Don't Ask, Don't
Bend Over In the Shower
Commentary by Greg Lewis / TheRant.US
December 12, 2005
Most of us recall one of the first legislative initiatives
of Bill Clinton's Presidency, his ill-advised attempt to gain acceptance
for homosexuals in America's armed forces. Initially presented by the
left as a bold and sweeping attempt to "reform" America's armed
services by requiring them to ignore the sexual orientation of their recruits
(as well as the soldiers, sailors, marines, and national guardsmen already
enlisted), the policy degenerated into one which, finally, became a mockery
of the supposedly well-intentioned impulse from which it sprung.
Clinton's effort to impose on the U.S. Military a policy
that dictated turning a blind eye toward the sexual orientation of military
recruits and enlisted personnel finally devolved into one which was summed
up in the phrase, "Don't ask, don't tell." In other words, it
ended up that military recruiters and commanders were forbidden to inquire
about the sexual orientation of military personnel and prospects. Further,
recruits and enlisted personnel were advised not to volunteer or otherwise
make public information about their sexuality. Talk about a Mexican standoff!
Let's gloss over the fact that then-President Clinton's
legislative initiative was intended to impose a marxist/leftist group-think
agenda on that most fundamental and (necessarily) conservative of American
institutions, the U.S. Military. Let's focus instead on the consequences
of Clinton's policy, on what has emerged over the past few days in a case
currently being argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The case involves the question of whether American colleges and universities
specifically, in this instance, law schools have the right
to ban military recruiters from their campuses.
If I understand it, the legal team arguing in favor of
allowing American colleges and universities to ban military recruiters
from their campuses are basing their case on the idea that the American
military is subverting the rights of homosexuals because I want
to emphasize that this whole thing is abstruse in the extreme they
are somehow violating the rights of gays and lesbians, notwithstanding
the policy laid out in the don't-ask-don't-tell legislation of 1993. On
its face, it would appear to be a classic example of circular reasoning.
If we dig deeper, however, we find that they're really
arguing that colleges and universities have the right to prohibit representatives
of particular organizations and points-of-view from presenting their ideas
on campus because those ideas in the opinion of the folks who dictate
what ideas are and are not worthy of presentation on their campuses
run counter to the prevailing campus (read "leftist, marxist, politically
correct") mindset, a mindset that is somehow qualified to dictate
which ideas do or do not rise to the level of legitimacy; that is to say,
a mindset bent on dictating precisely what does and does not constitute
"free speech," and damn the Constitution.
Never mind that those arguing in favor of this blatant
abrogation of the rights of free speech in America are attempting to hide
behind the politically correct notion that military policy and practice
currently somehow violate the rights of homoxexuals and in doing so reduce
to insignificance the broader and more fundamental rights guaranteed by
the First Amendment.
The government, on the other hand, is saying, in effect,
"No problem. You can ban military recruiters if you want to, but,
under the terms of the Solomon Amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 1997, you'll lose federal funding if you do so." The Solomon
Amendment, which was actually passed in 1996, prohibits American educational
institutions, including law schools, from receiving federal funds if they
do not allow the U.S. military to conduct employment recruitment programs
on their campuses.
Let's just say that, based on the early returns, those
pressing the case that military recruiters should be able to be banned
based on this argument are meeting stiff resistance from the Supreme Court
justices. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has observed that "the government
takes the position that the law school is entirely free to convey its
message to everyone who comes." And Justice Stephen G. Breyer has
suggested that the argument presented by the law schools could also be
used by "the worst segregationists you can imagine" to limit
blacks' access to a campus.
In other words, it appears as if the Supreme Court is
about to do the right thing. It's difficult, if not impossible, to say
whether the presence of newly-ensconced Chief Justice John Roberts is
already beginning to pay dividends. But let me offer this: Sandra Day
O'Connor seems already to have begun as I argue is her wont
to drift toward the side whose position seems to best represent what's
currently "in the air," toward the point-of-view argued most
persuasively by the several justices who seem to have "got it."
It may well be that John Roberts, he of the massive scholarship and persuasive
presentation of the Constitutionalist purview, has already begun to make
his presence felt.
The minimizing, not to say the appropriate trivializing,
of President Clinton's Gays-In-the-Military policy might well be occurring
before our eyes in this case, and at the hands of the very forces who
argued most vehemently on its behalf in the early 1990s. The fact that
the triviality of this ill-founded, not to say deleterious, legislation
might finally be revealed for what it is through the arguments of those
defending it is but one of the benefits that will accrue as a result of
the current Supreme Court deliberation.
"Don't ask, don't bend over in the shower" has
come to represent what Clinton's legislative agenda means to those who
are actively involved in and care deeply about preserving America's military
institutions and the noble and glorious tradition they carry on. The fact
that, as a result of the Supreme Court's pending decision in this case,
American military personnel might no longer have to heed this rather more
streetwise characterization of Clinton's gays-in-the-military initiative
is another, albeit more pertinent, more meaningful, and more direct, benefit
of the current brouhaha.
|