DADT has feasibility

This issue at heart is the repeal of the DADT policy set forth by President Clinton to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

As a combat veteran who has retired from the military after 22 years of service, I think I can provide some interesting points to consider regarding this debate.

With regards to “oppressing” some (homosexuals) in order to favor the status quo is an interesting concept, and would not normally cause a problem in the civilian world. However, one must remember, the military, due to its unique mission (which in a nutshell, is to kill people), is legally exempt from many of the social laws and norms that normally govern our American way of life and job employment. The military can and does discriminate against handicapped people, people whose height and weight are outside of acceptable physical norms, etc. A person cannot “sue” the government to join the military. This has been upheld by various Supreme Court decisions over the last few years.

What people read in the headlines of newspapers is, “Sailor X, is getting kicked out of military because he is gay…etc”. When a person entered the military before DADT, they were specifically asked if they were homosexual. If you answered yes, your in-processing stopped and you were sent home. After DADT was adopted, is was generally agreed it was a good policy and a fair compromise to allow homosexuals enter the armed forces.

A homosexual person who serves in the military, for them to be kicked out, must now basically be “caught in the act” or self-admit to homosexuality (a person violating the don’t tell part). What many people fail to realize is for that to happen, a regulation (Law in civilian terms) has been broken and accountability must be held. It is not so much the person being homosexual, it is the “breaking of the law” which causes the problem. Rule breaking is simply not allowed in the military because it violates the good order and discipline needed to run a military.

I have had direct supervisory experience over people whom I thought were homosexual while in the military. DADT provides a “relief valve” for managers to effectively lead and train such personnel in a harmonious environment. If DADT is repealed, the heterosexual person is asked to give up his feelings and might possibly feel as the “oppressed” person.

Just because a person does not endorse homosexuality does not mean they are a bigot or close-minded. It is a lifestyle choice many people refuse to accept for religious or moral issues. If DADT is repealed, it could be rightly argued “reverse discrimination” would now be an issue. This differs from the situation of the 1950’s when segregation was ended and African Americans were allowed to join the military. The main difference is, and a main source of contention, is a person cannot chose their skin color, but a person can choose to be homosexual or not.

For any repealment of DADT to be successful, although none of us should hold our collective breath thinking this is going to occur anytime soon, the military must be allowed to define what the new status quo and standards of conduct will be for homosexuals. The military and the military alone, are going to be the vanguards of any positive change to

happen. The importance of this cannot be understated. The military does what is in the best interest of the military. Just the consideration the military might be willing to take any interest in changing DADT is a major step forward. Any interference by special interest groups or a specific timetable for this to happen as put forward by some gay rights advocates will in my humble opinion, cause extreme consternation and grind to a halt any fruitful gains on both sides.

Another interesting note is most people who are currently serving in the military do not want the repealment of DADT. Talk shows and newspaper editorials are filled with people who argue for the right for homosexual people to serve, but have never spent one day in uniform themselves. This glaring omission of experience undermines their validity as they speak of things which they do not know because they can only base their opinions on what they have seen in a non-military environment. To say the military should let openly known homosexuals to serve, because Super Target hires homosexuals, is truly a case of apples versus oranges.

Another topic to consider is the reality of military leadership. If a known homosexual is, and I hate to use this term a “flamer”, put in a position of leadership, where his mannerisms and way of speech reflect his/her lifestyle, I guarantee you, it will break the bond of esprit de

corps and unit cohesion, which is vital for a combat unit. That is the last thing you want missing as you climb out of your foxhole to face the enemy. This may sound harsh, but a flamboyantly gay person has no position leading troops into combat. The individual rights of a homosexual, or any other person for that matter, should be rightfully suppressed when it comes to safety and welfare of America’s sons and daughters. The civilian who champions the rights of homosexuals to openly serve in the military, just for the sake of showing progress, is never the one who has to face a grieving mother or father.

Progess as you state, does not depend on DADT repeal. It depends on the relationship between military and civilian authorities to agree on a common point. This has been achieved with the current situation of DADT, without any changes. The military does not tell the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government how to run their daily

operations, but the military does receive instruction on how to run theirs. As a democracy, I agree with this without exception. While the repeal of DADT makes for a great presidential campaign promise, it is akin to “shooting yourself in the foot” and harm the military in the long run.

As a former military leader, I willfully, voluntarily, and without complaint or regret, had numerous of my personal rights suppressed so you, the civilian reader, could live your rights to the fullest. Do not force a situation unto the military, which could possibly cause our nation harm and make soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines question if they want to

continue this sacred and honorable duty just so the rights of a few can be

affirmed.

Todd Jeffreys

sophomore, middle grades education

Adrian was spot-on about smoking

Derek Adrian’s Thursday column was great! I loved his analysis about smoking and suicide bombers — you’re right, it’s not too far fetched.

As a non-smoker, I am concerned about this all the time, that’s why I try to stay away from those that smoke in open areas. Often times while walking, when a smoker passes by, I just stop and let them go ahead. I’ll even stay back for about a minute or so until the smoke dissolves in the air. I am happy, however, that smoking was banned in many public places. I just try not to be around individuals who smoke — thank God none of my close friends smoke.

Makia Tillman

administrative support specialist, personal organization development

I’m proud to be a smoker

Derek Adrian has apparently not only decided to hate on all smokers; he wants to ban it from all public places — outside included — because of “thirdhand smoke.” You try to use crazy comparisons, which I hope as a college student you do not really believe in, to scare or deter people from smoking or being around smokers.

Well, how about this? If anyone dies of “thirdhand smoke” Darwin says they lose. We as a people have been smoking since this great country of ours was established almost 300 years ago. I do not state this fact to mark it as tradition.

No, instead I am saying 300 years is plenty of time to adapt. If one dies of cancer because of smoking related instances, then he or she is weak and does not belong to strive with the fittest. Next, we are over populated as it is. Let people kill themselves off to limit this so when Mother Nature does decide to strike back her wrath will not be so devastating. I do respect non-smokers, and good for them that they never picked up this bad habit. Yet, if they are all so worried about dying because of smokers, wear a medical mask or just move out of the way. I believe we as smokers have given up enough of our rights to non-smokers where we should at least be able to smoke outside wherever and whenever we want. We breathe in crap every day that causes cancer that does not come from smoking. Not only that, but tobacco is one of our county’s last “homemade” products. I am not saying you are not patriotic because one doesn’t smoke but smokers are paying more taxes to our country than non-smokers.

I am mad at smokers for one thing though. That being we do not stand and fight for our rights. Instead we let non-smokers fight while we sat back and let them win. This needs to stop because smokers are people too. Comparing us to suicide bombers is a cheap shot. What is next?

Zac Gifford

junior, nuclear engineering