Lesbian Cadet quits West Point, citing DADT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I take your point on DADT being close enough to being repealed that one could be expected to stick it out and serve if that was the true desire--valid point. I still don't think life is always black and white, particularly at age 20--people can have mixed motives and without knowing this young woman, I won't assume I fully understand hers. But I do better understand the points others are making on this issue.
 
As many people have added many important observations, this is what we have to remember here.

1. Whether you believe that a person is born gay, or it's a "Lifestyle Choice", it is not something that she did over night. Chances are, she's been gay for more than the 2 years that she's been at West Point.

2. She knew, without a doubt, the current military and academy position about gays in the military. Basically, she knew the DADT policy.

3. Even with the best intentions of trying to make it through 4 years of the academy and 5 years of active duty, deciding not to continue was most likely not something she decided this month. She could have quit at any time in the last 24 months. Basically; Why Now?

4. Whether she applied to Yale on normal early admissions (Last September); normal admissions (Last December/January); or contacted a special interest group offering the scholarship and a fast track through admissions; she did NOT do that in the last 30-60 days. Even political fast tracking (I've seen it with the son of a "Substantial Donor" getting special treatment to Cornell; she had to have had this in the works since at least May; possibly sooner. It takes a little time to verify and validate certain things.

5. And if she really did want to leave because of how she felt personally, she could have simply quit and walked out the door. But she "CHOSE" to make a scene and cause attention to herself.

So, with these 5 things in mind, the questions need to be asked:

A: Why did she even apply and accept an appointment by lying and under false pretenses?
B: If she felt so bad and alienated by the homophobic attitudes, why didn't she quit some time in the last 4 semesters?
C: At the very latest, why didn't she quit in May, after the last semester?
D: Was she specifically waiting to see if she had gotten accepted to Yale before quitting West Point?

Sorry, but this person gets no compassion or respect from me. She's a liar. She has no integrity. She has no honor. She has turned a personal belief into a political and social cause. Numbers 1-5 above are FACTS; not opinions. Her motives behind them make be opinion, but 1-5 are facts. And those facts prove that she is not worthy of my respect or even tolerance.
 
I still don't think life is always black and white, particularly at age 20..
I think the last time I thought that life was black and white was when I was 20. It is only since I've gotten older and more cynical that I am starting to see shades of gray. :wink:
 
I see gray in my hair more every day, so it's fitting that my outlook mirrors that!

ChristCorp, you are a great contributor on this board and I admire you as a patriot, parent and fellow veteran. But I think your post does assume a lot under the guise of "facts.". We don't know when this young person figured out her sexuality. Even if she knew on R-Day, under DADT gays are allowed to serve. She may be overstating or mis-stating or lying about her reasons for leaving but we don't know all the circumstances so I disagree that she can conclusively be deemed a "liar.". That is an opinion-- one that Could be correct--but still an opinion at this point.

Sorry to be so argumentative, I will bow out now--I know people feel strongly about this because they care about the institutions, and have lived their sacrifice.
 
You're not being argumentative. And you are totally entitled to your opinion. I encourage it. No reason to bow out. This is a very respectful forum and we all respect each others opinions. Sometimes we may become passionate with our positions, but that doesn't mean we don't respect another viewpoint. There are some "PC" people who believe that respecting someone's opinion means to "Accept" it or "Agree" with it. That's "PC" talk. There's nothing wrong with debating, arguing, and being passionate about a position. That doesn't mean that you don't respect another person's opinion.

As for this cadet; sorry, but I'm not willing to give her the same benefit of the doubt that you are. I refuse to believe that she just recently discovered her sexuality. Not with the amount of conviction she is showing; as well as her willingness to turn this into a crusade. I read the entire article, "Which now seems to be a broken link", and she mentioned how she felt about many of the gay type remarks she's listened to. That tells me that she's known about her sexuality for a while. But even assuming that she didn't realize it until she entered the academy, she's had too many opportunities to quit the academy. She didn't have to wait until literally the last possible couple of days.

Sorry, but here story, based on the story linked to, describes her as an individual quite sure of herself. She knows what she's doing; and I believe she has for quite a while. Including lining up her Yale admittance prior to quitting West Point. I stand by my saying that the 5 points I made are indeed facts. And unless someone can prove to me that they aren't facts; that she didn't know the DADT policy, that she didn't know she was gay until quite recently, that applying to and getting accepted to Yale, all in the last couple of months, was simply the "Luck of the Gods", that she didn't quit earlier because she really thought she could live through the next 9 years like this, AND that she didn't seek any media attention; until any of that is proven to me, I will consider those 5 positions to be fact. At the very least, she could have simply quit and walked away, and NO ONE would have know any differently. That isn't what happened, and I won't give her the benefit of the doubt.

But in all seriousness, my opinion is in no way a disrespect to your position or opinions. NEVER BOW OUT because someone disagrees. Bow out only when it's a dead end discussion; where the other person doesn't respect you or your position.
 
I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals or having them serve openly in the military. I do however have a problem with a person applying to and attending one of our military academies under false pretenses. And that's exactly what she did. She knew exactly what the policy was prior to applying and accepting.

