Memo to Pentagon: Can We Talk About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or Not?
Talk about weird mixed signals. Last week, an Air Force Colonel serving in the Office of the Secretary of Defense published a study calling for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in an official military journal. Col. Om Prakash is only the second actively-serving officer to be willing to state, on record, that the gay ban should be lifted. Not only did a military journal consent to publish Col. Prakash's article, but it won a military essay contest as well. And the study only saw the light of day because an official in the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved its publication. Wow!
Then came today's news: A Lieutenant Colonel who taught at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, was punished and barred from teaching after she invited three Academy alumni to campus to discuss gays in the military. The professor, Lt. Col. Edith A. Disler, cleared the visit with her boss (known as the course director), but Academy officials pulled her from the classroom anyway, launching an investigation that ended in a formal reprimand based on the subject matter discussed.
Lt. Col. Disler's reprimand occurred late last year when she learned that a group of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) combat veterans, who were also alumni of the Academy, offered speaking engagements as part of the Blue Alliance, which promotes education for, and support of, GLBT service members. A week after a classroom visit that Disler described as very well-received by students, she learned that she was being investigated, and was told she could not return to the classroom and could not discuss the matter with students, but she was not told the reason for the investigation. She was eventually told she was being investigated to determine if she had violated any policies or procedures or any "classroom decorum."
What's particularly bizarre about Col. Disler's reprimand is that the Air Force Academy scolded her for a "lack of judgment in not recognizing that negative publicity could follow" from her decision to have members of the Blue Alliance visit campus. "Your failure caused significant consternation with USAFA's senior leadership and had the potential to create the perception that the USAF Academy does not support current Air Force and Department of Defense policy on a this [sic] sensitive matter."
But if the Pentagon is publishing studies calling for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," what's so bad about discussing the issue in a classroom, especially when the discussants are Academy graduates? Indeed, outside visitors come discuss policy issues at the Academy all the time. I have delivered lectures on "don't ask, don't tell" at the Air Force Academy every year for the past six or seven years, and this has never caused any negative publicity or a perception that the Academy does not support current policy on this sensitive matter. Isn't it the censoring itself that risked negative publicity?
Disler, who had her retirement date set, said her superiors seemed to suggest she take pains to avoid garnering attention or visibility around the incident, saying, "We just want you to make it to your retirement date." Disler said this was "about the last, worst insult I could receive after my long career, to be told, 'we just want you to leave quietly.'" She interpreted the comments as saying she should be grateful to leave without a last-minute court-martial or investigation of her sexuality under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The mixed signals coming out of the Pentagon are a picture-perfect illustration of the contradiction at the heart of "don't ask, don't tell." About half of all troops know a gay person in the military, yet the law insists that no one is allowed to acknowledge being gay. When gay troops are honest about who they are, in general they're accepted by peers. When they hide and fabricate heterosexual masks, their peers know that they are being lied to and marginalize the closeted gay service member in response.
So, are service members supposed to talk honestly about sexual orientation or not? Military policy, law and culture answer with a mixed signal: yes and no. Sometimes answering "yes" gets you in trouble, as Lt. Col. Disler discovered. Others, like Col. Prakash, win awards. The policy makes no sense. Never has, never will.
ADDENDUM October 11, 2009
In the original version of this post, I failed to present the Air Force Academy's side of the story. An Academy spokesperson has told an Associated Press reporter that policy requires professors to obtain approval from Department Heads before inviting outside speakers into the classroom. The spokesperson said that Lt. Col. Disler was disciplined for failing to follow that rule, not for addressing a controversial topic in class, saying: "She did violate policy that did exist at that time and still exists today." I apologize for the omission of the Air Force's side of the story.
That said, I continue to disagree with the Air Force Academy's interpretation of the case. The policy in question is known as "FOI 36-173 Class Visits." At the time of the incident, the policy stated that, "When in the opinion of the Department Head, the presence of a visitor could result in publicity for the Air Force Academy, the Department Head must notify the Vice Dean of the Faculty in advance."
All sides agree that before inviting guest speakers to class, Lt. Col. Disler obtained approval from one of her bosses, the Course Director. But she did not notify or get permission from another boss, the Department Head. That said, no publicity was planned or reasonably expected for this event. I am aware of literally dozens of professors at military service academies who have discussed "don't ask, don't tell" in their classes without attracting publicity. I myself have taught dozens of classes about "don't ask, don't tell" at military service academies without attracting publicity. Because there was no reasonable expectation of publicity, the requirement to seek the approval of the Department Head, who would in turn notify the Vice Dean, seems moot.
