Super, thanks for asking

[cyrano]

I'm reading a lot of articles in my news stream today about the end of the horrible, unjust, unfair, terrible, homophobic, tyrranical Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

And while I'm glad to see the end of it, I thought the policy was an improvement on the original 'we think you act kind of gay so we're tossing your gay ass out with a dishonorable discharge' policy.

History Majors? Gay Studies Majors?

Comments

[jvankirk.livejournal.com]

Improvement is an opinion. The old policy just excluded gays from the military. With the new policy, you could be gay, but you couldn't talk about or be asked about it. If you said it to a friend and were overheard, you could still be tossed out. It basically allowed deeply closeted people to serve, but forced otherwise open people to hide who they were.

[technocowboy.livejournal.com]

Doesn't make it a good policy. It was Bill Clinton's "fuck you" to the gay community after he told us he'd fight for equal rights.

[marialuminous.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say that it was an "improvement" on the old policy. Some of the people who made it might have had good intentions, but good intentions often lead to less-than-good results. It was a change from the old policy, and it changed the way that gay people were discriminated against in the military, but it did not end the discrimination.

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't understand why someone would volunteer for such a homophobic organization, (although I do understand wanting to serve one's country.)

[wildpaletz.livejournal.com]

Re: history: I worked with a professor who is an expert witness on the topic because he worked on the cohesion section of the original RAND report re: if gays were to serve openly. The report was evidently hella long, detailed, and well-researched, making analogies to other countries when they allowed gays to serve, the US when the US de-segregated, etc. Some sort of bureaucracy held their report until the release of the military's, and the military did a 10-page thing saying "we should do don't ask don't tell."

SO, on the one hand, no one can say that the Clinton administration didn't know better: They had the research THEN, they knew it could work if implemented properly. BUT, I could see that if the military does a report--albeit more of an op-ed than an actual study--where they clearly aren't in favor, that president might have felt he couldn't entirely go against the will of the military to implement any policy, even if it IS morally correct. Especially when care of implementation is key for its success.

The plus side now is that the military itself is against DADT, yay! Well, except the marines, was it? The coast guard is evidently TOTALLY against DADT, at least :)

[wildpaletz.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah and
http://conium.org/~maccoun/oped1_3_2000.html

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Reports! Documents!
I love having science friends. (:

[daniel crookston (from livejournal.com)]

(This is Dan, your friend via Rose.)

As a straight person who has served in the military, I find it kind of amusing to hear people who have never been in or around the military (of either persuasion) expressing opinions about what it's like in the military.

imho, DADT brought the military from deadset against homosexuality to being open to accepting it in their ranks. As per wildpaletz's comment, it almost certainly could have been handled better. But, the practical upshot is that we're currently looking at a military that officially allows people of all persuasions to serve openly. What with the whole "nothing is perfect, much less the military" thing, I think that looking on the bright side and trying not to judge decision makers too harshly is probably the best course of action.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

(Of course it's Dan. Your name is your LJ account and your picture is your icon. Silly.)
(Edit: Your name is your Google Plus account.)

Thank you for an inside look.