Lesbian Cadet quits West Point, citing DADT

[Christcorp]

So, you're telling us that every cadet at West Point is suppose to, in there time there, tell all other cadets about EVERY experience in their past? You know this isn't true. I doubt that there is one cadet at West Point, currently or ever, that has divulged their entire past to all the other cadets there. Therefor, you are saying that no West Point cadet has honor. You can only deceive your friends by omission or commission, if they "Ask" you about something and you don't answer as expected. Well, when a question isn't "Expected", then you can't "EXPECT" an answer.

Look; you need to simply admit that what you meant to say, and what you did say, were not the same thing. You meant to say that even though DADT is a "POLICY", that "Unofficially", individuals may at time ask such a question. Therefor, the cadet being asked such a question would be forced to omit or even lie with their answer. And thus, have not acted honorably. Technically, this is true, and I agree with this. However, the honor code at the academy was NOT INTENDED to TRAP an individual. This is mentioned all the time. A PRIME EXAMPLE is drinking. The drinking age is 21 years old. A cadet goes home on vacation, and while there, drinks some beers with their dad on the front porch. When you get back, NO CADET is going to FORMALLY ask you if you drank alcohol while on leave. And no one is going to expect you to divulge such information openly. And therefor, there is no breaking of the honor code. THIS IS A FACT. This is not conjecture. This is a common everyday scenario. And if you say that when you get back from leave, that the academy is going to formally ask you if you were drinking, or that you are suppose to divulge to everyone else that you were drinking; and that not to do so is breaking the honor code; then sorry, but I call B.S.

The DADT policy is exactly the same thing. There are some things that simply aren't asked. And your sexuality and sexual preference is one of them. You can most definitely go 4 years at the academy and go another 5-20+ years in the military and never have to address this subject. Yes, unofficially such conversations may come up. This is why I think the DADT policy needs to be removed. But even with it in place, there are ways for a gay individual to not have this subject discussed. And not discussing it is NOT a honor violation. And it's only living a LIE if the question is officially asked of you and you give a false answer. But being the question can not be officially asked of you, it's impossible for you to give a FALSE answer. Getting rid of the "Unofficial" asking is another topic. It can be done; it's done every day in the military; but that is a different subject. And it has NOTHING to do with the honor code. Again, you know all this.

 

[Mongo]

The security clearance types may not expect it, but spend about three minutes burning time at an SA with male classmates.

LOL. Hard to believe that there are those who apparently think of four years at a SA as something akin to taking the bus to work every morning for your 40 hr/week job.

 

[Christcorp]

Holt: Trust me, I know exactly what goes on in dormitory settings. Especially when a bunch of guys get together.

 

[LineInTheSand]

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.

Mongo, sounds like you need to review DADT again, as no one is asking or telling, so no one is lying. Following the LETTER of the law would NOT require anyone to resign. Following Mongo's Misguided Comments regarding the Honor code/concept would.

I agree DADT isn't a great law. It's ambiguous. It doesn't say "be a homosexual" and it doesn't say "don't join if you're a homosexual", it's just "hush hush" and you can serve. Don't blame me, blame Clinton, and don't blame me for not having the answers, blame President Obama and Congress for pushing the issue, inserting the repeal in legislation without talk to the services until after the fact. Email Gen. Ham if you'd like.

 

[LineInTheSand]

The security clearance types may not expect it, but spend about three minutes burning time at an SA with male classmates.

I think I may have spent more than three minutes burning time at an SA with male classmates.....I don't get the reference...

 

[scoutpilot]

Th

Honorable people do not deceive their friends, either by omission or comission.

Have you told your classmates how often you are intimate with your wife? No? Guess you're not honorable.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Mongo, what's your name, rank and duty station?

Certainly that's not classified.

 

[SteveHolt243]

I think I may have spent more than three minutes burning time at an SA with male classmates.....I don't get the reference...

I assure you that masturbation and sexual activity comes up.

 

[Mongo]

Have you told your classmates how often you are intimate with your wife? No? Guess you're not honorable.

I don't quite understand the significance of the question, since no possible answer would cause me to run the risk of being booted out of the military.

I think we can all agree it is a horrible law:

This is why I think the DADT policy needs to be removed.

