Sara Isaacson: ROTC Student May Be Forced To Repay Army Scholarship After Coming Out

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student Sara Isaacson said coming out as a lesbian was a matter of integrity.

But because Isaacson is an ROTC member, her choice to publicly declare her sexuality might cost her $80,000 -- the cost of her tuition so far at UNC, which has been paid for thus far by an ROTC scholarship.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has more:

Isaacson, 21, said she thought the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was unfair years before she realized she was a lesbian and realized she had the option of hiding her sexual orientation. But she said misleading others would go against the Army's values.

Lt. Col. Monte Yoder, the head of North Carolina's ROTC program, said the Army is losing a "great young American" because of Isaacson's decision to hand him a letter formally declaring her sexuality. He said he gave Isaacson a chance to withdraw her letter - a step he could take because Isaacson isn't technically in the military, Yoder said.

Isaacson gave Campus Progress an update on her situation earlier this month:

My paperwork is still in the process of being completely finalized, however the recommendation from my battalion is that I repay the Army the $79, 265.14 that I received in scholarship money over my seven semesters as an out-of-state student at UNC. I don't know yet what the terms of that repayment will be.

I really don't know how I'm going to make it happen. I don't have $80,000 in my back pocket to just give to the Army. I had initially received financial aid from UNC when I came here but when the Army ROTC was able to go through because I did finally get medically qualified, I lost all of that financial aid that I'd had originally.

For now, Isaacson is not sure what lies ahead. A chemistry major, she says she is considering med school. Her original ambition was to be an army doctor like her grandfather.

What do you think? Should Isaacson be forced to repay her scholarship?

Comments

[Braves71]

03:17 PM on 05/28/2010

NO.
Still as of today, it's the only way gay citizens can serve. It's the law that's wrong, not the soldiers. Hey, we need people this patriotic.
Get the money from GOLDMAN!

[HippieDippieWeatherman]

10:32 AM on 05/20/2010

Yet another example of the asinine outcomes of DADT. Why should this young woman—who, unlike many of the hetero spawn of chicknhawk congresscritters and pundits who won't even deign to serve—lose a scholarship over her sexual orientation?

America needs to grow up and throw off the "priest-ridden," so-called morality that Thomas Jefferson spoke of in his "Letter to Alexander von Humboldt," (6 December 1813):

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

[PitBull6]

03:44 AM on 05/21/2010

Don't blame this on DA/DT. For whatever you may think of the law (and policy), it is the law. The cadet knew it and violated the rules of her contract. If someone violates an agreement and then is surprised at the repercussions, that is far more asinine.

[HippieDippieWeatherman]

10:21 AM on 05/21/2010

You're right: I don't just blame the asinine DADT, I blame asinine supporters of this enshrined bigotry like YOU, with your asinine "Law and Order" approach.

Ever been pulled over for speeding, only to get a warning? You should pay the fine: IT'S THE LAW! Better, if you've ever sped anywhere, any time, even without being caught, you need to pay the fines NOW: IT'S THE LAW!

In fact, have you ever broken any law, anywhere, at any time? You need to turn your asinine self in, NOW, and pay your fines/move into a cell, because you've violated the "contract" we all have as 'murcan citizens to obey the laws, and your smugness entitles you to live with the "repercussions."

Or, you can get your head out of your juvenile, asinine "black & white, law and order, derp, derp, derp" colon, realize this is the outcome of an unjust and discriminatory law, and urge it's repeal like the rest of sentient Americans.

Lt. Col. Monte Yoder,was right :the Army is losing a "great young American" because of Isaacson's decision to hand him a letter formally declaring her sexuality. She's actually acting with something the Army trains her to uphold: honesty, integrity, and honor.

The LEAST her sorry ass country could do is return the favor by repealing this asinine monstrosity, retroactively, NOW.

