“Don’t ask, don’t tell” harkens back to segregated military
To my regulars: This column interweaves two incendiary issues — race and gay rights. I hope you’ll work with me to keep the conversation civil. You can criticize me; you can even invoke the old trope claiming I “always write about race.” But please, no “idiot,” no “redneck,” no faux sub-standard English. Thanks.
WASHINGTON — Last month, Lt. Col. Lee Archer, a decorated fighter pilot of the famed Tuskegee Airmen, died at the age of 90. His obituary reminded me of the ugly racism that he and his colleagues faced as they struggled for the right to die for their country. The story noted a 1925 Army War College study that had concluded black men lacked the courage, intelligence and leadership skills for combat, so training them as pilots was out of the question.
I thought of Archer’s obituary last week when Saxby Chambliss (R), Georgia’s senior senator, rattled off his objections to allowing gays and lesbians to serve their country openly. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — which held a hearing on reversing “don’t ask, don’t tell last Tuesday — Chambliss declared that ending the policy would damage the military.
“. . The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and effective unit cohesion and effectiveness,” he said.
As he and other senators objected to a change in policy, I could hear echoes of the old bigotry toward blacks in combat. (I could also hear a great deal of hypocrisy in Chambliss’ words, since he never bothered to serve. He received several deferments to avoid the Vietnam-era draft.)
The comparison between the struggles of gay Americans and those of black Americans is not a perfect one, and some blacks resist any linkage. But there are certainly parallels.
One is that the American military had to exert leadership over decades to weed out overt racism in its ranks. By the time my father was drafted for service in Korea, Harry Truman had issued an executive order effectively integrating the armed forces; my father, a U.S. Army second lieutenant, was given a small platoon. But his stories about his service — the few he would tell — made clear that the army was still treating black lieutenants as second-class officers. It took the open ruptures of Vietnam to persuade military brass that they needed to work harder on that vaunted unit cohesion.
Presumably, the services have learned useful lessons from that experience. That’s why, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Pentagon is studying how to “minimize disruption and polarization within the ranks.” Much of that polarization can be avoided if top military leaders show their support for repeal, as Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, did last week.
The winds of change are blowing mightily, with polls showing that a comfortable majority of Americans support the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That now includes Colin Powell, who, regrettably, helped hammer the odious policy into place when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It also includes, of course, Mullen, who eloquently testified that forcing gay soldiers and sailors to remain in the closet tarnishes “integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
Still, not all military commanders agree. The Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, has suggested that gay and lesbian troops wait a while longer. “Our Marines are currently engaged in two fights, and our focus should not be drawn away from these priorities,” Conway’s spokesman told The Washington Times last year. Several members of Congress have also suggested that a repeal of “don’t ask” needs to wait for a more opportune time.
That attitude certainly has civil-rights-era parallels; it reminded me of Martin L. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In his letter, King pointedly disagreed with local white ministers who believed that the city’s black citizens should show a little more patience with the harsh lash of Jim Crow.
King wrote: “We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’ “
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
404 comments Add your comment
Davo
February 5th, 2010
5:12 pm
CT is right…every American regardless of sexual orientiation should be able to be offered up for the defense of Israel. Why should we care if cannon-fodder comes in pink or has butch haircuts?
ctucker
February 5th, 2010
5:15 pm
Watch it, Davo. You’re close to the line.
Logical Dude
February 5th, 2010
5:23 pm
I commend Powell for (at the time) coming to a compromise where gays could serve, and have the military acknowledge that gays are serving (albiet “unknowingly”). Yes, the time is well past for our soldiers to have to hide a part of themselves just to serve the country. It does speak to integrity, and please, for those who are still for “don’t ask, don’t tell”, tell me why you disagree with Mullen’s point about the integrity of the soldier.
Reality Check
February 5th, 2010
5:30 pm
Ms. Tucker, but you never served either. So how can you criticize Chambliss for not serving. No I did and based on what I saw, heard, and felt, this matter will be much, much tougher than the integration of blacks and women into the mainstream of our armed forces.
