President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Hillary Clinton have all in
recent weeks disavowed the administration's "don't ask, don't tell, don't
pursue" policy toward homosexuals in the military. The president cited the
case of Army Pfc. Barry Winchell, who was beaten to death by a fellow
soldier after months of harassment.
Winchell's murder was, first and foremost, the responsibility of the
murderer, Pvt. Calvin Glover, and his accomplice, Spec. Justin Fisher. It
was, secondarily, a failure of unit discipline. Glover's superiors should
have acted against the harassment long before it became murderous. The
exclusion of avowed homosexuals from the military, on the other hand, had
little to do with the murder. Soldiers who objected to Winchell's dating a
transvestite would not have looked more favorably on the relationship had
it been announced in public. The attempt to blame military policy both
excuses the culpable parties and cynically exploits the murder (in much
the same way that Matthew Shepard's murder was exploited to promote "hate
crimes" laws).
Mrs. Clinton, for her part, argues that the increase in the number of
people discharged for homosexuality shows that "don't ask, don't tell" is
not working. The president, making the same point, added that "the leaders
of our military" were not implementing the policy as they had "pledged" in
1993. If the commander in chief believes there is widespread
insubordination, one might expect him to do something about it besides
taking potshots at the military in CBS radio interviews. But in truth, the
military appears by and large to be implementing "don't ask"
conscientiously.
The key evidence on this point is that 80 percent of discharges are based
on statements voluntarily made by service members. The number of
discharges based on homosexual acts has actually declined since 1994. Most
of the statements, moreover, are made in the first term of enlistment.
Military sociologist Charles Moskos offers a reasonable explanation for
these numbers: "Whether you're gay or not, saying you are is now the
quickest way to leave the military with an honorable discharge."
Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military would have several
undesirable consequences. It would make it harder to enforce the
prohibition on sexual activity between service members, a prohibition
necessary to prevent sexual competition, protectiveness, and favoritism
from undermining military virtues. It would make heterosexual service
members feel their sexual privacy invaded; and that could make the
services' recruitment problems, already severe, that much worse. (Nobody
contends that legions of homosexuals are eager to sign up if only the
policy were changed.) Finally, it would almost certainly lead to
expressions of group solidarity — Gay Pride Day and the like — that,
again, would be incompatible with the military ethos.
None of this means that the current policy is ideal. The same
considerations that militate against allowing open homosexuality in the
military argue even more strongly against the expanded role for women in
the services. And the military was probably better able to have an
effective "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it was not explicit: If the
Winchell case proves anything, it is that the issue now roils the military
in disruptive and sometimes dangerous ways. Finally, there is the problem
that the current policy is illegal: The law passed by a Democratic
Congress in 1993 was not a "don't ask, don't tell" policy but a
reaffirmation of the exclusion of homosexuals. If the next president is a
better enforcer of the laws than Clinton, he will also be a better
commander in chief.