I agree DADT isn't a great law. It's ambiguous.

I don't like the policy, and it's time for it to go.

So why are you ostracizing a cadet who attempted to live by it and now simply agrees with you?

And since I never served under DADT, I can rest assured that I am able to choose my friends because they choose to tell the truth, not because they are manipulating some legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[scoutpilot]

I don't quite understand the significance of the question, since no possible answer would cause me to run the risk of being booted out of the military.

That's not the argument you made. You argued that not telling people everything about you was deception by omission.

 

[Christcorp]

And since I never served under DADT, I can rest assured that I am able to choose my friends because they choose to tell the truth, not because they are manipulating some legal mumbo jumbo.

This is where you're incorrect. Since you and I didn't serve under the DADT, (Well, actually, I did for a couple years, "I retired when Clinton was in office"); that means we were allowed to directly ask someone if they were gay. Which means in your time, your fellow cadets/officers/enlisted weren't manipulating legal mumbo jumbo, they were FLAT OUT LYING to you if they were gay. Or, if they admitted being gay to you, then you were derelict in your duties for not exposing them and having them kicked out.

The reason I am dogging this cadet, is because she didn't simply say: "Hmmm, I tried really hard to make it at the academy. I just can't do it as a homosexual. I need to leave and go to a civilian school"

What she basically is saying is:
"I knew before applying to the academy that being openly gay is not allowed. I think I can live the military life without expressing my sexual preference. If I can't, no big deal, I just leave..... Time has gone by, and I can't handle being in the military and not being able to express my sexual preference. I know the existing policy is under review, but it's not going fast enough for me. But, before I decide to leave the academy, let's see if I can get accepted to another school first. I don't want to leave the academy if I can't get accepted immediately into another school. Oh snap! Being I'm gay, I can use that to get into Yale. Cool. Let's see if they'll accept me. Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock. Getting close to commitment day. Hope I find out soon about Yale.... Cool, they accepted me. Now I can tell the academy that I quit. Hmmm; I could just leave and say it isn't for me. But that would make me appear as a "QUITTER". But if I say it's because of their DADT policy causing me mental anguish, by not allowing me to be "TRUE TO MYSELF", then they can all see that "I AM A VICTIM". Then, it doesn't look like I QUIT. And, I can contact the media and give a statement when the time is right. Of course, I can also tell them that if they change the DADT policy in the next 6 months, that I'd eagerly re-apply. "But I know they can NEVER do such a thing so quickly, so that is a safe comment to make that I can't be held to". OK, time to tell the academy that I quit. "oops, I means feel alienated and can't handle the stress being put on me for lying to myself".

This is the problem I have with her. Not that she's gay. Not that she's leaving. But because she couldn't handle an "EXISTING" policy, that she knew of in ADVANCE, and she wants to be seen as "A VICTIM" instead of someone who simply "Couldn't Handle the existing policies". No different than the academy stating and enforcing a weight standard. I.e. At 5'10" your max weight is 187 lbs. And a cadet tries for 2 years, but keeps getting close to that 185-187 lb mark. But instead of saying that can't live by these standards; and either fighting to get them changed or simply leaving; they feel they are "The Victim" because the military is singling them out for being "Heavier" than other people. Sorry, but I have a MAJOR PROBLEM with Political Correctness; the Race Card; the Victim Card; and other "EXCUSE" used for non-conformity or as a reason for non-success. This "person" didn't like the existing policy. Because another opportunity came up, she decided to use this policy as a reason to feel victimized and leave the academy. I would bet my next pay check, that if she had NOT been accepted to Yale, that this story never would have come about, because she would never have decided to leave the academy. She'd still be in classes next week, next month, and probably next year. That is the problem I have with her. She's an "OPPORTUNIST".

 

[Mongo]

Okay, those who have never been there will never understand but your SA company classmates become your family. You live with them 24/7. You go through Plebe summer and then Plebe Year with them. You share everything. You tell them anything and everything. They know more about you then even your own mom knows. For the rest of your life you will know more about many of them than you do about your wife(wives). Nothing is sacred. You trust them implicitly, They trust you totally. You even go to war with them. A situation unlike anywhere else in the world. If there is a gay in the group, you know it. Everyone knows it. It will come up. If nothing else, by innuendos. Does the gay deny it, ignore it, or admit it? If the only way you can justify it is with some lame interpretation of what the honor code actually states instead of what it is truly meant to instill, something is wrong.

