Be all that you are
Until a proven threat, homosexuals should be allowed in the military
“Come on, John, what are you, a
faggot?” I screamed at my room
mate.
He was trying his hardest to pull
himself over an obstacle at the
Lackland Air Force Base confidence
course.
Please understand that the mili
tary, and particularly combat units
comprised of young men, is not very
tolerant of homosexuals.
You might say I was less than sur
prised to see that a recent study by
the Pentagon Inspector General
found anti-gay sentiment rampant in
our armed forces.
If I had a nickel for every joke or
slur about gay people I heard in my
four years of service, I would be a
venture capitalist, not a college stu
dent.
Eighty-five percent of the sol
diers surveyed believed anti-gay
comments are tolerated at their insti
tution. The survey also found a wide
ly held view that Clinton’s “Don’t
ask, don’t tell” policy isn’t working.
Once again, I’m not surprised. I
can remember people in my unit call
ing people gay if they couldn’t make
a run or if they didn’t shine their
boots well enough. It wasn’t an
attack on the alternative lifestyle. We
just saw ourselves as manly men, and
the worst insult we could think of to
inflict on our friends was the stereo
type we held in our minds of the gay
male. We were insensitive to every
thing PC.
My entire argument for the
exclusion of homosexuals from mili
tary service, at that point in my life,
was centered on function: What is
the function of the military?
A salty old commander once
asked me this question. He walked
around a room full of new recruits
and asked us with that rough, guttur
al voice that old commanders do so
well, “What do we do?”
“We defend our nation,” one
recruit said meekly.
“No!” the old commander said,
his voice booming with what sound
ed like anger. “We blow up shit and
kill people! That’s what we do, and if
you can’t deal with it, get out of my
Air Force.”
He was right. He may not have
been eloquent, but he was right.
But would giving homosexuals
the right to openly serve in our armed
forces diminish our military’s capac
ity to function as an effective killing
machine?
When I was in the military, I
would have answered with an
emphatic ‘yes,’ but I’m not so sure
anymore.
The military will not be a hos
pitable place for gay people any time
soon. One in 11 respondents to the
survey said they had actually wit
nessed a physical assault. We would
n’t even need to look at this study to
figure out that the military does not
tolerate those who are perceived to
be outside the aggressive soldier
mold.
If homosexuals are willing to
either hide their sexual orientation or
deal with the problems it will cause
in their personal and professional
military lives, they should be able to
serve openly. I do not envy them, but
if they want full rights in the military,
they are going to have to have some
brave pioneers who take a lot of
abuse and have stunted careers.
Combating intolerance is costly.
My ideas about manhood and
military service are very traditional,
but this doesn’t give me the right to
mandate others’ views and choices.
The truth of the matter is that no one
really knows whether or not homo
sexuals serving openly in the mili
tary would harm our national securi
ty. I think it likely would not.
When faced with a situation
where giving people a right will have
an unknown consequence, we need
to err on the side of personal liberty.
We need to change our policy and let
homosexuals serve openly. If mili
tary effectiveness breaks down in
any way, then I will advocate a com
plete ban on gays in military service.
But, until we have some evidence
to justify our exclusionary practice,
we should give homosexuals this
chance.
Unless there is some reason to
If I had a nickel
for every joke or
slur about gay
people I heard in
my four years of
service, I would
be a venture
capitalist, not a
college student.
assume gays are a threat to our moral
or societal structure, we should prac
tice tolerant coexistence. I don’t
think gays are any more a threat to
our mainstream morality, whatever
that may be, than those who are
attracted to red-headed midgets for
example.
And those with a red-headed
midget fetish should be allowed to
serve as well, but that is another col
umn.
Michael Donley is a senior sociology major and a Daily lSebraskan columnist
Cheap talk
NU mouths diversity but won’t commit
Diversity is nothing more than a
pretty word. It should be said fre
quently to give the appearance of a
welcoming environment, but it’s
not really necessary to Ido anything!
about it.
At least that’s what the adminis
tration of the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln seems to think.
Our well-paid bureaucrats glo
rify diversity in every speech and
announcement; they form commit
tees, issue reports, write diversity
plans and sponsor workshops. But
when faced with an opportunity to
bring about real change, the admin
istration rarely puts its money
where its mouth is.
Consider the Culture Center,
part of UNL’s “Union System,”
along with the East and City
Unions. The Culture Center was
designed as a place to provide a safe
and welcoming environment for
minority students and to host
diverse events for the campus as a *
whole. The Culture Center should
be an attraction for minority stu
dents, and a placeWhere they can
feel comfortable.
Instead, the Culture Center is a |
dark, cramped building in desper
ate need of repairs. There are prob
lems with the Center’s heating, ven
tilation and air-conditioning sys
tems, and only the first flooris '
accessible to people with disabili
ties.
The offices for student groups
like UNITE (University of
Nebraska Inter-Tribal Exchange)
are barely bigger than the closet in
my residence hall room and are
equipped with antiquated comput
ers; they still have 5 1/4 drives and
green screens.
Instead of committing the funds
necessary to bring the Culture
Center up to par with the other
unions, UNL spends millions to
build a new residence hall for com
puter honors students, which will
inevitably attract mostly white, mid
dle-class males.
This is not diversity.
The administration is not just
blind to the need for diversity among
students, it’s also not committed to
achieving a diverse faculty.
UNL is behind the average of its
peer institutions in having minority
faculty and failed to meet a legisla
tive benchmark, which required the
University to hire and retain a certain
number of minority professors.
If UNL were truly committed to
diversity, it would not need threats
from the Legislature to bring it
about.
Even more frustrating is the
administration’s refusal to offer
domestic partner benefits for same
sex couples. Although supported by
both the student and faculty senates,
the UNL Fringe Benefits Committee
will not recommend them.
“They couldn’t support insur
ance coverage to same-sex partners
because the state didn’t support it,”
Agnes Adams, chair of the commit
tee, told the Daily Nebraskan
(1/18/00).
If a university in a state like Iowa
can establish domestic partner bene
fits without the legislature’s support,
UNL can, too. The administration
has shown no fear in taking on a
majority of the senators in fighting
against a proposed ban on fetal tissue
research.
If this administration were truly
committed to diversity, it would fight
for domestic partner benefits as well.
To quiet discontent, the adminis
tration consistently talks diversity
even as they consciously avoid com
mitting to it. Speakers and work
shops are nice, but all the “diversity
enhancement” events in the world
cannot compare to hiring more
minority faculty or offering domestic
partner benefits.
If the administration really thinks
diversity is more than just a word, it’s
time they act like it.
Jeremy Patrick is a first-year law student and a Daily Nebraskan columnist