We cannot compromise upholding of civil rights
By Ali Beck and Jùlio C. Rosa
In "Gay activists must seek ROTC compromise" (Oct. 12), J.D.
Whitlock appeals to the fears and prejudices of people who are
misinformed about the issues surrounding gays in ROTC. He paints a
picture of gay military personnel as being unfit to live with
straight service members for fear that they will be unable to
control their actions. At first glance, his points may appear
logical, but a closer look reveals the flaws and lack of knowledge
at the base of his argument.
He suggests we begin by integrating gays in the military in the
same way gays are integrated in society. As was proven by the Out
List that ran in the Daily Bruin on Tuesday, gays are everywhere.
We are staff, students, faculty and alumni and we are all protected
under Title IX, the university’s nondiscrimination clause. Indeed,
gays should be integrated as they are in the "UCLA society." Gays
in ROTC should have the same civil rights as gays in all other
segments of UCLA.
J.D. (who should come out with his name) also suggests that we
should integrate gays in ROTC as men and women are integrated. The
reason men and women are separated does not derive from their
presumed inability to control themselves sexually, but rather from
our societal structure which separates people by sex from a very
young age.
In using this argument, Whitlock ignores the fact that gay men,
lesbians and bisexuals were brought up in the same way as
heterosexuals, using facilities designed for people of their
gender. He implies that living in close quarters with gays would
lead to sexual harassment, again buying into the myth that gay
people are unable to control themselves sexually and will
essentially make advances toward anyone of the same gender.
Indeed, sexual harassment is a problem in the military, but the
vast majority of it comes from the heterosexual male population,
not the gay population. Should we therefore ban straight men from
ROTC? The answer is clearly no. We each have the right to be judged
on the basis of our actions, not by factors such as our gender and
sexual orientation. The UCLA nondiscrimination policy guarantees us
this right, yet the ROTC program continues to bar gay, lesbian and
bisexual students from participating.
Whitlock brings up a concern voiced by many who have not fully
informed themselves of the issues surrounding ROTC on campus,
namely, that students’ scholarships will be taken away from them if
the program is dismantled. First, we would like to point out that
the proposed phasing out would allow students currently in ROTC to
finish, and would simply cut off new admissions to the program.
Second, Whitlock seems to conveniently forget that under current
ROTC policy, any student found to be gay will have his or her
scholarship taken away automatically and can be forced to repay any
money received.
Since when do we allow this sort of blatant discrimination to
exist? If a program on campus did not allow Latina/o students to
participate, for example, would we say that it should be allowed to
continue this policy because it benefitted students of other,
non-Latina/o races? We doubt it. In addition, the annual $100,000 –
$150,000 that pays for ROTC operations on campus could be used to
set up scholarships open to students of all sexual orientations,
targeting groups currently served by the ROTC program.
Whitlock suggests that because ROTC follows the policy of a
national institution, it is therefore a national issue, not a
campus issue. Yes, discrimination in the military occurs
nationwide, and had Whitlock done his homework, he might know that
there have been several campaigns in recent years to change the
Department of Defense policy regarding gays, lesbians and
bisexuals. Though these movements have been worthwhile, they have
been unsuccessful and the new "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy allows
the "witch hunts" and purges of gays to continue as usual.
Faced with this fact, it is time for us to look at the
discrimination occurring in our own neighborhood. The truth is, we
have the power and the obligation to protect the rights of UCLA
students, regardless of whether it affects national policy. David
Mixner, by founding the Freedom Project, has demonstrated his
commitment to assuring that UCLA upholds its non-discrimination
policy for all students at all times, not when and where it is
convenient.
Whitlock commends Leland Kim, the UCLA junior and Army Reserves
sergeant as a "top-notch" officer. We could not agree more, and the
courage Kim displayed in coming out should serve as an example to
those around him. If you truly believe that Kim is an outstanding
service member, stop restricting him in order to appease the fears
and prejudices of others. Judge him based on his actions. Let him
serve.
An institution which would deny him this right because of his
sexual orientation has no place on a campus committed to upholding
the civil rights of its students.
Beck, a second-year film, theater and television student, and
Rosa, a fifth- year sociology student specializing in women’s
studies, are the co-chairs of GALA.