TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century / TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO / 1990 / 92 / jul_sep / 0706510.000 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-02-27 | 11KB | 232 lines

<text> <title> (Jul. 06, 1992) Interview:Margarethe Cammermeyer </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 July 06, 1992 Pills for the Mind </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> INTERVIEW, Page 62 "I Just Don't Want to Go" </hdr> <body> Margarethe Cammermeyer, a decorated Army nurse who happens to be a lesbian, talks about sexual harassment and the ban against gays that is forcing her out of the military By David S. Jackson/Tacoma and Margarethe Cammermeyer Q. You earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam and were once the Veterans Administration Nurse of the Year. Three years ago, as chief nurse of the Washington State National Guard, you applied for admission to the Army War College. Asked during a routine background check if you were a homosexual, you said yes, and now your Army career is over. Are there many other women in your situation? A. I don't know of anyone else who has come out in the way that I have, or stuck around to get beaten up. My understanding is that I am the highest-ranking person who is being discharged under these conditions. I could have chosen to resign or retire because I had been in long enough. But I really felt a sense of loss of what my goals had been within the military, and I was trying to find some greater purpose, I suppose, for losing my career and having seen so many young people and their careers annihilated. The tragedy is that as long as the regulation is there, the military has no choice but to obey it. So it seemed to me that perhaps my case could be looked at differently because it's coming at the whole process from the opposite direction: instead of being a young, untried person whom they're not going to give a chance to, I'm dealing with the regulation in light of what I have already done. Q. Have you heard from other people grappling with the same dilemma? A. A number of people have called and said, "I'm a lesbian" or "I'm a homosexual" and "I'm calling to see what you think I ought to do..." We don't need to lose any more young people to this tragic regulation. They should try to protect themselves so that they don't have to deal with the confrontation, or lie, or put themselves in a precarious situation where they're going to have to respond. They should just do their job and do it well, and see if they can ride out the storm and give us a chance [in court] so that nobody else has to go through what I'm going through. As I told one person, "You're too valuable as you are, doing your work. You cannot have the luxury of coming out to your boss, because that will force your superior to act properly within the regulations." Q. Has your experience inspired or discouraged them? A. I've certainly gotten calls and letters from people saying how much they appreciate the fact that I'm willing to stand up and be counted. We have all presumed that there are other people who have achieved higher rank within the military and left without having to confront the situation or choosing to come out. Now there is a sense of purpose, I think, for many, waiting to see what is going to happen. Q. Would people be surprised at how many homosexuals there are in the military or at high ranks in the military? A. We don't wear a label. But I think that those who are defending the policy are either totally naive about the people with whom they work on a day-to-day basis, or else they live in a world that is totally different from the one the rest of us live in. Because there is no reason to think that there wouldn't be a lot of gays and lesbians who have achieved in all areas of the military, the same as they have achieved in every other aspect of life. Q. When there were allegations that a high-ranking civilian official in the Department of Defense was homosexual, the Secretary of Defense said he had no plans to change the policy. Yet he made a distinction between civilian and military employees. Is that fair? A. No. I think that too is based on a lack of understanding, a lack of education. Because there really are several levels. One is the sexual orientation. If 20% of the population were homosexual, they're denying the existence of that 20%. They have to deal with the fact that yes, we do exist. The second part is dealing with what is appropriate in terms of conduct. The third phase is sexual harassment, or sexual advances, and that crosses all dimensions of life. People always express their concern about what's going to happen in the foxholes. Frankly, I hope they're fighting the battle, because that's why people are in foxholes. But when people say that they're concerned about being attacked by a gay man or that some sort of sexual conduct might go on there, that's ludicrous. They said the same thing about women being with men in missile silos, and whites working with blacks. It's like, let's put up as many barriers as we can and not deal with anything rational here. I've also been thinking about the comments that are always made about the