I think that she thought she could handle it and didn't realize she was a pioneer and trendsetter, that she could not truly hide it. In the military, it is only at a SA that one can get the boot simply for lying. She is very sharp. Gave it her all. Ninth in her class. I think she realized the true dichotomy in honor and DADT. She was given an impossible task. She tried as long as the law would allow. She could only fail. She has a right to feel upset.

Scout, quick question. You look across the room at your Cow roommate and ask him, clearly in violation of DADT, if he is gay. He says “No”. Later, someone discovers his Facebook alter ego (we are doing some time travel here) and it is obvious that he is, in fact, gay. Did he commit an honor offense?

 

[Christcorp]

Mongo, you are definitely "stretching" to justify. The fact is, you don't know EVERYTHING about your cadet mates. You might think you do, but you don't. Also, MANY gays have served honorably in our military in the past. Some of them went through the academy. Most likely, none of them violated the honor code. Yet, prior to DADT, it was even more difficult to be gay in the academies or in the military. Basically, the question could be officially asked at any time. With DADT; while the policy is definitely lacking; officially speaking of being gay is off limits. And while I know that unofficially, such topics are spoken of all the time, the fact remains that it's easier under DADT to attend the academy and serve in the military, than it was prior. And I'm sure that there were a lot of things about your classmates that you didn't know. Including the possibility of one of them being gay. So while your intentions are well meaning, they are euphoric. That isn't real. You DON'T tell them ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. That is simply not human nature. And while I am very familiar with the family, team, and closeness of the military; (Yes, there are things I know about my fellow military brothers and sisters, and them I, that my/their spouses/parents don't know); that doesn't mean that I/they know EVERYTHING.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Mongo, what's your name, rank and duty station?

Certainly that's not classified.

Any answer Mongo? Surely you're honorable. Can't imagine why you would hide that information....

 

[LineInTheSand]

Scout, quick question. You look across the room at your Cow roommate and ask him, clearly in violation of DADT, if he is gay. He says “No”. Later, someone discovers his Facebook alter ego (we are doing some time travel here) and it is obvious that he is, in fact, gay. Did he commit an honor offense?

So the "Don't Ask" part of the law still escapes you, eh?

 

[Mongo]

Mongo, you are definitely "stretching" to justify. The fact is, you don't know EVERYTHING about your cadet mates. You might think you do, but you don't. Also, MANY gays have served honorably in our military in the past. Some of them went through the academy. Most likely, none of them violated the honor code. Yet, prior to DADT, it was even more difficult to be gay in the academies or in the military. Basically, the question could be officially asked at any time. With DADT; while the policy is definitely lacking; officially speaking of being gay is off limits. And while I know that unofficially, such topics are spoken of all the time, the fact remains that it's easier under DADT to attend the academy and serve in the military, than it was prior. And I'm sure that there were a lot of things about your classmates that you didn't know. Including the possibility of one of them being gay. So while your intentions are well meaning, they are euphoric. That isn't real. You DON'T tell them ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. That is simply not human nature. And while I am very familiar with the family, team, and closeness of the military; (Yes, there are things I know about my fellow military brothers and sisters, and them I, that my/their spouses/parents don't know); that doesn't mean that I/they know EVERYTHING.

Not stretching at all. A very close enviironment where, over four years, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain ones privacy combined with an environment where one is increasingly imbued with the ideals of loyalty and honor. At some point it is not hard to reralize that for some the dichotomy might become intenable, no matter what the naive intent when they entered the 'contract'. This was my primary issue in re DADT the first day it was ever discussed.

Who does the gay cadet take to the ring dance? Thirty six classmates in the company. Thirty six offers of brothers, sisters, friends of girl friend, friends of boy friend, thirty six "not my types"? How many before the response becomes totally unblelievable?

 

[Luigi59]

Also, MANY gays have served honorably in our military in the past. Some of them went through the academy. Most likely, none of them violated the honor code.

And many more are doing it right now - serving with honor and distinction.

So why do you want them kicked out if they admit to being gay?

Is there something about being gay that would prevent them from serving with honor and distinction?

