West Point rejects Cadet who resigned under DADT

That scenario isn't very believable.

I think everyone here knows that the Army would of course waive the blue eye and blonde hair requirement, just like they've waived everything else these days. :biggrin::wink:

Things gets any worse, and we'll be the Puddle Police. :biggrin:
 
Food for thought:

What, if anything would you hide in order to be able to serve? If the Army said they would only take blue eyed blonds would you have worn blue contacts and dyed your hair blonde?
If so, for how long before you felt some resentment for having to disguise certain attributes about yourself that have no bearing on your abilities to perform as a soldier?

I like to think that professional soldiers will set aside the resentment or resign.

Not exactly the same thing, but during the American Civil War, many Regular Army officers were torn between their personal beliefs concerning slavery, states right and fighting each other. Many Regular Army officers from South resigned, some stayed in the Regular Army, don't know of many Regular Army officers that resigned not to fight.
 
Before we end up in another rant on whether the repeal is ok, I'll give you the DoD line from my commander.

The burden of responsibility for alleviating personal concerns is on the person who has issue. So, if a person is uncomfortable rooming, showering, being in a locker room, or working with a gay person, the burden is wholly on the uncomfortable person. If it impacts their performance, they may be disciplined or the commander may work to reach a solution (again, at their burden). If it doesn't, they have the burden to change their schedule, etc. to accommodate their own personal issue. Essentially the military has said that sexual orientation is not a trait which impacts military service. Period. They treat it along the lines of skin color, eye color, or gender.

So again, let's not get into a debate on if the repeal is right. The choice was made and the wheels are turning. No need to beat that horse. Ya?
 
Last night on Rachel Maddow, Katherine Miller was discussing this issue. It was interesting to watch.

She really attacked one WP officer, never saying their name, but stating they were "dragging their feet" in regards to the new training required and that 3 homosexual cadets have been in contact with her regarding this person.

She also stated that her intention now is to graduate and try the OCS route. She announced she is a Truman Scholars recipient http://www.truman.gov/meet-our-scho...arUserId=743f4007-2698-4882-9775-f055dfce8452. She will be going to grad school, just has yet to announce where.

I wish her the best, but that interview IMPO left me with the feeling she may have burned too many bridges to ever join the AD military.
 
Strictly speaking from a Military officers perspective, I agree with what your commander stated.

My only concern, and one that I would have raised at the appropriate time, is whether or not we are also going to train the potential homosexual service member that they must also act the same.

In other words, if a gay service member learns that another member has personal religious feelings against the homosexual lifestyle, are they going to be expected to act the same way and accept it as a personal burden that they have to resolve?

For simplicity: A=gay member, B=religious member.

If A has a problem with B's views and finds that it impacts his/her ability to work with them, then the burden is on A to deal with it. If B's views cause him/her to cause a toxic professional work environment due to B's behavior, then the burden is on B. We had a really good meeting with our commander here at RAND on the issue. My sense was that people can hold whatever views they want, they are expected to act professionally. So, if B acts professionally and A has issue with his person, then A is at fault. If B is not acting professionally, the fault is theirs. I, personally, felt that was made clear in our meeting but I must emphasize that our commander did a fantastic job of articulating the DoD policy and approach. Without that, much of the questions were still ambiguous and hard to figure out.

An easy analogy is to replace "gay" with any other characteristic which there are strong religious beliefs on whether birth control, abortion, marriage/divorce, different religion, etc. and ask what would be appropriate.
 
What SHOULD and what IS, are 2 different things. I hate to sound like a bitter bigot, because I'm not, but there are certain double standards. A male having a sexual problem with a woman, will be treated differently than a woman having a sexual problem with a male. A white having a problem with a black, will be treated differently than a black having a problem with a white. A straight having a problem with a gay, will be treated differently than a gay having a problem with a straight. Bottom line: The minority, in whatever the scenario is, will usually be considered more favorably than the majority individual. That's simply the way our society has evolved over the last 30-40 years.
 
What SHOULD and what IS, are 2 different things. I hate to sound like a bitter bigot, because I'm not, but there are certain double standards. A male having a sexual problem with a woman, will be treated differently than a woman having a sexual problem with a male. A white having a problem with a black, will be treated differently than a black having a problem with a white. A straight having a problem with a gay, will be treated differently than a gay having a problem with a straight. Bottom line: The minority, in whatever the scenario is, will usually be considered more favorably than the majority individual. That's simply the way our society has evolved over the last 30-40 years.

CC you're absolutely right. It comes down to professionalism, right? I think if someone (gay, woman, black, polka-dotted, etc.) decides to make a constant fight and make friends with the IG, they will suffer. There's a reason Jeanie Flynn and Nicole Malachoski have been fast burners not because of their gender, but because they were always professional and didn't use their minority status as a crutch. The same goes for many black/hispanic/other senior officers. I don't see stories of senior minority officers being boat rockers, I keep hearing people say they greatly respected them and were happy to see their appointment because of the member's great professionalism.

I'm going to add, sexual orientation is NOT going to be covered by the MEO (military equal opportunity) office like race and gender are. Therefore, if there are discrimination complaints by gay service members, they must be dealt through the chain and then the IG, the MEO is not involved. This is a unique twist on the issue, IMO.

Thanks. That is what I was hoping to "hear". Thanks for taking the time to answer my question as I was hoping you would. I felt that it IS important that all members of this forum see how policies like these are implemented.

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.
 
I'm going to add, sexual orientation is NOT going to be covered by the MEO (military equal opportunity) office like race and gender are. Therefore, if there are discrimination complaints by gay service members, they must be dealt through the chain and then the IG, the MEO is not involved. This is a unique twist on the issue, IMO.

Not a unique twist, it's the law. The equal opportunity laws started with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). "This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." Other are some other areas based on additional legislation, but the sexual orientation has not bee added yet.
 
Not a unique twist, it's the law. The equal opportunity laws started with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). "This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." Other are some other areas based on additional legislation, but the sexual orientation has not bee added yet.

It's not like I implied that they arbitrarily made their choice. I'm simply pointing out that they have eliminated a form of discrimination while it still isn't a protected status. The last time that happened would have been racial integration of the armed forces. Then again, did they have an MEO then?
 
Back
Top