"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Don't work
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2001 4:46 am
"What's wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? I don't care whether someone is gay or straight, and it isn't even something I need to know."
--from another post.
[Before I start I want to point out that incautious posts run a risk of offending fellow karateka. Some ones you don't know are gay. Some you DO know are gay and you just don't know it. Others will have gay friends or family members. So please consider how important it is to you to make an opinion known, and keep this discussion about policies and not persons or lives. You can always sit on a post a day and reconsider it.]
As the author of the above quote wrote elsewhere, separate but equal wasn't equal. Think about what would happen to straight servicepeople if they faced this standard. They couldn't wear wedding rings. They couldn't say what they did over the weekend. They'd have to lie about who they were saying, make up false excuses why they weren't dating anyone. They'd be obligated to conceal a huge part of their jobs or face expulsion from the career they love.
In other words, this policy costs gay and lesbian service people (GALSP's) their free speech. None of them can participate in gay political (and many social) activities. None could protest if they lost their housing for being gay because then they'd lose their work too. Or if they lost their kid unfairly in a custody dispute. Or press charges if they were attacked for being gay. None could share about hard times with family or church or the loss of a loved one. They can be easily blackmailed or harrassed with impunity because they face expulsion for honesty.
Additionally, the policy is backwards. We are one of the last western nations to have this restriction. Almost all the others have decided discrimination is wrong. If you read Randy Shilts "Conduct Unbecoming" you'll see the military has only had TWO reasons for the policy.
1) GALSP's are a security risk because they can be blackmailed.
2) Other service people wouldn't like working with them
1 totally fails because the DADT policy is what MAKES it possible to blackmail a GALSP. If their identity couldn't cost them their job there'd be no problem. There have been GALSP's discharged from the military when EVERYONE on the base and outside knew, the family knew, etc. No one could possibly have used this info against them.
2 basically says that if other servicepeople are prejudiced they shouldn't have to work with people they dislike. Let's take this idea and revist integration: Black people would upset unit morale and cohesion. They shouldn't serve alongside the whites.
It's prejudiced, its unfair, its wrong, and there came a time when the brass had to say DEAL WITH IT. The military became a model of tolerance for all of america.
The military has NEVER claimed that GALSPs didn't do a good job. In fact they tend to make exemplary soldiers. If the argument is to be made that GALSPs can't control their urges in the barracks one would have to explain why it was ok for navy ships to fill up with women giving birth on duty during the gulf war.
But as it now stands gays have to lie about who they are to serve their nation in the service. Because of a baloney security risk charge and prejudice, they can't openly work jobs they wanted. When they do work those jobs closeted they can't get benefits or housing for partners and children the way straights who work no harder can. This is just not american.
Further the policy is twisted to serve the needs of the armed forces. In times of war expulsions plummet. We need those GALSPs to go die for their country!!! When the conflict is over expulsions shoot right back up. Can't have any queers in the ranks!
What's happened as a result of the policy?
Harassment and expulsions continue anyway. The policy is frequently violated by interrogators. They don't *as often* follow the tactics used in the past: lying, threatening, locking people in closets till they had to soil themselves, spending lots of money on detailed and invasive investigations of what people did on their private time.
Meanwhile GALSPs are second class citizens, their free speech is hampered, they are paid less (no benefits etc to family), and they are vulnerable to harrassment and blackmail.
What's the problem anyway? A number of soldiers have written about how, hiding in some bunker with SCUDS inbound, it made no difference whether your neighbor was a known GALSP. Everyone was holding hands anyway. Life goes on. Dozens of GALSP's have served pretty much as openly as possible in the forces with no problem until some investigator outisde the ship or the base stirred up trouble and got them expelled. And the invisible gay forces remain an integral part of the military. There are as many or more GALSPs percentagewise as in civilian society. If they all left at once they'd cripple the forces. They deserve fair treatment. The quote above asks why anyone cares whether a soldier is gay or straight or why anyone needs to know. I can't think of a reason. The armed forces should stop considering this detail of soldier's lives as any more important than whether they're left or right handed, and allow the lefties to be honest about it.
A story:
Eisenhower found out to his great surprise that there were lesbians serving in his forces. He ordered his secretary to investgate and prepare a list for expulsion. She said she would do it, but he had to be aware, she'd put her name at the top. Another said she wanted to be second. A third said she'd be next. Eisenhower was astounded. He dropped the order.