Wow. A classic example of the inevitable failure of the DADT policy and the same people who support this absurd policy are damning an innocent victim of it. You guys cannot have your cake and eat it too. Any gay high school student who googles DADT would discover what appears to be an acceptable common way to serve in the military. They don’t realize that it is really a cover for a totally intolerant untenable policy. They are the best our country has to offer. They show up at an institution where honor is paramount. They show up at an institution where their sexuality is ‘tested’ by the majority male. The academy 'assists' their sense of honor in reaching a new level they never knew possible and they attempt for, as long as the law allows, to reach a moral compromise. The also do well. Extremely well. Ninth in her class after two years. She tried. As hard as we can ask anyone to try.

Folks, she didn’t fail. We failed. By supporting a policy with a “Catch 22” which prevents anyone who is gay from reaching our officer ranks via a SA where honor is paramount. Homophobia at its best (or worst). I don't blame her if she is upset. OUr young people deserve better. Some times a black and white world is necessary.
 
which prevents anyone who is gay from reaching our officer ranks via a SA where honor is paramount.

Gotta disagree there, buddy. Many, many gay officers have reached officer ranks through the SAs. I have several gay friends from my time there, all serving as officers.
 
Gotta disagree there, buddy. Many, many gay officers have reached officer ranks through the SAs. I have several gay friends from my time there, all serving as officers.

And I would guarantee you that, if you ask them today, they all committed honor offenses to do so. Also, I would state that the pressure is probably moreso on a female to deceive than for a male to do the same.

If this Ensign is indeed gay, do you think he can stay in the Navy without deceiving at least his peers:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy_call_signs_080910w/
 
And I would guarantee you that, if you ask them today, they all committed honor offenses to do so. Also, I would state that the pressure is probably moreso on a female to deceive than for a male to do the same.

If this Ensign is indeed gay, do you think he can stay in the Navy without deceiving at least his peers:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy_call_signs_080910w/

And what violation are you certain they committed?
 
Any gay high school student who googles DADT would discover what appears to be an acceptable common way to serve in the military. They don’t realize that it is really a cover for a totally intolerant untenable policy.
After googling DADT, what any high school student would discover BEFORE attending the USMA is that it is POLICY. God bad, wrong or right they should know that before making a decision to attend. Are you suggesting that this cadet didn't know about the DADT POLICY before she committed to WP? How about the pending changes to the POLICY, do you think there is any gay member of the military that doesn't know about those? She had choices before she joined, while attending WP and about when and how she chose to leave. I see very little honor in the decisions that she has made and sincerely hope that the USMA doesn't take this grandstanding ex-cadet back into the program.
 
And what violation are you certain they committed?

Deception by omission comes to mind.

After googling DADT, what any high school student would discover BEFORE attending the USMA is that it is POLICY. God bad, wrong or right they should know that before making a decision to attend. Are you suggesting that this cadet didn't know about the DADT POLICY before she committed to WP?
Of course, she recognized DADT as policy. I am sure she also recognized the WP Honor Code as policy. However, only by living them did she realized that they are diametrically opposed to each other.
 
Deception by omission comes to mind.

Of course, she recognized DADT as policy. I am sure she also recognized the WP Honor Code as policy. However, only by living them did she realized that they are diametrically opposed to each other.

Deception by omission? That's a good one. Cue hearty belly laugh.

So, your stance is that because the average American is assumed to be a heterosexual, not disabusing classmates of that assumption is equivalent to lying?

I suppose if I don't tell all my classmates that I didn't neuter my dog, I'm a liar because they would assume that I'm a responsible pet owner?

I love you buddy, but you're really reaching on this one. The DADT policy is designed to keep conversations about sexuality out of the command environment. Sexuality is an issue if the soldier and the command make it an issue. Hundreds have made it an issue and have been released. Thousands have served honorably despite the lack of opportunity to express their orientation.

I don't like the policy, and it's time for it to go. But the truth is that adherence to DADT is not an honor violation, just as military deception is not, nor is telling your sponsor's wife that her burned chicken tasted good.
 
But the truth is that adherence to DADT is not an honor violation, just as military deception is not, nor is telling your sponsor's wife that her burned chicken tasted good.

If every gay SA grad decided to publish their memoirs tomorrow, we would have every book publisher in the US inundated with manuscripts titled "Living a Lie". Not an honor offense? I beg to differ. In the Navy, those who attermpt it, have the title "sea lawyer" bestowed upon them. Much more polite than calling them a liar.
 
So your idea of honor is full disclosure of your heart, mind and soul?

Are you forgetting about the "Don't Ask" part? No one can ask....that's the whole stinking point, and often problem with the law, the ambiguity.

I don't think because I haven't released all of my deepest darkest secrets that I have in some way committed an honor offense.
 
I don't think because I haven't released all of my deepest darkest secrets that I have in some way committed an honor offense.
You only think this way because you are not trying to justify a weak argument on an internet board. :wink:
 
I don't think because I haven't released all of my deepest darkest secrets that I have in some way committed an honor offense.
So, one hides their deepest darkest secrets. In this case, most would consider that to be "living a lie". The purpose of the SA Honor Codes is to instill honor in their graduates. Is one who lives a lie, an honorable person?

