Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia Debates Fellow Forbes Columnist Melik Kaylan Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Over at Forbes, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia and her fellow Forbes columnist Melik Kaylan have been locked in an argument royale about the sagacity of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Melik devoted an entire column earlier this week critiquing Dalmia's previous column in which she called DADT "particularly dumb" because it compromised the country's commitment to equal protection and still exposed itself to alleged harm from the gay presence, maximizing the damage on all fronts. The time, she concluded, was "overdue" to end this charade and give gays the right to serve openly.
Kaylan, however, accused Dalmia of being a victim of the Old Whig fallacy according to which the time is "always overdue for something or other in the area of political rights." He claims that DADT is a good compromise because it allows gays to serve while making their identity a non-issue.
Dalmia, however, points out in her riposte this morning that far from making gay identity a non-issue, since DADT went into effect in 1993 over 12,000 gay servicemen have been fired, far more than before. "Gays are now being discharged not because they openly flaunt their sexual orientation or demand special favors…but because they don't do everything it takes to stay in the closet," she writes. "If Kaylan genuinely wants to make gay identity a non-issue then he should advocate not Don't Ask, Don't Tell but something along the lines of When Asked, Do Tell!"
Go here for Dalmia's full response and follow the links to read the whole slug-fest.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Perhaps DADT could be replaced with INOYFBWIF -- It's None Of Your Fucking Business Who I Fuck.
Which has the added bonus of sounding a bit like how our senior U.S. Senator in Hawaii is referred to by some: "Inouye's fuckin' wif our freedom again!"
Why does this not surprise me? Before 1993, no matter what the stated policy was, DADT was the de facto policy. Clinton and the Dems tried to score point by going halfway and the unintended consequence is to worsen the position of gays in the military - pretty typical. At least Republicans are more open in their bullshit.
I am a vet and I agree with INOYFBWIF.
Just as there is an increase in the number of pregnancies just before a long-term deployment, I do have to wonder how many of the 12,000 told to get out of deployment or their enlistment contracts. It maybe a small percentage, but heterosexual white males do not have a monopoly on douchbaggery. Not a major reason, but certainly one of the reasons to support INOYFBWIF is so malingering fucks cannot screw over those that honor their commitments and contracts. When someone intentionally gets himself or herself out of a deployment at the last moment are left holding the bag and have to pull up the slack. The military usually cannot transfer in a replacement immediately.
NavyVet -- does the military have the option of not discharging someone who tries to get out of a deployment by suddenly deciding it's time to announce they are gay?
And how many hetero guys decide to lie and say they are gay to get out of an unwanted deployment? Does that 12,000 discharged figure include straights working that angle? Does the military actually try to verify that someone who claims to be gay actually is?
I don't get it. I don't get DADT, I don't get Dalmia's(Reason's) tepid... uh... SUPPORT of it, I don't get the Christian Right, I don't get the hard-Socialist/Fascist Left. I just don't get it.
NavyVet's point is valid. As a former Navy man myself, pre 1993, the presence of gay colleagues was hardly a secret, and never an issue in my experience. What few commentators today fail to recall was how President Clinton betrayed the gay community, voters he so openly courted during 1992, with this farcical policy. When his attempt at using the military as the starting point for his gay rights agenda met with the slightest of resistance, he immediately abandoned ship and left this enduring legacy.
Clinton never really grasped military culture while in office, nor do most of those who opine on this topic today. When DADT was de facto policy, folks who conducted themselves with military decorum got along just fine no matter their sexual preference. When it became written policy, intolerance was given a convenient excuse.
Typo on my URL. Sorry... Should be okay this time.
NavyVet -- does the military have the option of not discharging someone who tries to get out of a deployment by suddenly deciding it's time to announce they are gay?
Short answer. Yes.
Longer answer. He(she) will probably still miss deployment because of the process that ensues that no one will have time to complete prior to a deployment.
Relevent but possibly out of date reference
(there's probably been a more recent navadmin, but my understanding of the current policy does not conflict with what's in the linked 1999 message)
Anybody else get the all gay alaskan adventure cruise sidebar.
Enyap: No, but I am getting a sidebar ad for the equally gay Ford Fusion hybrid.