Don\'t Ask Don\'t Tell Issues

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL ISSUES

The successful recent repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) during the lame-duck session of the 111th U.S. Congress was long overdue. Originally, the policy was implemented by the Clinton administration as a way of allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military (Military.com, 2009). At the time, it was an improvement over long-standing previous policy that specifically precluded homosexuals from military service and that had allowed military recruiters and in-service investigators to actively investigate suspicions about homosexual inclinations. Under DADT, military authorities were strictly prohibited from asking recruits and enlisted personnel about their sexual orientation. However, the policy never addressed the underlying prejudice against homosexuals because it still authorized expulsion from the military in the event that alternate sexual preference ever became known (Dershowitz, 2002; Military.com, 2009).

Civil Rights Issues and Military Values

In principle, DADT violates the spirit of equal protection embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Dershowitz, 2002). Technically, the U.S. Supreme Court has not added homosexuality to the classes of persons entitled to protection from most forms of discrimination, but many individual states have already recognized the need to do so. Aside from the more basic issues of civil rights and social equality, the DADT policy represented a fundamental contradiction of stated U.S. armed forces values and the personal integrity expected of all military personnel because it required them to lie and to conceal the truth about their sexual orientation. Meanwhile, honesty and integrity are two of the most important values emphasized throughout military academies and candidate training and they are central components of the service oaths sworn upon their appointment (Dershowitz, 2002; Milazo, 2009).

Practical Implications of DADT Policy

On a more practical level, DADT policy has resulted in the dismissal of thousands of qualified and dedicated military personnel, including decorated veteran Air Force fighter pilot Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenback and Lieutenant Dan Choi, an Arabic Language specialist (Milazo, 2009). The former represents the loss of a highly skilled combat veteran whose military training cost the Air Force more than one million dollars; the latter represents the loss of a scarce commodity at a time when Arabic Language specialists are extremely important in connection with the contemporary threat to the nation from Islamic radicals. One of the most serious implications of DADT has always been that it also exposes military personnel to potential blackmail and could conceivably compromise classified information under threat of exposure (Dershowitz, 2002).

Conclusion