17 May 2009

Does "Don't Ask Don't Tell" trump everything else?


President Obama has been roundly criticized for not intervening in the case of Dan Choi - an Arab linguist who has been dismissed from military service for being openly gay. No one has presented the criticism more succinctly or more effectively than Jon Stewart:
Amazingly, in this time, in this time of national crisis, when we are using everything in our disposal to fight this insidious enemy... Dan Choi is one of 53 Arabic translators dismissed due to their sexual preference. So it was okay to waterboard a guy over 80 times, but GOD FORBID the guy who could understand what that prick was saying. . . has a boyfriend?
This isn't just an LGBT matter; it's also a matter of campaign promises and optimizing the effectiveness of our military.
Waterboarding may make the prisoner talk, but it won't make him speak English.
The (lack of) logic involved in this situation is further pilloried by Stewart and Jon Oliver in this segment:

6 comments:

  1. You're so right. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert point out hyoocrisies so beautifully. What on earth does a person's sexual orientation have to do with his or her job performance? I know Obama wants a good realtionship with the military, but he should have intervened on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That should be "hypocrisies"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another good comment was on the first season on west wing (emphasis mine):

    "Major Tate: Sir, we're not prejudiced toward homosexuals.
    Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: You just don't want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?
    Major Tate: No sir, I don't.
    Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: 'Cause they impose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.
    Major Tate: Yes, sir.
    Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: That's what I think, too. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change.
    Major Tate: Yes, sir.
    Admiral Percy Fitzwallace: The problem with that is that's what they were saying about me 50 years ago - blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick."

    If only there were a high ranking african american in the military who would have the same perspective, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It may be hypocritical on Obama's part; that doesn't mean it's a bad policy. While it's true that a person's sexual orientation usually has nothing to do with their job performance, it may impact the performance of their coworkers.
    I think that comparing this issue with race is foolish. Homosexuals in the military are more akin to a guy in the girls' locker room. Segregated units might be a solution, but what would the organizational, operational, and financial costs be?

    ReplyDelete
  5. to Micah - remember this case doesn't involve soldiers in foxholes or showering together. The soldier was a translator who might be listening to phone intercepts in a Virginia office or reading documents (or listening to prisoners).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Micah -

    "Homosexuals in the military are more akin to a guy in the girls' locker room."

    No, it's more akin to having a gay guy in a guys' locker room. If the fear is that it would be distracting and unnerving to soldiers to have someone who may be capable of being attracted to them in such close quarters, are you willing to expel gay men from men's locker rooms? Men's restrooms? Other jobs specific to men (not that the military SHOULD be specific only to men, but that's another argument...)? Why not? Well, openly gay men should not be kept from men's restrooms, or locker rooms, or from jobs because we believe that people can control the expressions of their sexuality. Someone's homosexuality does not make them more likely to sexually harass or proposition a coworker. Your concern that,

    "While it's true that a person's sexual orientation usually has nothing to do with their job performance, it may impact the performance of their coworkers."

    must be based on those coworkers' particular prejudices, which no job, no matter how "manly," should cater to. If it were based on a genuine discomfort with other men being in close quarters, they would not be fit for a military job. No, it's a discomfort with a particular KIND of man, a discomfort which is ridiculous and unfounded because the reasons for their discomfort ("He might be attracted to me," or "He's going to be working closely with me,") should not be a problem if everybody is professional.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...