It sounds to me as if surviving the SA as a gay would require one to become quite an accomplished sea lawyer. Is this an attribute to which we are seeking in our graduates? I don't think so.

I would say that following the letter of the "law" of the honor code could cause one to rationalize being able to graduate but following the spirit would require one to feel they had to resign.
 
Sorry Mongo, but you're definitely not going to gain any ground with the "Deception by Omission" argument. As scout and LITS already mentioned, "Omission" isn't an offense in any way, if the subject matter isn't asked of you.

If you're doing a security background check, and the question is asked, which countries have you visited in the last 10 years, and you list them all EXCEPT Iran, then you have deceived by omitting information that was asked of you. There are plenty of questions that you could be asked, that you could deceive based on information that you left out.

However, there are plenty of "Subjects" that aren't routinely discussed in the military. Some because they are "Socially Unacceptable" and some because they are a policy.

Questions not asked because they are Socially Unacceptable to ask:
1. How often do you masturbate.
2. When you were younger, did you ever see your parents naked

Questions not asked because there is a policy that says you can't:
1. Are you gay
2. Have you ever had a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender

As Scout and LITS said; there is no deception, because you didn't openly discuss and mention information about topics that weren't discussed. With your way of thinking; as LITS mentioned; you're suppose to walk into the academy/military and cleanse your soul of every experience in your life. You need to tell them that when you were 8, you killed the neighbor's cat with a BB gun, because you thought it would be cool, until you actually did it. How you picked on the kid at school with Down's syndrome. How you played practical jokes on the fat kid in school. How you shoplifted candy from the store, how you drove through a red light when you were older and got your license, how you lied about being involved with putting graffiti on the rival school's buses.

The majority of your past is considered private. It is socially unacceptable to ask for such disclosure in an official setting. Some things, like your sexual orientation is forbidden by policy to be asked of for disclosure.

In other words, which you already know, you can not be accused, charged, etc... of "Omitting" something if it wasn't "EXPECTED" to be provided. When your security background wants to know the countries you've been to, any crimes committed, use of alcohol/drugs, dealings with no citizens, etc... They are "Expecting" 100% disclosure on these topics. But they are NOT "EXPECTING" you to disclose your sexual preference, how often you masturbate, sexual fantasies, social abnormalities as a child, childhood pranks, etc... Hence, the definition of "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL".

Now, did you really need me to go on this rampage, simply to tell you the definition and military expectation, of something you already knew?
 
Sorry Mongo, but you're definitely not going to gain any ground with the "Deception by Omission" argument. As scout and LITS already mentioned, "Omission" isn't an offense in any way, if the subject matter isn't asked of you.

If you're doing a security background check, and the question is asked, which countries have you visited in the last 10 years, and you list them all EXCEPT Iran, then you have deceived by omitting information that was asked of you. There are plenty of questions that you could be asked, that you could deceive based on information that you left out.

However, there are plenty of "Subjects" that aren't routinely discussed in the military. Some because they are "Socially Unacceptable" and some because they are a policy.

Questions not asked because they are Socially Unacceptable to ask:
1. How often do you masturbate.
2. When you were younger, did you ever see your parents naked

Questions not asked because there is a policy that says you can't:
1. Are you gay
2. Have you ever had a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender

As Scout and LITS said; there is no deception, because you didn't openly discuss and mention information about topics that weren't discussed. With your way of thinking; as LITS mentioned; you're suppose to walk into the academy/military and cleanse your soul of every experience in your life. You need to tell them that when you were 8, you killed the neighbor's cat with a BB gun, because you thought it would be cool, until you actually did it. How you picked on the kid at school with Down's syndrome. How you played practical jokes on the fat kid in school. How you shoplifted candy from the store, how you drove through a red light when you were older and got your license, how you lied about being involved with putting graffiti on the rival school's buses.

The majority of your past is considered private. It is socially unacceptable to ask for such disclosure in an official setting. Some things, like your sexual orientation is forbidden by policy to be asked of for disclosure.

In other words, which you already know, you can not be accused, charged, etc... of "Omitting" something if it wasn't "EXPECTED" to be provided. When your security background wants to know the countries you've been to, any crimes committed, use of alcohol/drugs, dealings with no citizens, etc... They are "Expecting" 100% disclosure on these topics. But they are NOT "EXPECTING" you to disclose your sexual preference, how often you masturbate, sexual fantasies, social abnormalities as a child, childhood pranks, etc... Hence, the definition of "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL".

Now, did you really need me to go on this rampage, simply to tell you the definition and military expectation, of something you already knew?

This entire treatsie covers the letter of the "law" which is not the issue.

The entire purpose of an Honor Code at WP is to instill the spirit of the "law". This, your response does not address at all.

Honorable people do not deceive their friends, either by omission or comission.
 
But they are NOT "EXPECTING" you to disclose your sexual preference, how often you masturbate, sexual fantasies,


The security clearance types may not expect it, but spend about three minutes burning time at an SA with male classmates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top