ROTC needs university support to achieve change
Dumping program won’t fix problems
By Allen Stout
The Daily Bruin published an editorial ("Campus relationship
with ROTC should end," Feb. 1) calling for the end of UCLA’s
relationship with the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps because of
the probable discharge action pending against Cadet Huong Nguyen
following her open admission of bisexual orientation.
The Bruin editors, along with the Academic Senate, believe the
"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy of the Department of Defense is
contrary to the university’s nondiscrimination policy, thus
justifying the end of the relationship.
As a retired naval officer and a UCLA graduate student, this is
a subject in which I am very interested. I spent almost 18 years of
my adult life in active-duty military service, and am familiar with
the attitude of many service members regarding nonheterosexual
military personnel.
On the whole, it has been negative, but in cases where service
members "confessed" their orientations, the degree of hostility was
less than expected, indicating that a little socialization might go
a long way in the service.
I always wanted the best person standing by me, regardless of
his or her sexual orientation, in case of incoming enemy missiles
or a raging shipboard fire.
To the degree that some service members feel "uncomfortable"
with the prospect of sharing sleep or shower facilities with
persons of a different orientation, I have little sympathy, because
the verbiage so mirrors that of the 1950s, when the service was
being racially integrated.
Also, while it is true that the military is not a place for
social engineering, it is at our peril when the armed forces of a
democratic nation do not reasonably match the identity pattern of
the society they purport to defend.
My primary concern, however, is the inappropriateness of ending
the university’s relationship with ROTC over this issue. The real
question is whether we want to take a "feel good" action that makes
us think we’re addressing the issue, or whether we really want to
do something positive about it.
The result of ending the relationship over this question would
have two primary effects. First, it would alienate many of our
classmates who are emotionally linked with ROTC or the military, in
general. These people would see this as another example of
knee-jerk political correctness and would likely harden their
negative perceptions of the gay and lesbian "community." (I use the
quotation marks to indicate that I’m not convinced that the
differences between community members don’t outweigh their shared
identity; but I digress.)
Second, the fewer the number of ROTC units in the country, the
more the military will depend on the service academies for its
future top leadership. Officer Candidate and Officer Training
School graduates are generally underrepresented in the highest
ranks of the services.
This means that closing ROTC units will lead to fewer of these
top leaders with any experience on a campus as diverse as UCLA.
Instead, they will increasingly be characterized by the narrow,
bunker attitude that the present leadership is accused of today
(sometimes fairly, sometimes not). In order to scratch our itch and
feel we’re doing something today, we’ll actually hurt any chance we
have of achieving the overall goal.
Instead, what is called for is the day in and day out dirty work
in the trenches of overcoming prejudice. It isn’t as glamorous as a
defiant stand, but in the long run, it will be more effective.
While this is debatable, I would argue that civil rights for racial
minorities were advanced far more by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
than by campus demonstrations or the Black Panther Party (though
each of those played an important role).
In this regard, I would also argue that the battleground is the
perception of "mainstream" American society. The more extreme
examples of protest and gay pride, which usually end up replayed
over and over by Rush Limbaugh, are counterproductive. On the other
hand, persuasive words from gay and lesbian Americans from all
walks of life and religious persuasions will have the most positive
long-term effect.
It should be stressed, though, that the action being
contemplated by the Department of the Army against Cadet Nguyen is
based on Department of Defense policy mandated by presidential
executive order, and not necessarily of the local ROTC unit.
Therefore, while I personally believe that it is long past time
to put one of our last great taboos aside and get on with the job
of building a better society for ourselves and our children, it
won’t happen overnight. We should be rational in our search for
effective approaches to social change.
Stout is a graduate student in political science. Check the
Daily Bruin website for continuing ROTC coverage.Comments to
webmaster@db.asucla.ucla.edu