To put America’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law into perspective, consider this: Among the almost 13,000 people driven from the military since 1993 because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds, who possess language skills desperately needed in our nation’s fight against terrorism at home and abroad.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) states that “Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender” (New York Times, 1993).
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by former President Bill Clinton. During his campaigning, Clinton’s initial proposal to allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly in the military generated a malicious debate, which resulted in the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise. It is a bad compromise because the message is clear: you can be gay in the military, but only until someone finds out that you are gay. DADT lacks intellectual integrity.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report showing that the men and women discharged in the first 10 years of DADT included 757 in occupations defined as critical, such as voice interceptor and translator. Of those, 322 were trained in what the military categorized “an important foreign language.” Fifty-four of them were skilled in Arabic.
These numbers may seem small, until you ponder what the absence of just one skilled translator at a critical moment can mean to the safety of our troops or to the safety of Americans here at home.
In addition to the drain of talent, the dismissals cost taxpayers. The GAO report estimated the military spends more than $30 million a year training replacements for individuals discharged under DADT.
President Obama said he would sign a bill lifting the restrictions. But so far, he and Congress have been reluctant to address the subject. A bill is pending in the House, but no counterpart has been introduced in the Senate.
A U.S. citizen who wants to serve in the military (and who is not medically incapable) should be able to do so without fear of discrimination. As a U.S. citizen, I have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen, and equal treatment under the law is one of them.
Who has the right to say that gays and bisexuals cannot serve in the military just because they are different? Does the U.S. government tell Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, and Muslims that they cannot be in the military because the majority of individuals are Christian? They no longer allow whites to tell blacks, Hispanics, or Asians that they cannot serve or that they can serve but only in segregated units or only as inferiors, but why is it okay for gays and bisexuals?
It is past time to allow gays and bisexuals to serve openly, honestly, and equally. Sorry to those who want an elite military that only reflects their socio-economic cultural biases. The military protects us all and it has to reflect society as a whole.
Morgan Seiler, Contributing Writer