Obviously the answer is "no" because we have the evidence, you even admit it in your statement above.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Who does the gay cadet take to the ring dance? Thirty six classmates in the company. Thirty six offers of brothers, sisters, friends of girl friend, friends of boy friend, thirty six "not my types"? How many before the response becomes totally unblelievable?

They go "Stag" like many of us straight cadets as well.

 

[AF6872]

And Michael Pollard discussed everything with his Company and Roommates? I don't think so. Forget the psychobabble. Enlisted Barracks, NCO Quarters, Hooches Ships at Sea and Bunkers are the same as Mother B. You all become family for a period of time. Not everything is shared. Some things are private and not discussed. Some are even in violation of the UCMJ.

 

[Christcorp]

And many more are doing it right now - serving with honor and distinction.

So why do you want them kicked out if they admit to being gay?

Is there something about being gay that would prevent them from serving with honor and distinction?

Obviously the answer is "no" because we have the evidence, you even admit it in your statement above.

Luigi; you are discussing now a TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC. You might think it is related, but it isn't. We're not talking about whether the DADT policy is good, bad, outdated, archaic, etc... Matter of fact, I think you'll find the vast majority of individuals discussing this topic at one time or another thinks it's a bad policy. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. The policy is in place, whether we like it or not. There are a LOT OF POLICIES in place that many probably think are bad. It wasn't too long ago that there were many laws/policies on the books in the military and civilian world. e.g. can't have sex with anyone other than your legal spouse. And in time, these laws/policies have been rescinded. But there is a policy in place, DADT, and until rescinded, it stands. In your argument, you are basically saying that a cadet or military member can disregard any policy that they don't think is right, and nothing should happen to them Doesn't matter what the policy is.

Well that isn't the military. You know basically the rules when you come in. And the DADT basically says: "We won't ask your sexual preference, and you aren't required to tell us your sexual preference". However, the policy is also in place that if through your actions or own admittance, you proclaim a homosexual preference, then that is incompatible with military conduct, and grounds for dismissal. Will this policy get changed? Most likely yes. I personally hope so. But until then, it's a policy that needs to be followed. Just like all military policies.

As for this West Point cadet, she proclaimed that she no longer wanted to be at West Point and didn't want to serve in the military. She openly stated that the reason was because she is a homosexual and with the current policy, didn't feel she could live this lifestyle. Even though, I know of hundreds of military members in my 21 years of service, that not ONCE did they tell me: "I like Girls" or "I like Boys". I'm speaking of many individuals that I never saw dating someone romantically. Am I just to assume that they are straight or they are gay? Point is, straight or gay, under current policy, sexual preference is not a public topic. That's your own business. She however, made it public.

And that's what the argument is all about. She could have simply left West Point. She isn't even required to say why. She could have left quietly and proclaimed her reasons after she left. But she chose to pursue the notoriety and publicity. What makes her case even less respectful, is she obviously new quite a while ago, that she preferred to leave West Point. If she hadn't, she wouldn't have applied to Yale or sought scholarships. It quite obvious that she decided to take the actions she did, because she was accepted. If she truly didn't feel she could live by the military rules and policies, she could have quit in May, after 4th semester. Or any time in the last 2 years. Instead, she chose to weigh her options. I.e. "I won't complain about the DADT policy if I can't get into another college first". or "Now that I've been accepted to Yale, I can use the DADT policy as the reason I'm leaving, and that I'm a victim, and that it's Not My Fault, and that I really want to stay in but I just can't take it". BULL CRAP!!!!

So don't compare apples to oranges. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual DADT policy. Keep it, get rid of it, alter it, etc... is all for a different debate/discussion. This is about this one individual's actions in being willing to accept such a known policy for 3 years (beginning of the application process), until now; and only now deciding that she doesn't want to accept it any longer, because "Something Better" has come along. Many here might think that I am totally speculating this person's motives, feelings, etc... Well you are too. You're assuming that she gave it 110%, that she truly wants to become a career officer, that she did everything possible to conform to academy/military life. Well, based on the article, her actions with her Yale application, he application for a gay scholarship, and her response to the media; I believe that my assessment has a better chance of being accurate than the one those giving her the benefit of the doubt are bestowing upon her.