Gay activists must seek ROTC compromise

Gay activists must seek ROTC compromise

By J.D. Whitlock

Here’s a "radical" proposition from a member of the armed
services: Integrate gays into the military to the same extent
heterosexuals and homosexuals interact in society. Put another way:
Integrate gays into the military to the same extent women are
integrated into the military.

What am I talking about? If you wouldn’t force a group of women
to berth in close, intimate quarters with a group of men ­ I’m
making an assumption here that we as a society are not quite gender
blind (PC?) enough to digest this idea anytime soon ­ then why
would you be willing to force a group of same sex heterosexuals to
berth in close, intimate quarters with a group of same-sex
homosexuals?

What is the functional difference? None, besides the fact that
in the former example there is potential for unwanted sexual
attraction both "directions" and in the latter example only one
group is affected. In both situations, you are subjecting people to
a serious invasion of privacy, far beyond what is already asked of
individuals when they join the military.

I would like to commend Leland Kim, the UCLA junior and sergeant
in the U.S. Army Reserves, for his courage in "coming out" this
week. There are no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of top-notch
performing gay men and women like him in the military today.

I would certainly prefer serving alongside Leland Kim than one
of his homophobic peers described in his Viewpoint piece ­
individuals whose homophobia is likely causally related to an
intelligence deficit in comparison to Leland Kim and thus, more
probably than not, a performance deficit. I support Leland Kim’s
desire to be open about his sexuality and at the same time continue
to serve his country. I cannot support the demands of most of the
gay rights groups, which typically go something like this: Gays
must be completely integrated into all parts of the military,
because to do anything else is unacceptable discrimination.

I have lived and worked with four other men in a space on a ship
smaller than most people’s bathrooms. Waking up to foreign
genitalia a few feet from your face because your roommate had to
change clothes in the only space available was a daily
occurrence.

The unacceptability of introducing openly gay individuals into a
situation like that is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of
sexual chemistry.

Ask yourself whether you would like to live in such an
environment with members of the opposite sex or same-sex
homosexuals. If your answer is yes, then ask yourself: Are you
willing to force others to?

What percentage of the military lives in situations where
separated berthing is impossible ­ and "discriminates" against
women and gays? A small minority, when you examine the military as
a whole. Combat ground troops and sailors on small platforms such
as submarines that cannot accommodate separated berthing. What
reason is there against integrating homosexuals into the rest of
the military? Certainly no good ones. Hold that thought …

If you are a student of this debate, you might know that the
Clinton compromise ­ the "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy
currently in effect ­ will likely not survive long in the
courts. This political chimera requires a military member "accused"
of homosexuality to prove to a court that he or she does not have a
"propensity" toward committing homosexual acts. "I’m gay, but I’m
not gay." Then they can stay in. With due respect to the president,
who tried to balance campaign promises with his responsibilities as
commander in chief and take both seriously, this policy will
probably not last.

In the vacuum left, one of two things will probably happen. It
is possible we will return to the old policy ­ in function if
not in form. No gays in the military.

If, however, gay rights activists decided to focus their efforts
on grass roots support for a compromise such as that discussed
above, they might find a political leadership ready to listen. They
certainly would find that a significant percentage ­ a
majority in many circles ­ of active duty service members
would support such a common sense approach.

Why is this basic concept news to the organizers of this week’s
ROTC protests? I don’t know. I do know that the aim of these
protests ­ throwing ROTC off campus ­ is naive, feel-good
politics at its worst. Before you sign on with the protests this
week, think on these points for a minute:

1.) Think about the UCLA students you are trying to take
scholarships away from. (This is federal money, by the way, not
university money). UCLA ROTCs have done an outstanding job with
minority recruiting, supporting Department of Defense programs that
significantly expand opportunities to minorities. It is no accident
that the majority of Navy ROTC UCLA students are minorities.
Twenty-seven percent are either African American or Latino.

Almost one-fifth are female ­ as compared to approximately
5 percent currently in the Navy Officer corps. Do you really want
to sacrifice the hard-earned concrete gains (not to mention the
hopes and dreams ) of some minorities for a destructive, entirely
rhetorical victory of another?

2.) ROTC units have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the
policies they enforce. David Mixner, founder of Freedom Project-Los
Angeles (one of the groups organizing the protests this week),
stated in his Daily Bruin article, "It is unrealistic to expect the
Pentagon to change its policy any time in the near future." I have
a short lesson on the U.S. Constitution for Mixner ­ the
Pentagon does what the politicians tell it to, and the politicians
do what the people tell them to. Protest directed at your
representatives in Congress is the intelligent solution.

3.) If ROTCs did go away, for whatever reason, what would
happen? Military officers would all come from the service
academies. Can you say, "Oliver North?" ROTCs produce liberally
educated, citizen soldiers.

4.) Lastly, on a slightly more pragmatic note, ROTC contracts
are signed by the UC Regents. big-stakes state politics. At a time
when California senators and congressmen are pontificating about
keeping California military bases open to preserve our delicate
economy, do you really think the powers-that-be will even think
about removing the ROTCs from UC schools?

If you feel strongly about this issue, write your representative
in Congress, or participate in protest that has as its goal some
constructive end. Feel-good politics feels good, but it doesn’t
examine the complexities of the matter and it certainly doesn’t
contribute anything toward a good solution.

Whitlock is a student in the School of Public Health.