Csquared
February 5th, 2010
5:44 pm
This seems to boil down to a basic human rights issue. If you trust the man next to you in the foxhole or in the barracks, why would you presume to tell him (or her) what they could do or who they could see in their free time?
If this person is a POOR soldier (sexual orientation REMOVED from that argument), then I could certainly see weeding them out, but the same goes for “straight” soldiers that can’t cut it either. How does it affect morale, unit cohesiveness, etc etc? Same argument WAS used about serving with Black troops even while they proved their bravery and soldierly skills on the battlefield. Can you allow any less for those who happen to have a different sexual orientation than yours?
Micar
February 5th, 2010
6:14 pm
On this issue, I have only one question to ask.
If your family is about to be attacked by a group of terrorist and there is a group of fully armed NRA members close by, some of whom happen to be gay, would you want them to defend and save your family?
If your answer is Yes then, then there is no legitimate reason for you to hold a position which would prohibit gay people from defending their country.
If your answer is NO, and you would not want any gay person to protect and defend your family then you may legitimately persist in a position which prohibits gays in the military.
Byron Mathison Kerr
February 5th, 2010
6:24 pm
The British military had the same heated arguments and concerns about allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. But their policy of discrimination violated European Union human rights protections, so they dropped the ban 10 years ago. Since then, it has always been a non-issue, i.e., much ado about nothing.
We may be a little slow sometimes, but if the British can do it in 2000, the Americans should be able to follow suit in 2010. To argue otherwise would only disparage the quality of our military and the character of our troops.
michael cooper
February 5th, 2010
6:26 pm
I’d prefer a segregated army comprised of white southern born-again christians. This demographic loves War, march on Christian soldiers, smite the evil-doers, leave Peace for the rest of us….
ctucker
February 5th, 2010
6:26 pm
Reality Check, many people disagree with you on that.
Reality Check
February 5th, 2010
6:42 pm
Ms Tucker. And those people who disagree with me, have not served either. The only people inside or outside the military who suppport this measure are the folks who won’t have to deal with it when it becomes the law of the land. This is purely being done for political reasons; no more and no less. You never tear down a wall without first knowing and understanding why it was put up in the first place. Many people, such as you, think you know, but you don’t know.
Csquared
February 5th, 2010
6:47 pm
the other point i’d make here is that the SOLIDERS already KNOW for the most part who’s serving next to them. This just prevents them from being HASSLED, HARRASED and DISMISSED from service for their PRIVATE choice. Folks (some SENATORS among them) that believe this would somehow lead to soldiers, airmen (and women!) sailors and marines somehow breaking decorum and going off into buck wild behaviors, do a DISSERVICE to those serving their country with honor.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
6:51 pm
To michael cooper: Yes, kept by better men than yourself.
To Ms. Tucker:
1) I’ll ask you the same question I asked the other day but you didn’t respond. What would be the reasoning for not making this change “during a time of war” vs. a “time of peace”? Many who are for making the change also agree “not during a time of war”.
2) If the change is made and recruiting quotas can’t be filled, there is constant turmoil among the troops and/or combat effectiveness is reduced in any way ……….. would you be for going back to “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
P.S. All should remember that serving in the military is not a “right”.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
6:52 pm
To Csquared:
Marines should be capitalized.
Csquared
February 5th, 2010
6:54 pm
true, my apologies
Scout
February 5th, 2010
6:56 pm
P.S.
To equate a lifestyle of sexual perversion with the fight against racial discrimination is in my opinion very demeaning to African-Americans …………. at least that’s what my African-American friends say.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
6:57 pm
Csquared:
Accepted and thank you.
ctucker
February 5th, 2010
6:59 pm
That’s a hypothetical I can’t answer, Scout. I don’t believe for one minute that the services couldn’t fill their recruiting quotas because of equal rights.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
7:04 pm
Ms. Tucker:
Equal rights for who?
