Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by BeatNavy, May 15, 2010.
Seems fair. She knew the consequences and did it anyway. Although with the current controversy concerning DADT I could see them waiting until a resolution of the matter before making any definite decision.
Question for me is whether she is willing to serve or not. If she is willing to put all the money invested in her to good use by serving but the military choose to dismiss her for being a lesbian then is they who are choosing to waste all the money they invested in her not the woman in question.
I disagree. She knew the rules. She outed herself, thus breaking them
We just can't be putting money into the education of a bunch of kids only for them to "out" themselves voluntarily and be discharged with no recourse.
She should pay the money back.
If she was willing to serve but not wear any uniforms....would the military be wasting the money they invested in her by dismissing her?
If she was willing to serve but not salute or say Yes Sir or Mam....would the military be wasting the money they invested in her by dismissing her?
If she was willing to serve but not follow orders....would the military be wasting the money they invested in her by dismissing her?
The military has a policy about homosexuality. Right or wrong it is a policy that she knew about probably before she accepted her ROTC scholarship, but definitely knew about before she informed the head of the university’s ROTC program of her sexual orientation in a formal memo.
"Lt. Col. Monte Yoder, head of the university's Army ROTC program, said Ms. Isaacson would never have had to talk about her sexual orientation at all.
"I was very clear with Miss Isaacson about that," he told the Chronicle. "I told her I won't ask."
She chose to violate the military's policy and she should pay the price for her actions.
The reality is DADT is a policy, no military member can pick and choose which order they will follow and which one they won't. The only exception is if it is an unlawful order. DADT is not an unlawful order. It maybe morally repugnant to many, but it is not illegal.
It looks like she will have an uphill battle to win not repaying the tuition.
I also find it completely ludicrous when she stated that the ROTC dets make it difficult to hide homosexuality due to things like pictures on desks or military formal functions. Our DS has dated two different girls while at college. He has not taken either of these girls to military functions. He goes with his group of guys. He isn't homosexual, but he opts to go single since he is not ready to introduce that part of his life in a formal manner to his GFs, and obviously his friends feel the same way too.
The part about pictures on the desk. First off she is a cadet, she would not have a desk. Secondly, if a single man or woman didn't have pictures of someone on their desk does that mean they are homosexuals?
My bet is she will be owing that money back because the military is cutting costs wherever they can. 80K may not seem like a lot of money, but that amount of money would pay for almost 2 O1's salary for a yr.
Not for long.
In this case it seems pretty obvious she just wanted to get a free education, hoping she could make big enough a stink to force the army to let her off paying the money back...
Even if she does pay the money back, she still got an interest free loan for four years at the taxpayers expense
I think that is fairly certain and which makes her decision even dumber.
College Student May Own ROTC $80,000
The first question I have did she do this intentionally? (ie; to get out of the obligation). Food for thought here, but I agree with a lot of you here that policy is policy and she should pay it all back. All she had to do is be quiet. There is no place for this in the military, at all, and in society for that matter. But in one of the post this is policy for now and I hope stays that way. We have leadership in our great country, that want to make everything easier for people who don't want to except any personal responsibilty and are saying that ok.
How on earth is that obvious!!! In fact the article makes no comment at all on whether she wants to stay in the army or not. Your assumption of the cynical nature of her motives seem at odds with the opinion of her own commander, quoted in a number of sources "Lt. Col. Monte Yoder, the head of North Carolina's ROTC program, said the Army is losing a "great young American"
While Isaacson herself in her recent meeting with congressional representatives stated clearly that it had always been her dream to be an army doctor, she only self identified as a lesbian in November therefore had taken the scholarship in good faith, chose to tell the truth rather than live a lie, and would still like to serve.
So tell me JAM, what would you do? If you were 20 and fell in love with a woman, and knew you had to make a choice between acknowldging that love and paying back $80 000 or hiding it and living a lie in oppostition to the morals of honesty and truthfulness you have valued all your life. What exactly would you suggest she should have done???