shower rooms and the lack of privacy, and that is absolutely true. There is a lack of privacy in the military, particularly in the lower ranks, where people are treated like cattle and not afforded any sort of privacy for the most intimate personal care. And then they say, "Well, we're worried about what happens between people in this place where you have no privacy." How easy it would be just to hang a shower curtain to give any one of us a little bit of privacy and human dignity, if that is the issue! There are so many very, very simple ways of dealing with what people perceive as being issues that probably are not. But it's the only way right now they can try to defend a totally indefensible regulation. Q. Do you see a double standard between your case and the "Tailhook incident"? You were discharged because of a verbal statement, yet three years after the Navy Secretary said he would not tolerate lewd behavior or sexual harassment, he attended a convention at which 26 women, many of them officers, were manhandled. [Last week, under pressure, the Secretary resigned his post.] A. There have always been double standards. Sexual harassment of women has been tolerated in the military certainly since I've been there. But the same people frightened of being in a foxhole with a homosexual are the first to deny that sexual harassment of women takes place in the military. Q. Has there ever been an occasion when your sexual orientation affected your ability to do your job? A. No. It's such a tragic question to have to ask, and I don't know how to answer it so that it doesn't sound trite. Q. Did you ever get less respect because of it? A. My sexual orientation never came into play in my work setting, so there would be no reason for any of these things. If you're wondering if I have a bias, I mentored heterosexual men--I presume they were heterosexual--to replace me in both of my last positions as chief nurse. So I don't base my decisions on my sexual orientation or on what I believe might be somebody else's. I base them on the work that I do and the work that other people do. Q. You say you realized your sexual orientation late, after having four children. How unusual is that? A. Evidently it's not that uncommon to have this late awakening, in part because in our society, people my age were raised in a very traditional, closed environment. So that was essentially all I knew. Q. What prompted your realization? A. The main thing was my unhappiness in what should have been an ideal marriage. There was a lot of turmoil and a lot of feeling that no matter what I did, it was not sufficient and it didn't make me feel better. I spent a lot of time reading and talking with people who understood human sexuality, and then soul searching for a lot of years. So when the time came and the question was asked, I didn't have a choice but to give this answer. Q. Had you ever been asked before if you were homosexual? A. No. When I joined in 1961, I was in college and straitlaced and heterosexual, I thought. And then in 1972, when I went back in the Army reserves, I was pregnant with my second child, so I was not questioning my own sexual orientation anyhow. That didn't take place until a number of years later. That question is asked now only when you enter the service and during these security clearances. Q. Why did you answer yes? A. Because I felt that it was the truth. When you consider that this was a top-secret clearance, there was never any question of not telling the truth. Q. Why did you join the Army? A. After emigrating from Norway, I had gotten so much from the U.S. that I felt it was my responsibility to give something back. My debt was three years of active duty. But I loved it. That's why I'm kicking so much at being kicked out. I just don't want to go. Q. If the ban were dropped, what could be done to address the concerns of both homosexuals and heterosexuals in the Army? A. The issue of privacy needs to be addressed, but because we're human beings, not because we're homosexuals or heterosexuals. Years ago, one of the things they did in the reserves to help us understand black culture better was to take us down to a black church, and we had a wonderful service together. When we left, it was with a feeling of how many things we had in common rather than how different we are. If people in the heterosexual world could just open themselves up to be more understanding, they may find that the prejudice they have is based on an irrational fear and is not grounded in reality or fact. Homosexuals have the same human needs as anyone else. If you just allow people to be who they are, then there are no problems. Q. Are you leaving with good memories of the Army, or is this changing all that? A. Nothing changes my 26 years in the military. I continue to love it and everything it stands for and everything I was able to accomplish in it. To put up a wall against the military because of one regulation would be doing the same thing that the regulation does in terms of negating people. It doesn't change how I feel about being an American, about having been an officer, or having served, or any of those feelings that make me feel really good inside. </body> </article> </text>