The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

"Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" won't work. The Administration is really after a policy that says, "We don't want to know," but it is inevitable that commanders will learn that some troops are gay without ever asking or being told -- and that a homosexual soldier will test the regulation in court. If the military adopts "Don't ask, don't tell" but is successful in keeping the language that states, "Homosexuality is incompatible" with service, it would be illogical to permit gays to serve even if their sexual preference were concealed. Changing the current wording to incorporate the idea that homosexual conduct rather than homosexuality is "incompatible" is a distinction without a difference, unless one assumes gays are celibate. If, on the other hand, there is no assertion that homosexuality (or its practice) is out of bounds, there is no reason to proscribe gays from openly declaring their existence. Complete consistency forces the conclusion that the game is already up: since the military concedes it should not ask about a person's sexual preference during the enlistment interview, it is in effect denying that homosexuals need to be weeded out.

"Don't ask, don't tell" shouldn't work because it is morally reprehensible, a first-ever official codification of a policy that encourages concealing a fact deemed material to an institution's smooth functioning(assuming, again, the survival of language condemning homosexuality -- or its practice). The law prohibits discrimination in part by respecting one's privacy, but in each case the rationale assumes that the "secret" (one's religion or political beliefs, for example) is immaterial to job performance.

Some argue that "Don't ask, don't tell" expands privacy rights by asserting that soldiers have no obligation to tell, but the concealment contemplated actually asks one to live a lie in order to serve. Bill Clinton understood this clearly last February, when he asked the Pentagon to study the dilemma. "I think people should not be asked to lie if they're going to be allowed to serve," the President said. "The question is not whether they should be there or not. They are there. The narrow question of this debate is . . . Should you be able to say that you're a homosexual if you do nothing wrong? I say yes." (From there, by the way, Clinton articulated the only morally supportable reason for discharge, "sexual harassment, whether homosexual or heterosexual.")

"Don't ask, don't tell" is corrosive at several levels. "By engaging in this hypocrisy," says the philosopher Sissela Bok, "by saying something matters and then ignoring it, by mandating duplicity, the government will further reduce the public's trust in the honesty of its officials." (According to a TIME/CNN poll conducted last fall, 63% of Americans already have little or no confidence that government leaders talk straight.) "It is ironic that the military should participate in sanctioning a category of falsehood by silence," says New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "More than any institution in society, probably including the family, the military insists that its effectiveness demands loyalty to the organization above loyalty to self. If there's something amiss, you're supposed to speak up. If homosexuality or its practice is considered wrong, you're supposed to acknowledge it and others are supposed to expose you. This so-called compromise is dishonorable on its face."

Where to from here? A court challenge should be welcomed. Someone needs to recertify that the truth matters, no matter the consequences.