There are restrictions on education, height, weight, age and a host of other factors that every group could argue is unfair.
I repeat. Serving in the military is NOT a right.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
7:06 pm
P.S. to Ms. Tucker:
You are still avoiding my first question. Why are even some Democrats saying do this but “not in a time of war”? What could “a time of war” have to do with it?
Robert
February 5th, 2010
7:07 pm
This is something I have never been able to understand. If the main basis for banning gays in the military is because you may have to shower with them, then these people should get over themselves. I heard a guy the other day say that when he was in the army, he wouldn’t have felt comfortable knowing a gay guy could have looked at him in the shower. Does he think that every gay guy wants him? Even if they did, are they going to make a move in the shower? I highly doubt it. How is that different than changing clothes at the local gym, especially here in Atlanta. Chances are, every time you change clothes or shower at LA Fitness, even the ones in the suburbs, there is a gay guy that may see you naked.
If these soldiers are that sensitive about someone seeing him/her, then we probably don’t want them fighting the truly bad guys all over the world. Anyway, a good soldier should be able to adapt to any situation.
The time has come to overturn the don’t ask don’t tell policy. We need good soldiers, more than ever. Homosexuals that are willing to serve shouldn’t be turned away.
On another but similar note, I find it disturbing that a large part of the African American population are against equal rights for homosexuals. I believe a large chunk of the African American population in California voted against Proposition 8. Any insight from anyone on here that is African American?
Scout
February 5th, 2010
7:09 pm
Robert:
Did you ever serve in the infantry?
Robert
February 5th, 2010
7:13 pm
Scout,
What difference would it make if I did or didn’t serve in the military?
jconservative
February 5th, 2010
7:17 pm
Nice piece of writing Cynthia. We agree once again. Some things are bigger than the conservative and liberal labels. And Patriotism is one of those things.
The Viet Nam era was a period where troops were drafted. The draft did not have a box to check if you were gay. If there had been, thousands of anti-war types would have checked the box. Instead you served or ran off to Canada. ( When I was drafted my father handed me $1000. in cash and told me to go to Canada. )If you stayed, you were sent to Nam and were killed whether straight or gay. The enemy did not discriminate. And the Army did not care. I served with 4 openly gay guys. There were no issues. You do your job. Everyone wants to come back home.
There have been gay soldiers in the US military since 1775.
I have a real hard time justifying the prevention of any American who wants to serve his country, perhaps to die in the service of his country, from serving because he or she is gay (or black or yellow as we once did). It feels “UN-American” to me.
The problem we have today is people NOT wanting to serve their country. Those who do want to serve need to be allowed to serve, and to serve with honor. Congress would be advised to hold hearings on why so few volunteer. Question: why do we need “Recruiters” to get people to serve their country?
And Chambliss. Since he did not serve, what does he know about life in the military? The answer, of course, is that he knows absolutely nothing. If you have not served in the active duty military you cannot possibly have any idea of what you are talking about. It is unlike anything civilian.
We honor your father for his service to his country.
jimbob
February 5th, 2010
7:19 pm
This e-mail gem was read by Diane Rehm on her radio program today, in the first segment, at 42:12/51:20 minutes: “All right here’s an e-mail from Gail, who says, ‘I’m the proud 60-year-old daughter of one of the original Tuskegee Airmen . . . [The] same narrow minded bigoted arguments used to keep Blacks out of the military are being used to kick gays and lesbians out of the armed forces, depriving them of their freedom or of the pursuit of happiness, depriving our country of their talents. There is no bad time to right a gross injustice. If the civil rights activists of the 50s and 60s had waited for the ‘right’ time, I would still be riding in the back of the bus. Enough of studies and polling; stand up and do the right thing, America.’