[jordan76]

12:40 AM on 05/26/2010

You know what's more asinine? It is when the organization itself violates the law. For example, my career, I was a Naval Officer. For personal reasons, I was asked by my boss if my problem was emotional. He asked me is it a relationship issue, I told him yes, he continued prodding, is it with your girlfriend and I said no, he should have stopped there, but no, he had to ask, is it with a male person. Which I was placed in a dilemma, should I say no and lie or should I say yes because that's what I was taught to always tell the truth. Especially being in the nuclear power program, integrity is a big deal. It's such a waste, granted I'm benefiting from all the training I've received to work in the civilian sector. I would have rather served in the military than in the civilian sector because I love this country so much. It's just sad that the very document "The Constitution" which I promised to protect failed to include me in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. A lot of money and talent is wasted. I'm pretty sure with all my bonuses, training, college and pay, the military has spent more than 200k on me. Falling in love and loving someone that is of the same sex does not make me less of a man. I can do the job just as good or at times even better than some other guy out there.

[MCWAY]

01:41 PM on 05/21/2010

Why should she lose a scholarship?

BECAUSE SHE AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE POLICIES of the entity that gave her that scholarship. Among those rules...."Don't Ask; Don't Tell", a rule she flagrantly broke...TWICE!!!

You don't get to break your employer's rules; then cry and whine when you get fired.

You need to grow up and understand that a deal is a deal. Nobody forced Sara Isaacson to join the Armed Forces. She VOLUNTEERED to do so. When you do that, you play by THEIR RULES, NOT YOURS!!

Liberals have a nasty habit of wanting to change the rules of the game, when they end up on the losing end. We saw that nearly a decade ago, when Bush beat Gore to become president. All of a sudden, they didn't like the rules of what constitutes a valid ballot. All of a sudden, they don't like the "winner-take-all" format of the electoral college.

This is a simple breach of contract; she owes the Army 80 grand, period!!

[vancedecker]

10:23 PM on 05/19/2010

Two Things

1. Get some perspective:

Cheney legally stole millions for Halliburton through no bid contracts. Bush & Obama authorized bankster bailouts to the tune of Trillions. Yet you are sitting here outraged over some girl taking money for college? Furthermore she is offering to fulfill her contractual obligations, it's the military that is not allowing her to do so, because of fundamentalist religious hatred in this country. And, if this was intentional, good for her for finding a loophole and exploiting it to her advantage. Religious fundamentalists are experts in this type of behavior.

2. You Rush Limbaugh Borg Cube Drones & assorted contrarian self-hating apologists: Nobody is fooled.

Of course, you say you aren't against abortion, you are just 'worried' about the health of women!

You aren't against science, you just want it to be ''balanced' with unsubstantiated mythical stories!

And of course, you aren't a bigot who hates gay people. You're just a legal scholar, concerned about contractual obligations.

You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. The issue here is not contractual obligations, it's the venomous, fundamentalist, foaming-at-mouth HATRED of anyone who is gay. Plain and simple.

And no amount of intellectually dishonest euphemism and rationalization is going to mask that.

[MCWAY]

11:57 AM on 05/21/2010

And you Rachel Maddow drones and Jeanine Garfalo goofs: Nobody is fooled.

Abortion: Gee!! It hadn't dawned on you folks yet that, if you aren't in a position to care for a baby, it would behoove you NOT TO ENGAGE in activities that produce babies, namely SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Science: That's funny! Science shows that babies have fingers, toes, hearts, brainwaves, etc., as early as six weeks (before most women even know they're pregnant). But, I don't see you referring to science, when it comes to your squealing for the ability to kill unborn children, at will.

As for gays and contractual obligations, if the rules say "No gay stuff", it means "No gay stuff". If you sign the dotted line, agreeing to abide by that rule (and others) in order to get Uncle Sam's money, it means YOU PLAY BY THOSE RULES, or you cough up the cash that DoD invested in you.

DADT is legal and binding (made law, ironically enough BY THE LEFT, 17 years ago: Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President) until deemed otherwise. If you don't like DoD's rules, DON'T TAKE DoD's dollars to pay for your college education. It's that simple.

[MCWAY]

02:43 PM on 05/21/2010

Your perspective is ridiculous. Just because someone robbed Fort Knox doesn't mean you get the right to hold up an 7-Eleven convenience store. Both are case of STEALING!!! And, both are wrong.

