When Discrimination Kills

Public Law 103-160 sounds innocuous enough until one recognizes it as the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. military. Although Bill Clinton campaigned for president in 1993 with the laudable goal of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, he quickly backtracked on his promise for the sake of appeasing Congressional Republicans. This homophobic policy is not only ignorant and offensive but takes a heavy toll on this country's ability to wage war.

One statistic released by the Government Accountability Office, an investigatory branch of Congress, suggests that enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has cost the government more than $200 million already, and thousands of capable soldiers have been discharged from operational units. In fact, from 1993 to 2006, more than 10,000 service personnel were discharged for being gay, and such incidents are on the rise.

It makes no sense why any willing, capable soldier would be discharged from the army at the same time National Guard units are being pressed into service, and so many members of Congress and the armed forces have called for more troops in Iraq.

Thousands of homosexuals never join the army because they know they would have to live in secrecy and fear of just being themselves. At a gay rights conference last semester, a friend of mine in the Navy literally had to run from local reporters for fear that her commander would see her on the news. A policy that engenders such conditions seems inappropriate for the Americans who risk their lives defending this country.

It is ridiculous that brave citizens who are willing to give up some of the best years of their lives and risk everything are treated so shamefully by the government. They should not have to hide their true identities, forgo love and work in an environment that places shame on their state of being.

The consistently promulgated rationale for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that it would undermine the cohesion and effectiveness of our military. This reasoning suggests that the heterosexual members of the military are bigoted and intolerant, another grossly unfair presumption. The reality is that sexual identity has very little correlation with one's ability to do his or her job, especially in today's high-tech military. In fact, if a soldier were to choose between having backup or going into combat alone, I would imagine sexual orientation is of very little importance indeed.

One sergeant stationed in Afghanistan, Brent Geers, feels the choice to allow gay personnel to serve should be clear. Writing in Stars and Stripes magazine, he notes that money spent firing "patriotic Americans" could be used for "enough body armor vests to outfit the entire American fighting force in Iraq."

Personal feelings aside, it seems like all members of the armed services would benefit from having homosexuals serve with them. The money our government spends on training homosexuals, discharging them and recruiting replacements is an unforgivable waste given the strain the War on Terror has created. Beth Schissel, discharged from the service for being gay, said, "You don't just go out on the street tomorrow and pluck someone from the general population who has an Air Force education, someone trained as a physician, someone who bleeds Air Force blue, who is willing to serve, and that you can put in Iraq tomorrow."