I wish to repeat part of this message, which is, that there is no bad time to right a gross injustice. Think about it. Great column, Cynthia! Justice delayed IS justice denied.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
7:20 pm
Robert:
You have every right to your opinion. I helped fight for it. However, the “weight” of our opinion is the issue.
For example, my opinion on what Peyton Manning should do tomorrow carries very little weight since I have never played pro-football.
Ridgerunner
February 5th, 2010
7:22 pm
HEADLINE : “UP TO 30″ OF SNOW FOR DC AREA; MATCH BIGGEST STORM OF RECORD”
Well, this is good news. Maybe the federal government will be shut down for a few days next week.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
7:23 pm
Time for chow ……….. back later.
Robert
February 5th, 2010
7:29 pm
Scout,
Thanks for acknowledging my right to have an opinion, but you shouldn’t say your opinion should be weighted more only because you fought for mine. It doesn’t work that way. My grandfather fought for us fighting on D-Day on the shores of Normandy, my father fought in Vietnam, several uncles fought in Korea. They would want everyone’s voice to be heard and to be heard equally. I know this, because I know them. Some people, like you, may feel different…but isn’t that always the case with anything?
Curious though, what is your objection to homosexuals serving in the military?
jimbob
February 5th, 2010
7:36 pm
Scout, thank you for your service, but I agree with Robert. In truth, in this issue, as with the issue of same-sex marriage, the arguments against them are the same exact arguments that were put forward to try to prevent racial integration in the military, and bi-racial marriage.
I for one expect our service members to be professional and obedient, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or skin color. Members who can’t tolerate diversity shouldn’t take an oath to defend the Constitution.
Gary Owen
February 5th, 2010
7:39 pm
Gays in the military? Have you ever seen Ru Paul with a moustache and out of drag?
‘muff said.
Scout: we respect your sacrifice. But MacArthur was quite clear about what old soldiers should do. My father was a fighter pilot in WW2, Korea, and he flew Gooney Birds in Nam. I’m an air force brat from hell, but you don’t see me torturing people with it by asking them if their father flew in three wars, like it gave their opinion less merit if they hadn’t. I wont stand for that on my blog here.
Our commander in chief is a civilian. Your opinion is welcomed, but don’t expect anyone to grade it on a patriotic curve.
This is what I think
February 5th, 2010
7:41 pm
Have I missed something . . I didn’t think the “don’t ask, don’t tell” prevents gays from serving . . . it just prevents them from be open about their sexual orientation. I don’t know and don’t have any real basis for my thinking, but I would think if a gay didn’t openly say they were gay . . . I’d think those straight guys and gals around them would soon figure it out.
Robert
February 5th, 2010
7:42 pm
jimbob, it’s clear to me why Scout holds these beliefs about gays in the military. Look at his words above @ 6:56.
jimbob
February 5th, 2010
7:45 pm
Ridgerunner, careful what you wish for. Snowpocalypse aside, there is a concerted effort by a certain Republican senator from Alabama to keep as much government as possible from functioning, because his multi-billion dollar earmarks aren’t getting funded. Oh heck, it’s not just him, it’s all the Republican senators. Thank goodness a Senate recess is around the corner on President’s Day; then the President can seat his appointees without the dysfunctional 3-ring circus’s minority’s objection.
Robert
February 5th, 2010
7:51 pm
This is what I think,
The current policy doesn’t prevent them from serving if they don’t talk about it, but if it becomes known then they get kicked out. That’s the problem. What if they made no homosexual advances or even discussed their sexuality, but somehow word got out about their sexual preference or a private letter was read…and they were discharged. Do you see anything wrong with that?
Also, you said you “don’t know and don’t have any real basis for my thinking” but then make a statement that was obviously not well thought out.
kayaker 71
February 5th, 2010
7:54 pm
it ain’t a racial thing, Cynthia. The black community takes a very dim view of gays and their lifestyle. Don’t try to make it something that it isn’t.
Micar
February 5th, 2010
8:01 pm
Scout:
In case you missed it in the earlier posts, I asked a simple question which I believe cuts through all the smoke screens.
