Discrimination is Still Alive and Well in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

I know that we’re in the middle of a war, and that any change in military policy needs to be looked at carefully. But at the same time, some ideas are really just no brainers. One such idea is getting rid of the bigoted and outdated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, known as DADT. Very few policies have been as harmful and unneeded as this one.

DADT essentially states that the military cannot ask if a service member is homosexual, but if it comes to light that a soldier is gay or lesbian, he or she can be discharged. The policy dates back to 1993, when then President Clinton made the policy as a compromise. He had wanted to get rid of an earlier statute that stated that homosexuality was incompatible with military service, but he did not have the votes for a full repeal. DADT was implemented in place of the old policy as a way stop harassment of gay soldiers while still permitting the military establishment to discharge gay soldiers.

The main reasoning for the policy is that someone who is openly gay is a risk to unit cohesion and morale. This reasoning is wrong and outdated. Dozens of countries, including Britain, Israel, and Canada, allow openly gay soldiers to serve. The United States government is afraid to treat its soldiers like mature adults, and instead treats them like insecure teenagers. The military seems to think that the second a soldier learns one of his buddies is gay, he’ll be unable to serve with him. But that’s just plain ridiculous. I really can’t see what they’re so afraid of. If we are going to trust soldiers with lethal weapons, if we are going to give them the authority and ability to fight in wars and kill people, shouldn’t we be able to trust them around people who are a little different than they are? If a soldier is uncomfortable around gays, well, I’m sorry, but that’s his problem, not the gay soldier’s. We would never tolerate that kind of behavior in regards to other types of soldiers. If a white soldier told his commanding officer that he felt uncomfortable in the unit because another member was black, the white soldier would just have to deal with it. The same should be true of gays. Perhaps instead of gays, the military should be more worried about homophobes. It seems dangerous to have an insensitive army in war zones in foreign countries where sensitivity can be the difference between life and death.

The policy is problematic in other ways as well. Since 1994, over 13,000 soldiers have been discharged under the policy. That’s not exactly a small amount of soldiers. We’re in the middle of two damn wars, and we’re getting rid of perfectly good soldiers who have done absolutely nothing wrong. The military is forcing out soldiers who can help save lives and win wars. Look at the case of Stephen Benjamin. Mr. Benjamin joined the Navy in 2003 and went to the prestigious Defense Language Institute. There, he became fluent in Arabic and graduated from the Institute in the top 10 percent of his class. Seems like a really useful guy, right? The US needed good translators to prevent intelligence snafus and give soldiers on the ground good advice. Good translators save lives. But when instant messages that Mr. Benjamin sent mentioned that he was gay, he was discharged. An intelligent, motivated soldier’s career was terminated not because of any misconduct, but because of his sexual preference. In 2007, Mr. Benjamin wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing his plight. In his essay, he says that at least 58 Arab linguists had been kicked out under DADT. Those soldiers serve a necessary function, and the military still refused to keep them. Mr. Benjamin put it best when he said, “As the friends I once served with head off to 15-month deployments, I regret I’m not there to lessen their burden and to serve my country. I’m trained to fight, I speak Arabic and I’m willing to serve. No recruiter needs to make a persuasive argument to sign me up. I’m ready, and I’m waiting.”

In this election cycle, people are understandably concerned about the economy. But civil rights can’t be ignored, either. The Obama administration ran on a platform that included the repeal of DADT, but they are moving incredibly slowly on the issue. Luckily, the courts are refusing to accept the status quo. Federal District Judge Virginia Phillips recently declared that DADT was unconstitutional, and has ordered the military to suspend discharges under the policy. Incredibly, the Justice Department is appealing the ruling! The President wants to wait for a Pentagon review, due at the end of the year, before he takes concrete action. Instead of being the progressive president we thought we elected, he’s playing politics with people’s civil rights. Rather than take a stand and make a change in an election year, Obama is waiting until after November 2^nd. Obama should accept the ruling of the court, and allow gays and lesbians to have their civil rights.

Gays and lesbians are people too, and they should have the same rights afforded to anyone else. The fact that this has to be said in 2010 is pathetic to say the least. It’s mind boggling that discrimination is still the law of the land. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we allow people to face such prejudice in this country. The only way to start to get rid of the legacy of hatred is by repealing DADT.