Voices of Honor: Defining the Opposition

Ed. Note: This post is from Jarrod Chlapowski, a U.S. Army veteran who recently joined the Human Rights Campaign to consult on ending the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Having been trained as a Korean linguist and cryptologic voice interceptor, he served in Korea, supporting the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion on more than 300 sensitive reconnaissance operation missions. Chlapowski chose not to re-enlist in the Army because of the excessive burden of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

I think a large mistake we often make in the fight for repeal is looping the Opposition – capital ‘O’ – into one large, cohesive entity that converses and plans against our efforts for open service, as many have very nuanced reasons for opposing repeal that can’t be characterized into a simple sound bite. 

Sure, in more conservative areas such as Missouri and Nebraska, stereotypical representatives of this Opposition attended our events, either through protesting outside with offensive signs in Kansas City, or through using the Q&A segment of an event as an opportunity to espouse their moral opposition to gays and lesbians in general in St. Louis.  Over the years, however, we have found that there are some in the audience whose opposition is more rational, tied to a fear as to how others would react to open service, and not to their own feelings of gays and lesbians serving.  Still, the last we would expect to have these fears is a gay veteran, and yet it was a gay veteran who voiced this particular concern at our event in Omaha.

A retired Navy medic, Austin Bailey offered that not every infantryman would be comfortable serving next to a gay or lesbian service member.   Bailey was quick to point out that he felt the policy placed unreasonable expectations and restrictions on gays and lesbians.  Nevertheless, Bailey wasn’t convinced that repeal would be without incident, particularly in units that are not what are considered ‘combat support’ or ‘combat service support.’

Of course we came back with the standard – true – arguments against Bailey’s position: that the junior enlisted are of a different generation than the one with which he served, that other countries who have lifted their ban in more conservative climates experienced very few negative incidents, and that the current composition of the military isn’t as streamlined into ‘infantry’ or ‘intelligence’ units as it once was.  But we also acknowledged that his concern was in some way legitimate, in that  a few incidences of harassment cannot be avoided. 

The question here isn’t whether gays should serve openly, but whether the ban is an appropriate policy with this consideration.  Our position is that the military leadership is such that encountering a harassment issue here and there is not a significant concern, a position with which the military would seem to agree given its stance on both women and African Americans serving in the military.  Allowing these groups to serve did not erase sexism or racism in the military by any means.  What it did do was allow access to previously non-recruitable populations that have inarguably increased the overall strength of the military, and the result would be the same should we allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.

With this response, we respected his concern as legitimate, but provided the information and logic to alleviate his reservations.  This strategy is key to winning this fight.  Demeaning and dismissing any argument against repeal as irrational or overzealous will only produce closed ears, and will not provide the consensus we need to push repeal through Congress.

Speaking to Bailey after the event, I discovered he had begun to rephrase his concerns in the past tense.  I’m not entirely sure Bailey was completely turned by our event and subsequent conversation.  But at least the dialogue wasn’t closed, and, from Bailey’s perspective, our own arguments were thus legitimized.