Op-Ed
Sound Off! A Cadet Defends ROTC
upROAR!
March 6, 2008 - 1:00amAlthough I am a ROTC cadet, everything I’m writing in this article is my own opinion, and does not represent Army policy. As a cadet in Army ROTC, yet having good friends in the LGBTQ society, I have been following the articles about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy very closely. Believe it or not, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is something we in the military discuss among ourselves often. Being in the National Guard and having family in the active army exposes me to a lot of military personnel. Whatever our personal feelings on gays in the military are, however, it comes down to a simple matter. DADT is federal law, not Army or ROTC policy. The oath we take when we enter the service calls upon us to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to pass laws. The support of the Constitution therefore consists of the support of those laws. Regardless of our personal feelings on any law passed by Congress, members of the Army are bound by their oath to uphold them. Just as a police officer must uphold laws he or she may not agree with, we are bound by our word to uphold any laws Congress chooses to pass. I would like to think that we still live in a society in which our oaths mean something, and in which keeping your word is not an obsolete concept.
Sun Columnist Gabriel Arana grad stated that “there is no prohibition on expressing the opinion, as a citizen, that DADT is wrong.” He is completely correct. However, he did not address Cornell Army ROTC officers Lt. Col. Brian Page, Maj. Richard Brown, or Maj. Bryan Miller as civilians, and as officers, everything they say when in uniform or acting in an official capacity — such as when they are addressed as representatives of ROTC in a newspaper article — is taken to be representative of the Army. They are not, in this context, civilians and cannot speak as civilians because the general public will not separate Brian Page, the man, from Lt. Col. Page, an Army officer.
Would we ask the ROTC officers to give their opinions, as civilians, on global warming? No. The public isn’t interested in the personal opinion of Richard Brown. They want to know what Maj. Brown, U.S. Army, thinks. In regards to their personal “civilian” opinions, Lt. Col. Page, Maj. Brown and Maj. Miller have the right to state them or not state them. Personal opinions are just that — personal — and I don’t see why they should be forced to let the world know their private thoughts on any subject, up to and including gays in the military.
As for the actual policy, there is a lot more to it then homophobia. Integrating openly gay men and women into the military brings forth many logistical problems. Currently, men and women are segregated in sleeping quarters and showers. Nobody cries out against this; it is simply logical. We don’t need soldiers getting distracted, and we certainly don’t need the sexual harassment that would undoubtedly occur, considering it happens in offices everyday.
So when we bring gays into the mix, it complicates things. How can we allow homosexuals to shower together when we don’t allow heterosexual men and women to shower together? Personally, I would not feel comfortable showering in front of men. Reasonably, I would know that just because they were men and I am a woman, it wouldn’t mean they were checking me out. Emotionally, however, most women would agree that it would not be a comfortable position to be in. How is this different, then, than showering in front of a gay woman? Many people feel uncomfortable at the thought that someone they are not intimately involved with might be looking at their body with sexual interest. It feels like a violation of privacy. How would this problem be solved — have the gay women shower with straight men, and gay men shower with straight women? The same goes for sleeping quarters — straight men and women cannot sleep together in the barracks. How can we let gay men and women sleep in the same quarters? Do we offer them preferential treatment by giving them private showers and bedrooms?
DADT doesn’t prohibit gays from serving in the military; it prevents them from telling their peers about it. The military cannot ask someone if they are gay, and unless they tell another soldier or are overt about it, they can serve. Yes, this makes them hide a part of themselves, but until we come up with a solution, it is what Congress decided was the best compromise.
The solution to DADT isn’t questioning officers; it isn’t attacking ROTC or the military in general. But figure out a feasible, cost effective way to integrate gays into the military, present it to Congress, and maybe things will change.
Jennifer Speeckaert, a cadet in Cornell Army ROTC, is a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She can be contacted at jenn.speeck@gmail.com. upROAR! appears periodically.
Do you actually know any LGBT people?
This column shows an astounding ignorance of LGBT "society" (what, is this upper class London in the 19th century?).
I see your subscribe to the tired idea that gay men are in heat and lesbians look like bulldogs. That could be the only explanation for this insightful gem: "How would this problem be solved — have the gay women shower with straight men, and gay men shower with straight women?" And, as straight men seem to have a particular fancy for lesbians, I think it wouldn't work anyway.
As silly as that whole paragraph is with its gender and sexuality stereotypes, you undid your own argument when you said that it's fine for gays and lesbians to serve in the military secretly. Your essentially saying this with your whole editorial: it's a huge problem to shower knowingly next to a gay man or a lesbian; but, if it's done in secret, it's fabulous for everyone involved.
(In terms of cost-effective, how much does it cost to constantly have courts-martial for highly trained soldiers? How is it cost-effective to dismiss soldiers who have gone to college through the military?)
Showering...Really?
Your reason for not having gays and lesbians in the military: so that gays don't shower with men and lesbians don't shower with women? This is one of my most ridiculous articles I have ever read. I understood your points with the civilian vs. officer debate, but as soon as you started discussing showering as being essentially the sole reason that gays and lesbians should not be openly allowed in the military, I lost faith in your argument. And as the previous commentator stated, all gays and lesbians SURELY must be in heat...ready to pounce on their fellow servicemen and women. It's a proven fact, apparently.
I would be interested in hearing a more educated response to Mr. Arana's article, not one confined to the walls of a shower stall.