Essays Stacked Page

The military should not recruit on campus. Columbia University, as an enlightened institution, realizes that the rights of gay and lesbian people are equal to those of all other members of the community, and has incorporated this basic concept of liberty in its own constitution, disallowing discrimination on the basis of affectional preference in any university administered programs.

We recognize that this is an extremely complicated issue, ostensibly about the balance between equal rights and military order, but in reality the military has no argument that outweighs basic equal rights.

The justification given by the U.S. military for its discrimination against gay and lesbian people consists of circular reasoning, misplaced causes, and misinformation. The Department of Defense Directive 1332.14 Section H.1.a. (1983 update) states:

The presence of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission:

*To maintain discipline, order, and morale.

*To foster mutual trust and confidence.

*To ensure integrity of rank and command.

*To recruit and retain members of the military.

*To maintain public acceptability.

*To prevent breaches of security.

All of these points attempt to justify continued discrimination on the basis of past discrimination – the argument reveals itself to be a circle. The idea that discipline, order, morale, mutual trust, and confidence would be hindered by participation of gay and lesbian people in the U.S. military hinges critically on the presumption of widespread homophobia among the troops. Any endangerment of recruitment, retention, or public acceptability rests solely on the prejudice of the public at large. Neither of these is a justification. In fact, the same arguments were long given to justify continued segregation of black and white troops until President Truman ordered integration as Commander-in-Chief, against the advice of the Secretary of Defense. We all recognize that the argument is invalid when used to justify racism; it is equally invalid when used to justify persecution of gays and lesbians. The necessity of equal rights far outweighs the discomfort of the period of education and adjustment in which members of the military learn to confront their prejudices and learn the truth about gay and lesbian people.

There are gays and lesbians in the military. There always have been and always will be. It is impossible to thoroughly purge the ranks of homosexuals, because of the nature of sexuality itself. Even if the r4ecruitment screening process were completely effective, often people do not realize that they have gay or lesbian tendencies until they are already in the military. It is not homosexuality per se but the criminalization of homosexuality that disrupts morale, by creating an environment that incubates the very ills it seeks to abort.

The one difficult – but not insurmountable – charge to answer is the assertion that homosexual relations across ranks could lead to bonds of loyalty that conflict with military duty. First, it is important to recognize that this possibility is not unique to homosexual relationships. Heterosexual bonds across ranks are just as threatening – even more so, because heterosexuality is so much more prevalent. No different measures need be installed to discourage gay or lesbian relations across rank than are in existence to discourage similar straight coupling. The fact that homosexual couples might live in the same barracks is immaterial because in fact military personnel of different ranks are traditionally housed separately. Finally, fraternization between heterosexuals of the same rank is tolerated, and there is no reason to assume any greater breach of security would arise among gay and lesbian people of the same rank than arises among their straight counterparts.

Furthermore, although the military asserts that homosexuality is detrimental to the morale of the troops, it nonetheless conscripts homosexuals during times of war, and will not grant even requested discharges on that basis – precisely when high morale is most crucial – showing their utter lack of commitment to that claim and highlighting their own insincerity.

In a September 13 Letter to the Editor, Mr. Edward De Lia asserted that, “Those who have never experienced basic training are incapable of appreciating the implications of permitting homosexuality within the military.” He suggests that people who have experienced basic training can appreciate these implications – but this suggestion is false. Because homosexuality has never been permitted in the modern military, no one can claim to fully appreciate what the implications of its permission might be. Furthermore, the whole reason for the military’s existence is to protect the rights of self-determination that accrue to all Americans. It is a macabre irony that the very institution that exists to protect these rights is a bastion of discrimination. One of America’s greatest military leaders, former President of the United States, and past President of Columbia University, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned in his Farewell Address that:

Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment project allocations and the power of money is everpresent. It is gravely to be regarded.

We fully welcome free speech on campus and invite representatives from the military to join us in openly debating these issues. This is free speech – unlike discriminatory recruiting. Let us heed the words of Eisenhower’s warning specifically addressed to the academic community, and urge the University Senate to uphold Columbia’s ethical standards and maintain the integrity of the University constitution, or to accede to the fact that Columbia is not making its own policy, but is succumbing to the misplaced power of the military industrial complex.

Essay

Title

“AN ARMY OF LOVERS CANNOT BE DEFEATED” – SAPPHO