Wow! I agree with JAM.
BTW JAM, I located my (secret) parking spot for "R" Day by the Marty Maher house while up there this weekend...I got it all worked out
I don't understand how it's living a lie if you're homosexual and on an ROTC scholarship. She probably knew she was going to get her scholarship revoked, so I'm wondering if that meant she thought it was shameful or "wrong" to be a homosexual in ROTC. Otherwise, why else would it compromise her integrity?
Unless she had a girlfriend and did not want to hide it.
But otherwise, I have no idea how she made the connection with homosexual=dishonorable in the army. Which one of the Army's key virtues was she violating?
Whether you agree with DADT, it is current policy, and she knew that when she accepted the ROTC scholarship. She broke the current policy with full knowledge of what she was doing. I can't see her wriggling out of this.
Hmm isn't it suspicious that she all of a sudden decides she is a lesbian in may as a senior...
If she wanted to stay in the army, she could have not told her commander and it is only a matter of time before DADT is repealed...
The commander offered to keep it on the DL but she refused it, seems pretty clear cut. It's not living a lie or dishonest, if no one "asks' she doesn't have to provide any misinformation. And its very clear that no one was going to ask.
They didn't waste any money because they'll be getting it back.
Exactly correct Knight. They didn't waste any money. They wasted time training her, but not a dime.
Emsa, we understand you support homosexuals serving openly in the military, but I think you are confusing your personal belief with this case. The fact is most of the posters on this board agree with the removal of this policy, yet they support the military even more. Currently that is the policy, end of subject, period, dot. She understood this policy when she accepted her scholarship. Nobody said she could not be a lesbian, they stated that she just could not serve openly as a homosexual.
Col. Isaacson must have been aware of her position regarding DADT, because in the article he stated he would not ask her of her orientation AND she should not tell. That was his warning shot across the bow. He gave her the option to stay and not have her scholarship revoked. I am sure if they discussed DADT he probably made her well aware of what the consequences would be if she did tell. It shouldn't have shocked or surprised her when he announced his recommendation to the higher command. She tied his hands the minute she said she was gay.
A regulation exists for good order and morale. Commanders do not have the right to pick and choose which one to follow, nor does any enlisted member. They are just following the regs.
Should she not fall in love with a women? No. She should fall in love with whoever her heart is drawn to. The difference for her compared to other homosexual military members is that for them they love the military more.
I agree with others who believe the timing is suspicious because everyone knows that the policy is being currently reviewed, and the majority of people believe it will be overturned so homosexuals will serve openly. Most believe it will be done in a yr or so. However, because of her scholarship committment if it was overturned even in October, she would have 5 yrs to serve. So why didn't she wait it out? Could it be she never wanted to serve at all?
She should have heeded the advice of her chain of command. She KNEW the consequences. I fully understand that some people are not fully aware of their sexuality until they are more mature. But she was informed of the Army policy.
She could have carried on her relationship and waited to see if someone exposed her to the Army.
Once she sent the memorandum - she sealed her fate, IMO. This is a prescedent that should not be set. She wanted her 15 minutes of fame she got it. with an $80,000 bill.
BTW - What would you say to a 20 year old ROTC scholarship cadet or third year Academy Cadet who suddenly realizes that deep down he/she is a Conscientious Objector? Most people don't have these feelings when they are young but develop them as they mature.
About money spent training - the Army did indeed spend $$$$ training her. She will only be required to pay back her college tuition. The training $$$$ are gone.
I don't know did she want to preserve her political viability?
Seriously the policies name clearly states it We don't ask, You don't tell. I mean she is about to be a college graduate what is confusing about this. It is not a matter of if you agree or not, as other posters have stated. Every action has a consequence be it good or bad. This is like during the first Gulf War when a couple of Marine reservists stated they signed up to get college paid for not to go to war... Well they got the the boot as should anyone else who violates lawful orders. The timing of this is curiously suspicious.
Personally, I hope she does have to pay every dime back, but that is just my humble opinion.
Separate names with a comma.