--from another post.
[Before I start I want to point out that incautious posts run a risk of offending fellow karateka. Some ones you don't know are gay. Some you DO know are gay and you just don't know it. Others will have gay friends or family members. So please consider how important it is to you to make an opinion known, and keep this discussion about policies and not persons or lives. You can always sit on a post a day and reconsider it.]
As the author of the above quote wrote elsewhere, separate but equal wasn't equal. Think about what would happen to straight servicepeople if they faced this standard. They couldn't wear wedding rings. They couldn't say what they did over the weekend. They'd have to lie about who they were saying, make up false excuses why they weren't dating anyone. They'd be obligated to conceal a huge part of their jobs or face expulsion from the career they love.
In other words, this policy costs gay and lesbian service people (GALSP's) their free speech. None of them can participate in gay political (and many social) activities. None could protest if they lost their housing for being gay because then they'd lose their work too. Or if they lost their kid unfairly in a custody dispute. Or press charges if they were attacked for being gay. None could share about hard times with family or church or the loss of a loved one. They can be easily blackmailed or harrassed with impunity because they face expulsion for honesty.
Additionally, the policy is backwards. We are one of the last western nations to have this restriction. Almost all the others have decided discrimination is wrong. If you read Randy Shilts "Conduct Unbecoming" you'll see the military has only had TWO reasons for the policy.
1) GALSP's are a security risk because they can be blackmailed.
2) Other service people wouldn't like working with them
1 totally fails because the DADT policy is what MAKES it possible to blackmail a GALSP. If their identity couldn't cost them their job there'd be no problem. There have been GALSP's discharged from the military when EVERYONE on the base and outside knew, the family knew, etc. No one could possibly have used this info against them.
2 basically says that if other servicepeople are prejudiced they shouldn't have to work with people they dislike. Let's take this idea and revist integration: Black people would upset unit morale and cohesion. They shouldn't serve alongside the whites.
It's prejudiced, its unfair, its wrong, and there came a time when the brass had to say DEAL WITH IT. The military became a model of tolerance for all of america.
The military has NEVER claimed that GALSPs didn't do a good job. In fact they tend to make exemplary soldiers. If the argument is to be made that GALSPs can't control their urges in the barracks one would have to explain why it was ok for navy ships to fill up with women giving birth on duty during the gulf war.
But as it now stands gays have to lie about who they are to serve their nation in the service. Because of a baloney security risk charge and prejudice, they can't openly work jobs they wanted. When they do work those jobs closeted they can't get benefits or housing for partners and children the way straights who work no harder can. This is just not american.
Further the policy is twisted to serve the needs of the armed forces. In times of war expulsions plummet. We need those GALSPs to go die for their country!!! When the conflict is over expulsions shoot right back up. Can't have any queers in the ranks!
What's happened as a result of the policy?
Harassment and expulsions continue anyway. The policy is frequently violated by interrogators. They don't *as often* follow the tactics used in the past: lying, threatening, locking people in closets till they had to soil themselves, spending lots of money on detailed and invasive investigations of what people did on their private time.
Meanwhile GALSPs are second class citizens, their free speech is hampered, they are paid less (no benefits etc to family), and they are vulnerable to harrassment and blackmail.
What's the problem anyway? A number of soldiers have written about how, hiding in some bunker with SCUDS inbound, it made no difference whether your neighbor was a known GALSP. Everyone was holding hands anyway. Life goes on. Dozens of GALSP's have served pretty much as openly as possible in the forces with no problem until some investigator outisde the ship or the base stirred up trouble and got them expelled. And the invisible gay forces remain an integral part of the military. There are as many or more GALSPs percentagewise as in civilian society. If they all left at once they'd cripple the forces. They deserve fair treatment. The quote above asks why anyone cares whether a soldier is gay or straight or why anyone needs to know. I can't think of a reason. The armed forces should stop considering this detail of soldier's lives as any more important than whether they're left or right handed, and allow the lefties to be honest about it.
A story:
Eisenhower found out to his great surprise that there were lesbians serving in his forces. He ordered his secretary to investgate and prepare a list for expulsion. She said she would do it, but he had to be aware, she'd put her name at the top. Another said she wanted to be second. A third said she'd be next. Eisenhower was astounded. He dropped the order.