You don't need to go much further than the death of Seaman August Provost to show how contemptible Don't Ask, Don't Tell is. He was not killed in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or off the coast of North Korea; he was killed in San Diego.
At Camp Pendelton.
And it is very likely he was killed because he was gay - a fact his non-military partner said was known among Provost's trusted friends at Pendelton.
Provost told family members he was being harassed, and their common-sense advice to him goes to the heart of DADT's incoherence: he should tell his supervisor.
Except, of course, that would be "telling."
DADT not only prevented the Navy from being able to investigate this harassment (though they can investigate it now that he's dead), it is exactly the kind of policy that sends a message to any potential harasser that our government views homosexuality as something wrong.
We can finesse this policy till the cows come home, and maybe
mitigate a bit of the surface problems of DADT. But the deeper
problem, the problem of what it says about homosexuals to
heterosexuals in the military is the iniquitous heart of the
policy, and that message will keep being sent as long as it
exists.
8 Comments for “Latest Casualty of DADT”
posted by Jorge on
Provost told family members he was being harassed, and their common-sense advice to him goes to the heart of DADT?s incoherence: he should tell his supervisor.
Except, of course, that would be ?telling.?
This is politicizing the murder unnecessarily. Harassment is harassment, whether you’re gay or straight. Every hate crime law says that by saying “actual or perceived” sexual orientation, etcetera. Even the Supreme Court has said that whether or not you are actually gay is not relevant. The fact that he is not allowed to “tell” the fact that he is gay is irrelevant, because neither would the military be allowed to “ask”.
Yes, he probably would have been fired if he had complained, because for some odd reason the military fires you for what you put on your myspace pages. Ridiculous, but since that’s become generally well-known by now, then we have to conclude that he already “told” that he was gay and violated DADT.
So I’m not lifting a finger on this one. But I’m sure everyone will write to Congress and the president and call for a march to complain. I wish you all luck.
posted by esurience on
C’mon Jorge put on your thinking cap… If he had complained about the harassment, and the military investigated it, they would have in the course of their investigation uncovered evidence of his sexuality (whether it be his myspace page, or the allegation of one of his harassers). He would have then been discharged. He was unable to complain about the harassment because of the real threat that he’d be discharged. If he had been able to complain, it *may* have saved his life. Ergo, the DADT policy is possibly complicit in his death.
posted by Steven D. on
Maybe we should wait and get facts about his death? The article claims “it is very likely he was killed because he was gay” without giving any evidence of that.
posted by BobN on
So I’m not lifting a finger on this one.
Wow. Just wow.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
C’mon Jorge put on your thinking cap… If he had complained about the harassment, and the military investigated it, they would have in the course of their investigation uncovered evidence of his sexuality (whether it be his myspace page, or the allegation of one of his harassers).
Not so. Soldiers are not supposed to sexually or otherwise harass other soldiers, period. Your logic is akin to arguing that it’s OK to harass a woman over her nice ass because she has a nice ass. She may indeed have a nice ass, but that doesn’t give you license to harass her. It’s the fact that you are harassing her that is of major concern, not her ass.
Ergo, the DADT policy is possibly complicit in his death.
Which is the main point; liberal gays need a reason to attack the military, because doing so pleases their leftist allies.
posted by Bobby on
Pvt. Barry Winchel was also harassed, but he was an excellent fighter and if anyone would call him a f-gg-t he was able to beat the crap out of that person.
I think that’s the only way you end harassment in a military culture, unless they decide to beat you up with a baseball bat while you’re sleeping.
posted by slaggy on
Right Bobby, a baseball bat…or they could just shoot you in your faggot brain and set your corpse on fire.
posted by Jorge on
C’mon Jorge put on your thinking cap… If he had complained about the harassment, and the military investigated it, they would have in the course of their investigation uncovered evidence of his sexuality (whether it be his myspace page, or the allegation of one of his harassers). He would have then been discharged. He was unable to complain about the harassment because of the real threat that he’d be discharged.
I mentioned all that already, put on your reading glasses. What you don’t mention is that he simply could have not posted that he was gay on Myspace (I do not know whether he disclosed to his peers), and then he would have had nothing to fear, he would not be in violation of DA/DT. It’s a dumb policy, but Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell did not set up a situation making it impossible for Mr. Provost to escape his harassment. It was his choice how to deal with the policy. He chose to break it. That cost him his protection. No sacred cows: this needs to be said.
Which is the main point; liberal gays need a reason to attack the military, because doing so pleases their leftist allies.
I think liberal gays are pretty good at being hopelessly misguided on their own without any help from their leftist allies. Maybe if the military were nicer to gay people we wouldn’t be tempted to explore the idea that the US military is an evil institution that should be distrusted.
I think this is more a case of throwing something desperate to try to break the policy.