If your family is about to be attacked by a group of terrorist and there is a group of fully armed NRA members close by, some of whom happen to be gay, would you want them to defend and save your family?
If your answer is Yes then, then there is no legitimate reason for the position which would prohibit gay people from defending their country.
If your answer is NO, and you would not want any gay person to protect and defend your family then you may legitimately, though perhaps wrongly, take the position that prohibits gays in the military.
So how do you answer.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
8:28 pm
To all of you above who have asked me assorted questions I will try to answer them this way as time if of essense:
1) Everyone is entitled to an “opinion”. Some opinions however should have more weight. If we were talking a particular type of medical surgery, I may have a opinion but a surgeon’s opinion should carry more weight.
2) I served in V.N. in the infantry. Gays have always served honorably in the U.S. military and I know that I served with some and fought side by side with them. That is NOT the issue. The issue is one of “openly serving”. In my opinion, that will open a Pandora’s box of other issues regarding promotions, charges of discrimination (false and otherwise), morale problems and especially combat effectiveness. Why combat effectiveness if out in the open? To be quite candid, a lot of people (especially women) do not realize how repugnant the physical behavior/sexual act of gays is to most (certainly not all) straight men. We find it repulsive, unnatural and perverse. You can say “God made me that way” (that’s an arguement for another day) but I can say “God made me want to have sex with every beautiful woman I see” also. However, that does not give me the right to justify those “staight male genes” by being unfaithful to my wife. One must separate the desire from the act. If the desire is there ………. to act on it is perverse.
3) Many have said “other countries have done it”. Yes they have but has that made them better? I say no. There is not an Army in the world that unit for unit can stand up to us. That is what we are messing with. We shouldn’t be like the rest …………. it’s a question of better or best.
4) Again, no one has a “right” to be in the military. Every group that is still totally excluded (there is no “I’m too short so don’t ask, don’t tell” policy) can make a valid argument as to why “they” can still serve. Has anyone seen someone in a wheel chair enlist? There is no reason they couldn’t serve honorably here in the U.S. in an admnistrative function. But it’s just not done. Is that fair?
Is it fair that cadets are thrown out of West Point if they are found to be married? Is it fair that officers can still be discharged for adultery? I repeat …………… no one has a “right” to be in the military.
Now, I have to the best of my ability tried to answer you questions. It’s just my opinion and you are free to start name calling or choose to debate further. But I will not continue this evening on a one way street. I would like MY QUESTION answered.
Why do even many Democrats/liberals say the policy should be eventually changed but “not in time of war”?
Scout
February 5th, 2010
8:42 pm
P.S.
I just posted an 2009 article from the CDC stating that gay and bi-sexual men of all races were the highest group for being severely infected by HIV and also the were the only group in which those numbers of HIV infections were annually increasing.
My post for some reason is “under moderation” so you may have to Google the article yourself if the AJC censor won’t release my previous post.
Now, is this something else we want to saddle the military with ?
Micar
February 5th, 2010
8:49 pm
Scout
I would not concede your point as to the “many” Democrats/liberals position that the change should not come in a time of war. f there are those who take that position they can speak for themselves.
I would say that a time of war is the absolutely best time to correct this policy. After all the American military fights for the “Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free”, where “All people are created equal” and devoted to the principle of “We the People” endeavoring to create a “More Perfect Union” wherein the law is applied equally to all citizens as an example to the world of freedom and democracy. What better time to take a step that implements the principles we fight for than in time of war. Lincoln did it in 1863 when he authorized the service of former slaves to serve in the ranks of the Union Army creating a moral imperative in the war to save the Union that facilitated its successful conclusion.
So yes, there is no better time to implement a truly American principle than during the very time you are fighting to uphold such principles.
Besides the guys we are fighting right now are rabid homophobes. Our action would send the message that we disagree with that ideology.
