becomes irrelevant. When people have prejudice against a certain group they
rationalize by saying how different they
are from them. It is evident that the issues involved with lifting the ban on
African Americans in the military has some very distinct similarities with the
issue of homosexuals. Tim Mcfeeley , executive director of the Human Rights
Campaign Fund states, "Homosexuals
are being persecuted in the military for being different from the mainstream,
just as blacks were maltreated in the 1940's and 50's" ( Duke A1, House Of Representatives 95-21).
From the Revolutionary War to present day
homosexuals have served in the military with distinction and pride. Yet
although many have died in defense of the principles upon which our nation was
founded they are being denied the fundamental rights of liberty and equality.
Thousands of members of our military have been denied their right to serve
their country and a career in the military essentially because they are gay. In
the process of instilling archaic principles upon the military our nation has
compromised its combat effectiveness and undermined institutional integrity. In
his speech announcing the " Don't ask Don't tell," policy President
Clinton makes a very compelling argument against discrimination. Because the
military " is an institution that embodies the best in America and must
reflect the society in which it operates, it is also right for the military to
make changes when the time for change is at hand. I strongly believe that the
military , like our society, needs the talents of every person who wants to
make a contribution..." Certainly the time for change is upon us. The
military must stop discriminating based upon sexual orientation. If job
performance is affected by any factor then the service member must be allowed
to correct the deficiencies or be separated. But if the basis for investigation
is mere suspicion or beliefs that such behavior may affect the organization
this is not a valid principle. The military must not allow illogical prejudices
to drive personnel policies. The growing number of military organizations and
para- military organizations that accept openly gay individuals proves the
Pentagons fears are unfounded. The Pentagon has stated that openly gay service
members threaten morale and fighting effectiveness. A General Accounting Office
review found that out of seventeen foreign military forces only four explicitly
ban homosexuals from service. This shows America is in need of a policy change
and it must be fair and succinct ( House Of Representatives ).
Many veterans and soldiers feel that even
if the ban were lifted it would not improve conditions or increase acceptance
levels of gays in the military. But lifting the ban would relieve the pressure
on gay members which would translate into an increased proficiency of job
performance. Lifting the ban would also allow law enforcement and investigory
agencies to re-direct their resources toward criminal violations rather than
enforcing morals upon the minority. Research indicates that in foreign
countries that allow homosexuals to serve the number of openly gay individuals
is quite small. The majority of the members were discrete and there were few
problems caused by the presence of homosexual members. Very often the banning
of a specific group causes members of society to hold irrational beliefs and then
engage in violent activity against those classes of people they believe are a
threat to the groups integrity. Heterosexuals are often more accepting of those
with alternate lifestyles when this group is not banned by the predominant
authority. Emphasis must be placed on behavior, conduct and work performance.
Military leadership must reassure both the minority and the majority by
supporting everyone's right to choose ( Lolorado C1 ).
Clearly the evidence supports the lifting
of the gay ban in full. The military's discrimination of individual based on
sexual orientation is not only morally wrong but collides with the principles
our country was founded upon, equality and freedom. Our nation has learned
important things from the integration of African Americans into our military.
The success of both our nation and military depends upon the utilization of all
of the resources that are available. America cannot compete effectively if it
relies upon outdated prejudices which are completely without merit. Sexual
orientation is a personal private issue and not one which compromises national
security.
No comments:
Post a Comment