Plus, contrary to your wild claim, Isaacson isn't offering to fulfill her contractual obligation, because part of that obligation is ADHEREING TO "DON'T ASK; DON'T TELL", obeying the DoD Policy on Homosexual Conduct.

And, now you're saying "good for her", for breaking her word, violating policy and (if intentional) DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT to get an education.

Yet, you have the gall to yak about intellectual dishonety? PLEASE!!!

[SuperRyan]

01:00 AM on 05/18/2010

Is she refusing to serve? Has she lied about anything?
It seems like it is the Army refusing to let her serve. Why should she have to pay back the scholarship? She can't change who she is. If it were an accident causing her to not be soldier material, nobody would be asking for the money back.
Canada has allowed gays in the military for a long time, and all of the soldiers I have spoken to don't care. They are much more concerned with how they act as a soldier.

Change the policy and make her serve her commitment, or shut up about the money.

[vancedecker]

10:44 PM on 05/19/2010

Precisely, it's that simple, she is offering to serve, and they are not allowing it. Case Closed. She owes nothing.

These are just drones from the Rush Limbaugh Borg Cube. They always are concerned about chump change so that they don't have to face the millions stolen legally by corporations. (Trillions if you count the banksters)

[MCWAY]

11:32 AM on 05/21/2010

That's a bunch of bull. Isaacson wasn't merely offering to serve. It's a CONTRACT, a mutual agreement. She got the money, because she agreed to play by DoD's rules, WHICH INCLUDES the DoD's Policy on Homosexual Conduct.

You are briefed on this and must sign that you've seen it and agree to abide by it, before you get sworn into service or get one red cent of the military's money (I know that firsthand) Now, on the eve of her graduation with her degree, commission, and orders around the corner (likely orders to where the bullets are flying), she conveniently discovers she's gay AND GIVES A FORMAL LETTER, DECLARING SUCH? PLEASE!!

Plus, in case you missed it, Colonel Yoder gave Isaacson A SECOND CHANCE, allowing her to shred that letter and REMAIN in ROTC.

I say make her serve; then kick her out. The Army's already invested the money in her; it's time it got that investment back. Besides, if she’s a typical college grad, it’s going to take WAAAAAAY longer than 4 years to pay back that 80 grand.

[Trapster]

10:41 PM on 05/17/2010

Preach honor and integrity; then when you get it---- kick-em! Makes you understand why the military often has a real problem with truth in a lot of areas. The fear is real.
Man we lose a lot of good and willing recruits to this silliness.

[MCWAY]

11:40 AM on 05/21/2010

Honor and integrity mean you KEEP YOUR WORD. Liberal gay sympathizers can bleat all they want. But, the bottom line is that Sara Isaacson AGREED to follow DoD policy, WHICH INCLUDES "DON'T ASK; DON'T TELL" (aka the DoD's Policy on Homosexual Conduct) She knews the rules and agreed to play by them, in order to get Uncle Sam's moolah for her schooling.

She got briefed on the policy; she signed the dotted line; she agreed to follow that rule.

She even got a second chance and violated the policy, AGAIN. She owes 80 grand....end of story!!!

It doesn't matter how "absurd" some of you liberals think DADT is. If you agree to abide by it, to get Uncle Sam to pay your way through school but you violate it, you're gone and you owe the government some bread!!!

DoD invested in Sara Isaacson. Now, it wants that investment back. Isaacson is looking for some way to renege on her end of the deal. So, please don't cry about the military's lack of honor and integrity.

[75thRanger]

07:05 PM on 05/17/2010

Good that's what she gets......she knew the rules.

[mollusc]

04:11 PM on 05/17/2010

To be such a "progressive" thinking country... we are quite antiquated to say the least.

"The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding sexual minority members; of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (United Kingdom, France, and Russia) do so. "

[Json]

04:09 PM on 05/17/2010

This is a great case to highlight the absurdity of DADT.
What if this girl says that she realized she was a lesbian 2 years into the program? Should she only have to pay back half the money?
I guess the only fair thing is to determine when exactly she realized she was gay, then she should pay back the money from that point on, unless she wasn't 100% gay at that point. In that case, we need to quantify her relative attraction to men and women and compare to her dating record at the time and let her keep a percentage of the money...

