DADT Repeal: Honesty IS the Best Policy

I’ve written in the past, that having covered the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” debate since its beginnings in 1993, I concluded years ago it was high time to end the institutionalized discrimination against gays in the U.S. military.   So I applaud the action by the Senate in its historic vote yesterday, which will end 17 years of a “compromise” plan that was supposed to allow for gays and lesbians to serve honorably, but in reality did little to make their lives easier.

But allow me to make a minor critique of some of the media coverage I saw.  In journalism it’s important to be precise and accurate when describing public policy, so I have to say I was disappointed to hear so many careless characterizations of the current state of affairs, because they reinforce misperceptions, and reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of the 1993 law.

First off, I was dismayed to hear constant references (in particular on the CBS radio network) to the military’s POLICY of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  It is NOT a “military policy” or even a Pentagon POLICY.  It’s a congressional mandate, a LAW, passed by Congress — which effectively took the decision out of the hands of the Pentagon, and more precisely the executive branch and the last man who first pledged to lift the ban, President Bill Clinton.    Members of Congress back then were influenced by military leaders of the day, such as Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but the “policy” became a federal law in 1993, and after that the Pentagon had no choice but to implement it.  So, to describe DADT as a Pentagon “policy” is not just imprecise, it’s misleading.

There were also many references in the coverage yesterday to the military having the final say on how and when the lifting of the ban would be implemented.   Again it’s not the military brass who will make that decision, it’s the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, beginning with Defense Secretary Bob Gates.   Too often news reports gloss over the bedrock principle that makes the U.S. military a tool of democracy, not a threat to democracy: and that is civilian control of the military.  Of course the civilian leaders will be consulting with the brass to figure out the least disruptive way to make this change.  That’s why Gates wanted a legislative answer, not a legal ruling, to be the driving force.  And the military will have a say.  But in the end the admirals and generals will get their orders and they will salute smartly and carry them out.  Even the Marine Corps Commandant James Amos, who voiced the deepest reservations.

Back when President Clinton decided to allow women to fly fighter aircraft in combat, there were also deep reservations among the chiefs, notably Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill “Tony” McPeak.  But McPeak was front and center at the Pentagon news conference when the Air Force announced who would be its first female fighter pilot.  That’s how it works. To imply today’s military leaders won’t get behind this change is to impugn the integrity of our officer corps.

There were also many careless references that implied gays were barred from serving openly for the past 17 years by the DADT law.  Of course gays were barred for decades prior to the law’s passage, by a single provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which said “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell removed the question on the enlistment form about homosexuality, and was aimed, not so much at allowing gays to serve secretly (which they had been doing for decades), but at ending so-called “witch hunts” in which gays who were trying to keep their sexuality private were ferreted out and exposed against their will.  It didn’t work very well.  More gays were kicked out of the services after DADT than before, perhaps because more gays expected to be able to serve quietly.

And one last observation, a grammatical note.  The vote yesterday was without question a historic one.  A historic vote.  Not  AN historic vote.  In English we use “a” before a consonant, and “an” before a vowel or vowel sound.   Hence we get a history lesson, not an history lesson.   But we use “an” before words like “hour” in which the “h” is silent.   An hour, a historic event.   Over and over again I heard radio newscasters refer to an historic event.   One problem/virtue with English is that it’s an evolving language.  So, if enough people break the rules long enough, then the rules change.  And maybe “an historic” will soon fall into the category of an accepted locution.  But for journalists who think grammar counts, this is a historic opportunity to get it right.