X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:51:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Sultan and DoD policy

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:44:26 CST
From: Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>Well, I tried to stay quiet, but so many of you have it wrong, I am
>forced to speak out.

     How gracious of you.  Seriously, though, welcome back.  It's like
an addiction, isn't it?  "Go ahead.  Post a little.  All your friends
are doin' it.  It's fun.  If you don't like it, you can quit anytime."

     Other posters have responded to many of Jay's points already.  One
(Fred?) has, for example, requested citations for the "study after
study" Jay mentions.  KAT has pointed out that Jay's argument that
public opinion must precede a policy change was used to keep military
units segregated along racial lines.  Kerry has pointed out that some
high level military brass have stated that, from personal experience,
homosexuals pose no threat to a unit's cohesiveness.

     [What follows is a repost of a message to VAL-L.  Those of you who
have subscribed to both can delete.]

     So as to tightly focus this discussion of homosexuals in the
military, I offer the text of DoD directive 1332.14, which
establishes the rationale by which homosexuals are currently
barred from the military.  This text is written as cited in
Christopher R. McDowell, "The AALS Sexual Orientation Policy:
The Argument Against Barring Military Recruiters from Law School
Campuses," _West Virginia Law Review_ 95:1 (Fall 1992):  164.

     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 homosexual 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 servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of
     the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and
     worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must
     live and work under close conditions affording minimal
     privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military
     Service; to maintain the public acceptability of military
     service; and to prevent breaches of security.

     Now, my comments.

     Most of the policy is vague and ill-defined.  The arguments
concerning maintenance of "discipline, order, and morale" and
"mutual trust and confidence" are similar to the objections
raised to the racial and gender integration of the military, and
experience since then has shown these reservations in previous
context were unwarranted.

     I am utterly confused about the idea that homosexuality
undermines "the system of rank and command," unless the DoD fears
that homosexual relations between servicemembers of different
rank might threaten the military hierarchy.  Such concerns are
not peculiar to homosexual relationships, however, and I do not
see how military codes concerning the fraternization of officers
and enlisted personnel would not serve to prevent this
development.

     As far as the effect of homosexuals on the ability to work
in "close conditions affording minimal privacy," I will have to
agree with the statement of the previous poster that this concern
should wane as servicemembers realize that homosexuals are not
inherently attracted to every member of the same sex, just as
heterosexuals are not attracted to everyone of the opposite sex.

     The concern over the difficulty of recruiting and retaining
servicemembers seems superficial when you realize that it is the
DoD's own current policy which has resulted in the discharge of
personnel, many of whom had distinguished themselves in service
to their nation.

     The desire to maintain the public acceptability of military
service should no longer be an issue, since recent public opinion
polls reveal an even split on the issue.

     The fear over possible breaches of security should be
eliminated with the lifting of the current ban, since this fear
assumes that a servicemember would be vulnerable to extortion to
prevent his or her exposure as a homosexual.  If that
servicemember can realize his or her sexuality freely, there
should be no fear of extortion.

     Some have suggested that historical parallels between racial
integration and the current issue are flawed because individuals
have no choice over their race.  The implication is that they do
chose their sexual preference, and therefore must accept the
societal consequences of that choice.  This argument is weak,
however, for two reasons.  First, mounting evidence seems to
suggest that homosexuality is not "chosen."  Second, regardless
of a person's control over his or her sexual preference, the
argument assumes that certain people warrant classification as
inferior human beings (homosexuals and African-Americans) and, by
implication, that no African-American would chose to be a member
of that race.  The African-American, by this rationale, is to be
pitied.

     I have doubts about the claim that the open presence of
homosexuals will undermine the effectiveness of the military.  I
can show you historical examples of military defeats brought
about by many factors:  the incompetence of leadership, poor
strategy and tactics, insufficient intelligence, technological
inferiority, inefficient logistical support and a weak industrial
base.  No examples come to mind of a single battle being lost
because of the presence of homosexuals.  You would think that
supporters of the ban could find one example in the centuries of
recorded human history.

     Lastly, I will mention a political cartoon that struck me as
especially pertinent.  A person is standing in a cemetery with
rows and rows of crosses marking the graves of fallen soldiers.
Each cross is labelled "straight" or "gay."  The observer
comments, "Boy, I'm glad THAT'S cleared up!"  Why should we
stifle the zeal of anyone who wishes to serve his or her country?


-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "Lafayette, we are here!"
Marshall Univ. History Dept.            -Col. C.E. Stanton, 4 July 1917, Paris
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       "We've paid off that old fart Lafayette.  What
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU       frog son-of-a-bitch do we owe now?"
YEA003@MARSHALL                         -U.S. Infantryman after Battle of
                                         Soissons, 28 May 1918
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU