JULY 4, 2001 was disgraceful. It's hardly a day of independence when honorable men and women aren't entitled to this freedom. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy in the United States military is a stain on everything this nation stands for, and everything our military men and women - gay and straight - fight for.
There are only two ways to explain and justify our current policy toward gays in the military, and both are criminally bad. The first is a flat animus toward gays. But homophobia is no excuse for a national policy and certainly not in a nation that is supposed to be a bastion of fairness and freedom.
Even those who are deeply homophobic don't seriously think their opinions worthy of public statement. If they did, you'd hear people saying things like, "Gays are degenerate and bad and should be kept out of the military" on the record. But they don't. Though animus toward gays is the main motivational reason for their opposition to gays in the military, they're smart enough not to admit it.
Of course, this is dangerous because the irrational commitment to hatred and prejudice held by these people protects them from losing any logical and impartial debate. For someone arguing with these people, it is like trying to punch a hole through a metaphorical brick wall.
The second argument is used by those who are homophobic but choose to mask their prejudice behind a more logical argument. They argue that the military should seek optimal defense and that having gays jeopardizes this because it disrupts the sense of camaraderie that soldiers require.
It is plain stupidity to think that the military will operate with total efficiency. And if efficiency truly is your concern, cutting men and women won't help cut the fat when many branches of the service are desperately trying to increase their numbers. The military needs more men. Unless you believe that gay men and women are less competent than straight men and women - and if you do, I can recommend a few good therapists to help you with your personal issues - it's sheer idiocy to have a policy that turns them away or kicks them out.
Let's stipulate (but not grant as truth) that gays disrupt camaraderie among servicemen and women. So what? This was the same argument advanced by bigoted and racist white people before black people were forcibly integrated into the military by former Pres. Harry S. Truman. Who looks back and says it was a bad thing that social unrest was caused by doing what's right? Sure, Truman disrupted the efficiency of the military machine in the short run, but it doesn't matter.
The point is that fundamental principles of justice take priority over mere short term efficiency. So when the argument for military camaraderie is advanced, it is meaningless unless it can be simultaneously argued that no harm or injustice is done by disallowing gays to openly serve.
Such a harm is indeed present. The right to free speech (and that includes speech which is entirely self-regarding speech, speech pertaining to one's personhood) is so rooted in the concept of ordered liberty that it cannot be forsaken. Not having to hide who you are and being able to speak harmlessly about yourself are rights that don't evaporate when you enlist in the armed forces.
These fundamental principles of justice and liberty are the very things the military ostensibly fights for. It is a blatant contradiction when the military says it fights for freedom and then within its ranks it fights against freedom.
This unequal and arbitrary treatment of gays is morally impermissible. We wouldn't tolerate unequal and arbitrary treatment of racial minorities, so why with gays and lesbians? Even the most extreme homophobes would have to realize that this policy targets gays for no morally relevant reason, so these people retreat to the efficiency arguments, which are meaningless without a similar argument about the moral permissibility of mistreating homosexuals. And the closest they can come is hatred and prejudice, not morality.
This systematic injustice is in opposition to what the military stands for and in opposition to our celebrations yesterday. One thing is true: Either we do too little moral thinking in this country and are blissfully ignorant or we knowingly celebrated a tradition that is empty in meaning and practice.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily opinion editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 20 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