Lt. Col. Disler's reprimand, known as her Letter of Counseling, does not mention any violation of policy. Rather, it reprimands her for failing "to meet standards of professional conduct" and for a "lack of judgment." It is odd, if Lt. Col. Disler violated policy, that her reprimand letter would fail to note the violation. Lt. Col. Disler says that her letter did not mention a violation of policy because there was no violation. The Academy should explain why, given that it is now claiming that Lt. Col. Disler violated policy, she was not reprimanded for the violation. It should also produce a written copy of the policy or procedure which she violated and which was in effect at the time. Neither Lt. Col. Disler nor I have been able to obtain a copy of any such policy.
There is a surface and a subtext to any case, and caution certainly seems reasonable in the wake of the sexual assault and religious intolerance scandals of 2003. However, policy that is implemented unwisely has the potential to victimize both innocent persons and academic freedom. The surface question here is whether Lt. Col. Disler violated policy. On that count, available evidence suggests to me that she did not. The subtextual question, however, is how much latitude professors should have to address tough issues in class. So, aside from the procedural question about whether or not Lt. Col. Disler was required to get permission from her Course Director, another lens through which to understand the situation is that someone reacted negatively to a discussion of "don't ask, don't tell" and complained. Rather than acknowledging the value of addressing a wide range of topics, the Academy indulged the complaint and then framed the indulgence in terms of Lt. Col. Disler's violation of policy.
In the Barracks, Out of the Closet - Room for Debate Blog ...
Gillibrand: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Hearings Imminent »
Women more likely to be expelled under 'don't ask'
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It's always a few very religious politicians and military brass with the same pathetic homophobic conditioning that makes the society or military at large go through years of stupid nonsense like DADT. Eventually reason will prevail and this embarrassing asinine policy will be tossed into the trash heap of history where it belongs.
DADT is a very unhealthy policy created by men who fear and loath homosexuality. I've never met a heterosexual man secure in his sexuality who feared and loathed homosexuals. DADT was written by and for the unstable, insecure, self-loathing soldier with homosexual tendencies. DADT maintains the false stereotype that the more heterosexual a man is, the better a soldier he will make. DADT protects and fosters the sick homophobic behavior that exploits women and gays in some hyper-macho fantasy world totally foreign to secure heterosexuals. DADT is beneath our military and is an embarrassment to our nation.
Barred from teaching after seeking to explore the impact of policy on performance within the military community? This for the benefit of the military's future leaders in a classroom setting? And to think that the professor actually sought the opinion of those directly impacted by the policy. Had those brave gay and lesbians, who willing put their lives on the line in service for their country, known in advance how dismissive their military leaders would be of their very being, following their honorable discharge, I am sure that they would never have enlisted in the first place.
It's no wonder the AF is such a confused and convoluted service. This from airforce.c
"The First Core Value: Integrity First
"The Airman is a person of integrity, courage and conviction.
"Integrity is a character trait. It is the willingness to do what is right even when no one is looking. It is the moral compass, the inner voice, the voice of self-control and the basis for the trust imperative in today's military.
"Integrity is the ability to hold together and properly regulate all of the elements of a personality. A person of integrity, for example, is capable of acting on conviction. A person of integrity can control impulses and appetites.
"But integrity also covers several other moral traits indispensable to national service.
Courage
"A person of integrity possesses moral courage and does what is right even if the personal cost is high.
Honesty
"Honesty is the hallmark of the military professional because in the military, our word must be our bond. We don't pencil-whip training reports, we don't cover up tech data violations, we don't falsify documents and we don't write misleading operational readiness messages. The bottom line is: We don't lie, and we can't justify any deviation.
The AF twists the concept of "Integrity" into forcing a person to lie about who they are. They equate courage with integrity but when a person is courageous enough to admit who they are they are condemned.
As a mental health professional I have been trying to make this point for quite a while. You cannot have military cohesiveness when you have members of an interdependant unit that is forced to hide who they are. How can you have honor with honesty and how can we force men and women to risk their lives and deny them honor.
That is crazy! Dan Choi, a USMA graduate and very outspoken advocate on the repeal of DADT just gave a lecture at West Point.
Lt. Col. Disler should have refused to sign the reprimand and insisted on a trial by court martial. She's a teacher and I can think of no better way for a teacher to teach her students honor and dignity than to make a stand for her principles. She would have won too.
No surprise
The Air Force Academy is a Christian Academy
You got that right- pun intended. The theocratic neanderthals that run the Air Force are allowed to blatantly disregard Separation of Church and State, are allowed to force their fundamentalist version of "Christianity" on recruits, insult servicemembers of all other faiths, and disregard basic decency, but talking about Gays in the military is verging on court-mart
You have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you have gone to school there, please keep your obviously incorrect opinions to yourself.
I had LtCol Disler as an instructor a few years back. Needless to say, I am not really surprised at hearing this. She has many "interesting" ideas.
And for all of you who posted about religious intoleranc
Even the sexual assault stuff was way overplayed. In fact, the atmosphere that the MSM created led my friend to be falsely accused of rape, so that the girl could get amnesty for underage drinking (and it worked...u
I think the fear WITHIN the military, if there is a fear, is from the men in high positions whom are closeted..