Or we could end DADT and act light an enlightened country.

[PitBull6]

03:48 AM on 05/21/2010

Not at all.

To answer your first question, yes, if she still took the actions she did. If you knowingly violate a rule (i.e. "telling") you should be held accountable. When she realized she was a lesbian is immaterial, the policy says you can be homosexual but not act it out, therefore she is only in violation of her contract when she decides to tell (which she did)

[awa611]

12:19 PM on 05/17/2010

As much as I sympathize with her and think the DADT policy is plain wrong, she should have just kept it in a little while longer. Don't see how she should be required to pay for any money already spent if she's just realized she's gay. Unless the DOD wants to admit that homosexuality is something your born with and not a choice.

[Miss Ann Thrope]

09:00 PM on 05/17/2010

Good point. A catch 22.

[middleoftheroad]

11:37 AM on 05/17/2010

This is a contract. She knew what the policy was.

[Euterpe360]

10:13 AM on 05/17/2010

As much as I'd like to sympathize with her she knew what the policy was. It sucks, but that's just too bad at this point.

[vancedecker]

12:39 PM on 05/19/2010

Sorry, but no... if this was about a black person, and the army not allowing black people to serve, then you might have a different attitude about the matter.

[PitBull6]

03:50 AM on 05/21/2010

Bad analogy. Before full integration, blacks could not serve with whites if they just agreed to hide their "blackness", therefore none could violate the terms of agreement. In this case, she did just that.

[randyjet]

09:44 AM on 05/17/2010

She could have done as thousands of other gays have done over the centuries and kept her preferences to herself. This is simply a means to get a free education and a scam. I would be more impressed if she decided to come up with the money, and make a REAL sacrifice. She was willing to possibly give her life, but NOT her money. Right?

It is a GOOD THING she let the Army know now rather than letting them spend more money on her. I hope she does become a doctor, then she will be able to pay the bill.

[DevonTexas]

09:18 AM on 05/17/2010

Now we know how much it costs to discriminate against gay ROTC students! Why is it, the DOD can instantly calculate this cost but can't seem to figure out how much Haliburton and KBR are overcharging it to install electrocution showers?

[PitBull6]

03:52 AM on 05/21/2010

Because scholarships are known totals. Instead of sympathizing with her, think of the student who was just as qualified (if not more so) who missed out on the scholarship she tried to take advantage of.

[NickCatal]

07:41 AM on 05/17/2010

Step 1- Take government cash for school

Step 2- Violate existing military rules

Step 3- Complain when military follows existing (pointless/stupid) law you knew about before you took $80k

Genius!

[mollusc]

04:01 PM on 05/17/2010

No Genius! She didn't violate existing military rules. The rules were "don't ask don't tell". She didn't tell. She is not complaining about repaying the money. She is just stating the facts. The writer of the article is making the repayment an issue. It draws attention to the problem of the DADT policy. She was good enough to be in the ROTC, good enough to be $80K in scholarship monies, and good enough for her Lt to offer to withdraw the letter but not good enough for the Army to be who she is.

"however the recommendation from my battalion is that I repay the Army the $79, 265.14 that I received in scholarship money over my seven semesters as an out-of-state student at UNC. I don't know yet what the terms of that repayment will be. "

Bottom line is this young woman knew the consequences of coming out and is being true to herself. Unfortunately, the Army is losing someone who sounds like a very honorable person.

[Sue Bee]

04:00 PM on 05/19/2010

Actually, she did "tell". She gave her CO a letter she'd written stating her lesbianism. She didn't want to hide who she was, and it's quite admirable considering the consequences. I'd rather serve with the Saras of the world than with the kind of people who openly engage in deception, including the people here who seem to think it's better to deceive than to offer full disclosure.

[PitBull6]

03:54 AM on 05/21/2010

As Sue pointed out, she most certainly did tell. May we apply the sarcastic term genius now? Simple breach of contract, nothing more, nothing less.

[GerryS]

07:54 PM on 05/16/2010

a sad comment on affairs,,,,,,,,,,

but if Sara keeps a positive attitude, she will pass this small bump, in the journey of life, and prosper in many,many way---------