home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
072693
/
0726unk.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
87 lines
<text id=93TT0234>
<title>
July 26, 1993: The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
July 26, 1993 The Flood Of '93
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
The Political Interest, Page 41
Don't Settle For Hypocrisy
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Michael Kramer
</p>
<p> "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" won't work. The Administration
is really after a policy that says, "We don't want to know,"
but it is inevitable that commanders will learn that some troops
are gay without ever asking or being told--and that a homosexual
soldier will test the regulation in court. If the military adopts
"Don't ask, don't tell" but is successful in keeping the language
that states, "Homosexuality is incompatible" with service, it
would be illogical to permit gays to serve even if their sexual
preference were concealed. Changing the current wording to incorporate
the idea that homosexual conduct rather than homosexuality is
"incompatible" is a distinction without a difference, unless
one assumes gays are celibate. If, on the other hand, there
is no assertion that homosexuality (or its pracis out of bounds,
there is no reason to proscribe gays from openly declaring their
existence. Complete consistency forces the conclusion that the
game is already up: since the military concedes it should not
ask about a person's sexual preference during the enlistment
interview, it is in effect denying that homosexuals need to
be weeded out.
</p>
<p> "Don't ask, don't tell" shouldn't work because it is morally
reprehensible, a first-ever official codification of a policy
that encourages concealing a fact deemed material to an institution's
smooth functioning (assuming, again, the survival of language
condemning homosexuality--or its practice). The law prohibits
discrimination in part by respecting one's privacy, but in each
case the rationale assumes that the "secret" (one's religion
or political beliefs, for example) is immaterial to job performance.
</p>
<p> Some argue that "Don't ask, don't tell" expands privacy rights
by asserting that soldiers have no obligation to tell, but the
concealment contemplated actually asks one to live a lie in
order to serve. Bill Clinton unthis clearly last February, when
he asked the Pentagon to study the dilemma. "I think people
should not be asked to lie if they're going to be allowed to
serve," the President said. "The question is not whether they
should be there or not. They are there. The narrow question
of this debate is...Should you be able to say that you're
a homosexual if you do nothing wrong? I say yes." (From there,
by the way, Clinton articulated the only morally supportable
reason for discharge, "sexual harassment, whether homosexual
or heterosexual.")
</p>
<p> "Don't ask, don't tell" is corrosive at several levels. "By
engaging in this hypocrisy," says the philosopher Sissela Bok,
"by saying something matters and then ignoring it, by mandating
duplicity, the government will further reduce the public's trust
in the honesty of its officials." (According to a TIME/CNN poll
conducted last fall, 63% of Americans already have little or
no confidence that government leaders talk straight.) "It is
ironic that the military should participate in sanctioning a
category of falsehood by silence," says New York University
law professor Stephen Gillers. "More than any institution in
society, probably including the family, the military insists
that its effectiveness demands loyalty to the organization above
loyalty to self. If there's something amiss, you're supposed
to speak up. If homosexuality or its practice is considered
wrong, you're supposed to acknowledge it and others are supposed
to expose you. This so-called compromise is dishonorable on
its face."
</p>
<p> Where to from here? A court challenge should be welcomed. Someone
needs to recertify that the truth matters, no matter the consequences.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>