I dont see any reason for anyone to gratuitously
annouce their sexual preferences-in public.
Its rude and in poor tatse.
Right up there with announcing one's religious preferences.
Where did you read that someone was announcing their sexual preference? Are you assuming that all members of the "Blue Alliance" are gay? And why would speaking to a class about the DADT policy entail personally coming out anyway?
Or, did you just post that as a point of etiquette.
In that case, I suggest you refrain from referring to the gender of your love interest (if you have one) in public. Do you know how difficult it is NOT to indicate the gender of one's significant other?
What you are actually saying is "GAY people should not announce their sexual orientation in public." Straight people generally "flaunt" their orientations without even realizing it.
Sure just as soon as straight people stop posting wedding announcements, birth announcements, wearing wedding bands, showing off "the rock," and ever mentioning the sex of their loved one. Think you can do all that? I doubt it for some reason.
Yeah, like those guys the mention their wives at work. How gross can you be? Shouldn't that be private?
Talking about women in sexual terms or making mention of sexual exploits just happens to be, let's say, not exactly uncommon among heterosexual men. They're making their orientation pretty clear. I imagine that not a few gay service men have been expelled for no other reason than that they DIDN'T do this. In other words, everyone around them with half a brain began to suspect. No "announcing" anything by the gay man required. It certainly happens in civilian life. It's happened to me.
I was speaking to a girlfrind of mine the other day about this subject. I asked her if she would be uncomfortable with men sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with her. She said yes, as I suspect most girls would. So I ask what is the difference here? if people are uncomfortable with other people looking at them in a sexual way, whether the same sex or not, should we force them to share common living quarters?
The military has lots of reasons for excluding people for service...
Funny how this juvenile "shower" fear is always brought up when discussing the military, but no one ever seems to have the same worries when they join a gym.
People - gays or straights - don't spend all their time """ looking in a sexual way""". The absurdity of your logic could be extended to the current fashion of low cut summer blouses, bikinis at the beach, skin tight jogging or biking outfits.
Given your logic then all women should be required to wear Nun's robes in the workplace. Better yet, maybe men shouldn't be allowed in the workplace (straight men, i mean).
As with gay marriage the horse is out of the barn in this matter too. No other NATO country's military takes sexual orientation into account. Neither does no less a disciplined and formidable military than Israel's. Wherever such a ban against gay service men and women existed and it was repealed it's been universally reported that it was completely unnecessary after all. As with gay marriage in the seven countries whose national governments now permit it the sky didn't fall. The hysterical anti-gay rantings of conservatives were shown to have no merit whatsoever.
Pursuant to what you say, I haven't seen the sky fall down in Massachusetts either. And I'm still waiting to hear from one person who opposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts to come forward and tell us how this has affected their life, now that they've been living with it for five years. Is there one person who has commented??? I've yet to see or hear any...
When gay troops are honest about who they are, in general they're accepted by peers. When they hide and fabricate heterosexual masks, their peers know that they are being lied to and marginalize the closeted gay service member in response.
It is under this onerous cloud that so many gay people are forced to live. Church and State do it. When the hateful homophobic world has us fighting ourself, they win without doing anything. We police ourselves into a dank, dark closet. Some even marry and have children to complete the ruse. I used to wish all gay people had blue noses. When everyone looked around and saw so many blue-nosed people, many of whom they liked or loved or at least respected, the world would finally be a better place for all of us.
We have fought and bled and died in every war of every country throughout history.
They silenced a professor? Isn't that a violation of free speech?
She is an employee, so free speech is not applicable. I wish we liberals could understand this. You cannot say anything you want at work. They can fire you. Free speech simply means the government cannot lock you up for what you say. It does not protect you against the consequences of your speech. You can be fired, ostracised and even sued for what you say.
The issue here is academic freedom. It appears that the faculty at our military academies do not have it. That should concern us, since the youth that attend our military academies are among our best, it they should hear the unvarnished truth, or at least all sides of an issue, not just the military establishment's version.
The military can silence an entire country if they want.
My best friend from college came out to me a few years after we graduated. Last Spring I accompanied him, along with some of our other friends to the Minnesota State Capitol for the Gay Rights Lobby Day, attended by over 5,000 people. There were a large number of young Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans there holding signs that said things like: I'm a STR8 Iraqi Vet & I Fought for the Rights of ALL Americans. We also saw some young couples holding signs that read: We're Straight But Not Narrow. I was so happy for my friend that he saw this support, and he was choked up at times.
Why do repubes hate America? Why are they criticizing our leaders during time of 2 wars?
I suspect it is because they hate themselves. You notice how often repube men comment on gay marriage and gays in general?
I wonder why they are thinking of other mens p*nis's so much. Probably they have a sexual ID issue. Confusion of some sort. They should just come out of the closet and be happy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
