Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations

Salon.com
Multimedia
[Arts & Entertainment][ Books ][ Business ][ Comics ][ Health & Body ][ Mothers Who Think ][ News ][ People ][ Politics ][ Sex ][ Technology ]

Article Finder
News


 


Fight Club
- - - - - - - - - - - -


Round 2: Should gays serve?
A Salon panel debates the ban on gays in the military. Second of two parts.

Editor's note: Read the exchanges from Round 1 here.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daryl Lindsey

June 13, 2000 | WASHINGTON -- In Round 1 of Salon's debate on gays in the military, we asked one of the chief architects of the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy why gays should be excluded from the service. The bottom line, said Northwestern University professor and military sociologist Charles Moskos, is that it's an issue of privacy and modesty. Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and forcing their heterosexual counterparts to room with them would be the equivalent of mandating that men and women share the same barracks and bathing facilities. "[U]nless you believe movies like "Starship Troopers" or "G.I. Jane," Moskos offered, humorously, and that just isn't going to happen.

"I think the gender stuff is hard enough to deal with, and to replicate that with sexual orientation just makes life too much trouble," Moskos said, recalling recent high-profile sexual harassment cases, like that of the Army's recently retired top-ranking female, Gen. Claudia Kennedy. In other words, a sexually charged barracks would undermine staff morale and combat readiness.




Print story


E-mail story


Backflip This Story  Backflip this article to find it again


But to advocates of a repeal on the ban, the issue at hand is one of basic fairness. It's one of the last battles in the march for civil rights that began with Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s, and the privacy argument made by Moskos is no different than the excuses people tried to make when President Truman ordered the racial integration of the military back in the 1940s.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network legal director Stacey Sobel responded to Moskos' argument with this: "When speaking about the privacy of soldiers, Gen. Omar Bradley, who opposed President Truman's proposal to racially integrate the forces in the 1940s said, 'Experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline and morale.' According to today's military leaders, our forces are better than ever. The same racially integrated forces that were predicted to crumble from a lack of unit cohesion have flourished instead. "

Today, our panel debates the prevalence of anti-gay harassment in the ranks, a subject that has given the policy its biggest challenge to date; examines the successful integration of gays and lesbians into the armed forces in other NATO countries; and tackles the greatest challenge of all for permitting gays to legally serve in the armed forces: How to overcome skepticism of the top brass.

Here's the final round of debate:

A Pentagon report earlier this year indicated a significant rise in anti-gay harassment in the armed. The report indicated that 37 percent of military respondents had witnessed or experienced harassment relating to their sexual orientation. A Servicemembers Legal Defense Network report indicated a doubling of anti-gay harassment since 1998. Has "don't ask, don't tell" fueled an anti-gay environment?

Moskos: No. Those figures seem to me like tabulated fiction. There has always been anti-gay harassment in the military. When the reports said that 20 percent of soldiers had never heard an anti-gay remark, I blanched. I said, these guys are either lying or, worse, they're completely out of it. The number of people who have heard an anti-gay remark in the Army must be 99.9 percent.

If someone is picking on you for being "gay, gay, gay," I think that person, under "don't ask, don't tell," is supposed to be punished. But a little teasing or a few remarks about one's sexual orientation? Let's get off our high horses and get a little realistic.

Stacey Sobel, legal director for the Servicemember Legal Defense Network: "Don't ask, don't tell," doesn't work. More people are being asked, pursued and harassed than ever before. Three people are fired every day because of their sexual orientation. Military leaders need to send clear, strong messages that anti-gay activities and violations of [the policy] will not be tolerated. Military leaders did not make these types of statements until this year, and they came only after the tragic death of Winchell. While we do not have figures for anti-gay harassment before [the policy] went into effect, SLDN has received an increased number of anti-gay harassment reports from service members every year since the policy has been in place. The current situation at Fort Campbell, Ky., is only one example of how an anti-gay climate has been allowed to flourish and the horrific results of it. Private Barry Winchell was harassed on a daily basis for more than four months prior to his murder last summer by a fellow soldier based on a perception that he was gay. Incredibly, even after Winchell's murder, harassment continued unabated at Fort Campbell. Some soldiers have even mocked Winchell's murder as a way to intimidate and threaten others, making references to "faggots" and baseball bats.

Moskos: Interestingly enough, the Ft. Campbell murder, which brought "don't ask, don't tell" under its most severe criticism, was a murky case. Winchell's roommate was, according to local media reports, of mixed sexual identity himself. He was the one who egged on the actual murderer, gave him the bat and got the homophobe who actually did the dirty deed drunk. I could see an anti-gay person say, "Uh huh," you can put gays in the military and you get murders like that going on because of rivalries and jealousies. Interestingly enough, the national media has not picked up on that case. You only heard the one side, never the other.

Lt. Col. Grethe Cammermeyer, retired Army nurse: In 1993 and once again in 1999 service members lost their lives because of hate crimes committed against them. That sort of misconduct has not been heard of against any other minority serving in the military. In each case the military had to be called to task before appropriate investigation and action took place. The idea of stomping on someone's face until he was unrecognized at his funeral by his mother (Alan Schindler) or being beaten to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier (Winchell) based on sexual orientation is a new way of acting out hatred. There have been numerous investigations of members of the military belonging to hate groups. These same members have acted out their hate and caused concern about behavior of service members with such affiliations. This same type of hate, and intolerance is commonly used against secretive homosexuals serving in the military.

I expect that every service member at some point witnessed direct anti-gay harassment either directed at them or others. Every major movie made prior to when it was not politically correct that dealt with boot camp or military training had derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "wussy." It was part of the macho image that made someone a tough service member. The venom and tolerated explicit homophobia has increased.

. Next page | If Europe can lift the ban, why can't we?
1, 2




 

Need a gift? Visit Salon Shop for inspiration.




More great offers in
Salon Plus

____
 
   
 
____
 
  Current Stories
  • And still our vote mattered I marvel at the opportunity lost in the Iran election -- and what might yet be gained
    By Shane M.
  • Media elite vs. blogger peasants The White House allowed a mere commoner among the Beltway peerage -- how indecorous!
    By Gene Lyons
  • Al Franken takes his job very seriously Being the 60th Democratic Senate vote is no joke. But can Franken guarantee Sotomayor vote or healthcare reform?
    By Mike Madden
  • The Obamas' first harvest It's yielded pounds of produce, and good will from activists, but will the White House garden change food policy?
    By Mike Madden
  •  

    Politics 2000: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.



    Salon  Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations


    Arts & Entertainment | Books | Business | Comics | Health | Mothers Who Think | News
    People | Politics | Sex | Technology and The Free Software Project
    Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop


    Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
    Copyright © 2000 Salon.com
    Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
    Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
    E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy