The Little Policy That Couldn't

The Little Policy that Couldn't

Throughout American history, American Presidents have had the difficult task of appeasing a nation so clearly divided on a plethora of issues. The most divisive issues have always been the best known, including slavery, women's liberation, civil rights, and gay rights. When lobbyists make clear to the President that their issue must be addressed, there has almost always been opposition. A compromise is usually the best way to handle nationwide disputes, though no one side is ever immediately victorious.

Unfortunately some compromises have been known to make matters worse. "Separate but equal" and literacy testing are well known examples of such, but one current example is the Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct Policy, also known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue." This military policy, endorsed by President Clinton in 1993, was supposed to be a compromise to attenuate both Congress and Military leaders on one side, and gay rights activists and supporters on the other. President Clinton had made campaign promises to lift the ban on gays serving in the Armed Forces, but even the president of the United States of America is limited in power by the checks and balances of the Legislative Branch.

According to the Constitution, congress has the power "to raise and support armies", and "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" (Brinkley A12). This constitutional power would make it impossible for Clinton to lift the ban entirely without the full support of congress, which he did not have. The Secretary of Defense, Lee Aspin, stated reasons for opposition in a 1993 memorandum entitled, "Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces". In the memorandum, Aspin stated, "As a general rule, homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it interferes with...unit morale, unit cohesion, and individual privacy" (United 7).

President Clinton used the memorandum as a new policy for gays in the military. The general public usually understands the policy as a lift on the ban, as promised, as long as all gays in the military stay in the closet. And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" also generates the assumption that military personnel will not inquire as to the sexual orientation of fellow personnel. This may seem like a solution, but looking deeper into both the nature of the policy and the way it has been enforced may prove otherwise.

First, let's examine the true nature of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. The President and the Secretary of Defense both admit that gay men and women have served with distinction in the Armed Forces. For this reason alone, the complete ban had to be lifted. The new policy of the Department of Defense is, "To judge the suitability of persons to serve in the Armed Forces on the basis of their conduct" (United 7). Since homosexuality was considered incompatible with military service, homosexual conduct would be grounds for discharge. Homosexual conduct would include homosexual acts, admitting homosexuality, and even homosexual marriage outside of service.

The new policy was also created as a means to reduce harassment within the Armed Forces. If gay service members remained closeted, then harassment would be minimized. The Department of Defense made clear that harassment would not be tolerated.

Now that the intentions of the new policy have been made clear, let's look at the implementation of said policy and the failures that resulted. In 1999, the Secretary of Defense asked the Office of the Inspector General, DOD, to survey random military personnel in order to qualify the application of the Homosexual Conduct Policy. The results were unimpressive to say the least. A huge 57% of respondents stated they had not received training on the policy and only 15% believed the policy was effective in preventing harassment. The Inspector General concluded by stating, "Ensuring that meaningful training is provided to all service members is clearly essential" (United 24).

But proper training for the Homosexual Conduct Policy is not the largest problem; it is the policy itself. The policy states that orientation is a private matter and that only conduct should be judged, but the policy insinuates that orientation necessitates conduct, as if homosexuals are incapable of controlling their sexual desires.

Furthermore, if heterosexual men and women can work side by side in proper conduct, homosexual men and women should pose no threat. There is no evidence that would suggest such a claim. If a man in the armed forces marries a woman who is a civilian, one could assume his conduct while on duty would be harnessed, but the opposite is assumed of a homosexual man who attempts to marry. The logic is absent it seems, as well as simple comprehension.

What is most appalling is that heterosexual men are permitted to discuss their sexuality candidly, but if a gay man even admits his preference without even the slightest hint of detail, it is considered misconduct. Even if he is overheard discussing his sexuality, he will most likely be investigated. It is assumed that he has the propensity to act on his desires, and only a credible source need pass along the information for a full investigation to occur.

So, what the Homosexual Conduct Policy is really saying is, "You can be gay, but you had better do a damn good job pretending not to be". This message strikes fear in not only the heart of the homosexual service man, but every man in service who might at any time be perceived as gay.

This fear manifests a result that is quite opposite than that which is intended by the policy in the first place. Any heterosexual man in the Armed Forces must make it exceedingly clear that he is such. The only way to prove a complete lack of homosexual desires to a large number of people is to express severe disgust for homosexuality by whatever means possible. This expression of disgust is what we all know to be harassment, be it verbal or physical.

The movie, Soldier's Girl, which is based on the true story of Private First Class Barry Winchell, is the perfect example of the aforementioned homophobia. Winchell's roommate, Fisher, takes him to a gay club where drag queens perform. Fisher, who is not new to this type of drunken pleasure, convinces Winchell to sleep with a drag queen named Calpernia, with whom he falls in love. When allegations arise within the infantry regarding Winchell's