Posts Tagged ‘DADT’

The New Model Army

DADT will become law soon, passed this week by the lame duck Democratic Senate after earlier passage by the House.  I oppose this law for all the usual reasons.

Like the gay rights movement as a whole, this is part of a broader cultural movement:  destruction of the military and other traditional institutions in the name of equality.  Their prerogatives, culture, ethos, and the human type the military allowed to flourish have become intolerable  in a society dedicated to an “equality” that allows no distinctions of right and wrong, man and women, or anything else.  The post-Vietnam denegration of the military began the process, which was accelerated by the Tailhook Scandal.  In an hysterical overreaction, women were forcibly integrated into units in which few had any interest and in which the units had hitherto flourished as all male domains.  Standards were lowered.  Less time was spent at the rifle range and more and more on endless lectures on diversity and sexual harassment.

The worst fruit of this process has been habitual dishonesty at every level of command.  Ignoring the facts and speaking the party line is now so ingrained, that no one with an interest in a military career dares note the farcical lack of physical ability among many women “warriors,” nor the lack of patriotism by certain diversity candidates, some of whom have a bad habit of shooting up their peers in the name of Allah.

As in the integration of women into combat units, the end of DADT will change the military more than it will demand any changes of the gays who now have the right to serve “openly.”  On what basis will a lack of hand-holding, male-male kissing, domestic partner benefits, a lisp, sex change operations, and God knows what else be justified?   Gays are allowed to serve now–let us not forget–they simply must keep that controversial part of their lives to themselves.  In other words, discretion and respect for public standards is required.  No more.  And there is no basis now to recognize that the secondary and tertiary behaviors described above are disruptive of military order.  Nor does anyone seem to care that this behavior is offensive to a great many of the people who actually want to serve in the military, conservative and religious people from the Red States, people completely unknown to the Pelosis and Obamas of the world, and people who will quietly resign and leave the military, just as many quality men have defected from certain combat support units because of the disruptive presence and double standards required to have women integrated in the ranks.  Oh well, no price too high for diversity, not even lost wars and homicidal Army majors apparently!

The DADT repeal has nothing to do with the good of the military, winning wars, or genuine concern for justice.  It is a big fat middle finger to an institution the left habitually despises and has since the Vietnam War.

Read Full Post »

The University of Chicago Law School’s Geoff Stone says that Columbia was within its rights and fulfilling its core values in allowing Iran’s President to speak. I don’t necessarily disagree, nor do I completely disagree with his statement that “[b]ecause a university must remain neutral on all matters of public policy that do not directly affect the university itself, it should not have a faculty vote, for example, on whether to condemn the war in Iraq, on whether Mr. Bush is a good President, or on whether Mr. Ahmadinejad violates human rights.” In other words, universities should be a forum for debate, discussion, challenging conventional wisdom, and the like. They are not mere instruments of propaganda, whether for the Church, the government, or anyone else.

But what’s missing from Stone and Bollinger’s defense of free speech and “diversity” of ideas and lifestyles is some apology for the reflexive hostility of Columbia University and most other Ivy League schools to all things military, going back to the student riots of ’68 and the expulsion of ROTC units from campus. That expulsion implicitly said: we do draw the line and make an expressive stand here; the military is too corrosive to the campus’s mission and we will not support honorable service within the same, nor will we allow our campus to be sullied with their presence and blandishments. Of course, nothing required anyone even then (during the draft) to participate in ROTC, accept the justice and prudence of the Vietnam War, or otherwise fail to adopt an independent point of view. It was just one option among many on campus, and the SDS radicals and the weak-kneed trustees simply kicked them off. Blackfive has the scoop on Columbia’s expulsion of ROTC here, and the Wall Street Journal provides some background here (registration required) as well.

Now the anti-military bias has been dressed up by the now-tenured radicals as opposition to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But we know this is just a pretext; after all, the rest of the federal government can still recruit on campus, not least for things like judicial clerkships and cushy positions with Senators and Congressmen. But the military alone, one of its departments, is excluded. It’s unthinkable this pick-and-choose approach would be applied to any other discriminatory employer, such as a law firm that discriminated in only one of its offices. No, the motive is the same now as then: hostility to mainstream America and its military and a failure of universities to recognize that, while they are places of debate and inquiry, they are also in some sense part of a society and owe its core institutions something in terms of respect, support, and fair treatment. I discussed the essential hypocricy of elite schools’ approach to the military in this discussion of the Solomon Amendment.

Anti-American despots are allowed on campus in the name of free speech and diversity, but the university’s own admitted students, some of whom carry with them valuable ROTC scholarships, are basically told they’re going to have to pursue their careers and their studies across town, with all the inconvenience and disrespect that implies. The hippies no longer need to spit in the face of our soldiers; instead, they can now spit in their faces figuratively and officially through discrimination, ostracism, and harassment.

Read Full Post »