Let’s not forget that gay people are fighting and dying all the time in our military right now. So the ability to serve is not the issue. It is whether or not when they take the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag they defend as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, they can do so without lying.
Kevin
February 5th, 2010
8:56 pm
If you homophobes had any real concept of how many gays are already in the military today, you’d be completely surprised.
Get over it. Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they’re eyeing you. Likely quite the opposite.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
8:58 pm
Micar:
I hear you (and obviously disagree) but I still ask you what do YOU think their reasoning is not to do so “in time of war”?
In addition, (see my 8:42) why would you want to bring any group into the military that has a high rate of AIDS infection as opposed to other groups ?
Scout
February 5th, 2010
8:59 pm
Kevin:
“If you homophobes had any real concept of how many gays are already in the military today, you’d be completely surprised.”
Except for the namecalling, you make my point. That’s why “don’t ask, don’t tell” works.
Scout
February 5th, 2010
9:12 pm
P.S. to Micar:
“It is whether or not when they take the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag they defend as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, they can do so without lying.”
I hate to tell you this but people lie all the time when they join the military (my Dad went in at 16 we think and the youngest Marine killed in WWII was on Iwo Jima at the age of 14). Recruits lie about their past drug use, an arrest that didn’t get caught, a medical condition they didn’t reveal, etc., etc., etc. So don’t be so sanctimonious on that one.
Now, you may have been in the boy scouts or the girl scouts but when one joins the military one does not do so by pledging to the flag. One does so by taking an oath to Defend the Constitution of the United States.
So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld “don’t ask, don’t tell” so there is no unconstitutionality here. Just thought I would clear that up for you as you seem a little confused on the oath thing.
Micar
February 5th, 2010
9:23 pm
Scout;
On the HIV issue, me thinks you are trying to use a red herring. I got out of the service about 30 years ago, but back then they gave everybody physicals and such and every soldier had to pass the medical qualifications to take the oath. Do they not do that these days? I am sure they do. I can’t imagine the military services letting anyone who was HIV positive at the time of induction into the service. That would just create too many later issues on service related disability and illness for VA purposes. I am sure they are pretty tight on that sort of stuff.
By the way you answered everybody else’s question, but you did not answer mine from 8:01. Take a look see and let me know what your answer would be. Thanks.
Bill (:O
February 5th, 2010
9:31 pm
Enter your comments here
Bobby
February 5th, 2010
9:34 pm
My domestic partner died this past September after a little more than 33 years together. He served as a medic in Vietnam in the Air Force. I served in the Marines for 4 years just as the Vietnam War ended. In both cases we volunteered to serve our country, take our chances with defending it and like our hetero counterparts served with no problems. Too bad Senator Chambliss was a draft dodger while he criticizes gay men and women who have served honorably in all this Nation’s wars.
Jack
February 5th, 2010
9:35 pm
There’s a lot of thoughful opinions in here, but I think most of us know there’s a time & place for everything. And when one starts going against nature, you’ve chosen a lonely path that’s going to conflict with most folks.
Bobby
February 5th, 2010
9:42 pm
Scout – This is 2010. There is no reason for gay men and women in the military to have to stay in their closet. Gay men and women have proven over the years they can defend this country at least as well as heteros. And as former Senator Barry Goldwater once said on the subject of Gays in the military, “…you don’t have be straight, to shoot straight…” It’s time that all able bodied men and women regardless of their sexual orientation be permitted to openly serve their country just as heterosexuals are.
Bill (:O
February 5th, 2010
9:47 pm
It makes perfect sense to remove gay or lesbian linguist perfessionals and keep folks with prior criminal records;that includes those who made bomb threats!
Bobby
February 5th, 2010
9:47 pm
No Jack, we are not on a lonely path. Matter of fact the vast majority of military gays are as comfortable with themselves as straights are. The time for the misguided Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is over. We are not second class citizens nor do we consider our acts as “going against nature” any more than you consider yours.