Why We Should All Care About DADT

In the first 100 days of the Clinton administration, the promise of lifting the ban on gays in the military was at the top of the White House agenda. This was a time when the gay community was just coming out of a period where more of its members attended funerals than birthdays because of the AIDS epidemic. It was 1993, and there was an emerging pride within the gay and lesbian community—including the pride of the brave members of the military who wore rainbow colors along with red, white, and blue. The resultant legislation, “don’t ask, don’t tell,” was arguably a compromise between the new commander-in-chief and the Pentagon. Some critics point to the adoption of DADT as the impetus for the Republican invasion of Congress in 1994—it was seen as inconsistent with “family values.”

Now, as more and more people live openly among their straight friends and families, the discourse about DADT has re-emerged with the revisiting of Columbia’s policy regarding ROTC, including the planned survey regarding NROTC. With military enrollment at an all-time low and tuition at an all-time high, I’m sure that some Columbians are seeking financial alternatives to circumvent the costs of an Ivy League degree. However, it is irresponsible for the nation to ask someone to die for my rights as a gay man, only to dishonorably discharge soldiers who happen to be homosexual.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is one of true patriotism and honor for those who serve and die in defense of America’s freedoms.

In early 2007, MSNBC reported that over two dozen gay American citizens who served as Arabic translators—a skill currently in high demand—were discharged from the military for DADT violations. In fact, only six fluent translators are currently in our Baghdad embassy. This kind of “executive” decision is the sort of bad management expected from partisan politics, but can we afford such errors in judgment with the added pressure of trying to hunt down terrorists within the region?

Right now, if gays and lesbians who were willing to die for us headed to Military Island in Times Square, they would find that there’s a better chance they could sign up with the Israeli forces.

ROTC is a wonderful program that assists in building our resources with bright college-educated talent, but as Americans, we must not waver in the face of discrimination that has plagued our military since before Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 8802, which desegregated the United States Armed Forces. Today, citizens are able to come out during their adolescence due to the unlimited amount of online resources available in the era of social networking. However, there are those who may not have come to terms with their sexual orientation or identity prior to signing up with Uncle Sam.

Often, the military offers an opportunity to mature and thus is a launching pad to self-discovery and awareness for all genders, races, creeds, and sexual orientations—simply, one might come to terms with being gay in the middle of active duty.

According to a 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission report, the Pentagon spends an average of over $360 million annually implementing DADT, money that could be used arming our troops rather than stripping the military of skilled personnel.

When I’ve walked into gay bars near military bases like San Diego or Honolulu, I’ve seen plenty of crew cuts around who offer “student” as the common answer to “what do you do for a living?” Why? As explained in Randy Shilts’s Conduct Unbecoming, there are undercover operatives in the Navy and Marine Corps’s Office of Special Investigations that seek out gays and lesbians while they have a beer or two. Even if a straight service member hangs out with gay friends, he or she is instantly put on a watch list—I’ve had friends lose their veteran benefits such as health care and money for college because of a dishonorable discharge.

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group on the issue, over 65,000 members of the military are gay or lesbian. That number is arguably higher since some likely don’t want to disclose their sexual orientation. In a war where suicide bombers and weapons of mass destruction are real concerns, I doubt that active-duty gay soldiers are thinking about hitting on anyone in the trenches—it’s more likely that they’re solely concerned with protecting their fellow Marines in the urban warfare of Baghdad.

While the GOP would revel in making this a wedge issue in November, Columbia and its student body need to consider that this debate must not become a tempest in a teapot. I think the temperament of the ROTC discussion should be one that allows all to participate, and the CCSC’s survey is a good start. However, more discussion and reflection needs to be a part of the evaluation regarding ROTC being able to recruit on Columbia’s campus by cherry-picking based on sexual orientation. If we are to fight for a democracy, then our military ought to be a role model to the world. I cannot think of one organization affiliated with Columbia that is allowed to discriminate based on any constructs or labels we might wear. I think that’s worth fighting for both here and abroad.

The author is a student in the School of General Studies majoring in English.