I would disagree; just because you happen to be part of a crowd does not mean you are no longer responsible for your own actions.

Deibler asserts that being part of a crowd absolves you of a need to think for yourself and allows you to “turn off your brain for a while and just be excited about something.” This type of thinking is not only incorrect but also dangerous. Although being part of a crowd, especially such an enthusiastic one like those at national political debates, is certainly exciting, it does not give you free reign to disrespect others or do whatever “the crowd” is doing.

Every human being has a responsibility for his or her own actions and the consequences of those actions. Excusing people from their actions solely because they are part of a crowd, as Deibler does in his article, is ridiculous.

Sure, people may be less inhibited to shout mean or cruel things while part of a crowd, but that does not mean they don’t hold, at least to some significant degree, those views. You can even take this idea a step further: Let’s assume that Deibler’s argument is correct insofar as the people who shouted disrespectful things at the recent Republican debates do not hold the views that were espoused. They still cheered for Rick Perry’s unabashed defense of the death penalty and the killing of potentially innocent people. They still booed a member of the armed forces for his sexual orientation. That is not okay. Even if there wasn’t spiteful or misguided intent behind their words, the crowd members still uttered them.

If Americans feel it is acceptable to openly shout down those whose views do not match up with their own, then we have a serious problem. When politicians, on both sides of the aisle, sit idly by while their constituents and supporters show absolutely zero respect for those they disagree with, there is something fundamentally wrong with this country and our electoral process. If we no longer respect those with whom we disagree, then there can no longer be any sort of debate or discussion about the future of our country.

When we can boo someone at a political debate solely because of his or her sexual orientation, it shows that it no longer matters what that person has to say; it only matters that they believe in something we don’t.

This fundamentally changes the nature of the debate itself. It is no longer a discussion about what is best for America; it is a battle of you versus me. We, as the American people, cannot let this happen. Democracy works in this country because everyone understands that above all of the partisan bickering, we are still all Americans. We all love this country and what it stands for. When the conversation is no longer about improving our country, something has gone terribly wrong.

We as a people need to consciously decide to not to get caught up in the crowd. As students here at Washington University, we need to think critically about our actions. We cannot let ourselves or the politicians we choose to support get away with this sort of fear-mongering and hate-spreading any longer. We need to stop fear and ignorance from capitalizing on the debate and reclaim the discussion about the future of this country.

Becky Zhao | Student Life

This whole debacle only serves to reinforce my cynicism toward democracy and politics in general. I’m far from an anarchist, and at this point, no other system of government piques my fancy (apologies to Kim Jong-Il and Thomas Hobbes). However, my immediate reaction to this story was a face palm worthy of Jean-Luc Picard. I have to check with a doctor, but I have a sinking feeling my hand is slowly fusing with my head.

Despite the enormous outpouring of lip service to individual rights and equality in this country, it would appear that these words have fairly narrow definitions. Based on observation of American society, the definition of a “right” encompasses such inviolable freedoms as owning guns, referring to President Obama as a Muslim on TV and gorging oneself on hamburgers. I’m being snide and ungenerous, of course, especially towards the demographic that typically encompasses Tea Partiers. I also have the right to vote, practice any religion and freely criticize politicians. At any rate, it’s not as though Democrats are anywhere near perfect either; after all, the Justice Department’s decision is enfolding under a Democratic administration.

Being born an American is one of the best arbitrary circumstances in which I have found myself in terms of political liberty and economic opportunity. However, I’m consistently amazed that a supposedly civilized country that attaches so much rhetorical importance to concepts of equality and liberty falls so short on actually delivering on its promises. Forcing gay soldiers to hide their sexuality labels them as inferior and discriminates against them. It’s that simple.

I’m also perplexed as to why integrating openly gay military personnel would be an issue needing “further study.” Homosexuality is not some sort of overriding trait precluding normal interaction with straight people of the same sex. Americans’ Puritan heritage, with its outdated sexual mores and predilection for burning witches, should be confined to third-grade Thanksgiving plays, not to shaping government policy. Why the army would reject perfectly fit personnel, willing to fight and die for their country, on such an illogical basis as sexuality is beyond me. I’m impressed that gay individuals are still willing to serve in a system that tacitly regards them as second-class citizens.

Technically, of course, gay men and women can still serve, albeit covertly. Does anyone really believe that if “don’t ask, don’t tell” were repealed, soldiers would start proselytizing for homosexuality or flagrantly hitting on their fellow soldiers? It’s not as though everyone in the military would have to start listening to Lady Gaga and worrying about whether that their uniforms clashed with their eye color. Nothing would change, except the elevation of gay soldiers to the same level of respect as their straight counterparts.

It would be erroneous to suggest that everyone who supports this cautious attitude towards repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” is homophobic. This is a touchy subject. It would inevitably cause some discomfort; it might even cost a few politicians a re-election. The racial integration of the military worked out just fine. Honestly, the military has more important things to worry about (dangers overseas, maybe?) than its personnel’s sexual preferences.

The U.S. Army’s position on gay and lesbian soldiers serving active duty is a policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell”—which for more than 17 years has casually swept the rights of members of the LGBT community under the carpet in the name of “unit cohesion” and a “warrior culture.” This policy is not only offensive to Americans (whether gay or not), but it is also unnecessary. Multiple examples prove that “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) should be repealed.

First, members of the upper echelon of the U.S. military support repealing the policy. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to Congress that “no matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have…a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” Ultimately, Mullen said, “it comes down to integrity—theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Mullen’s testimony taps into the most basic (and, as Heller would note, paradoxical) problem with DADT. Gay and lesbian men and women must suppress their personal freedom to fight for the larger freedom of the American public. And, to make it worse, their suppression of personal autonomy does not help the military in any way. As a matter of fact, an article published by Mullen’s office indicates that “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals openly serve.”

Further, not only does scientific evidence favor repealing DADT, the majority of active members in the military also support efforts to allow gays to openly serve. According to a 2006 Zogby survey, 73 percent of military personal said they would be comfortable serving with openly gay or lesbian troops.

Finally, it is worth pointing out the ideological reasons Congress should repeal DADT. Even if Mullen’s statement that scientific evidence does not prove that unit cohesion would be affected was false, and even if the Zogby poll were not true, DADT should still be repealed. Simply put: It is not in alignment with the Constitution or, for that matter, in alignment with the past 150 years of social progress in America. From the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, America’s arc of social justice has bent toward freedom of individuality and expression. Whether it be the integration of troops during World War II or the slew of civil rights acts of the 1960s, America has continually granted rights to those who were at one point disaffected by the law. Repealing DADT to allow openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve is just the next logical step in America’s trajectory toward a freer and more accepting culture.

I understand that a policy shift to allow all Americans—regardless of sexual orientation—to serve in the military would face opposition. But so has every other massive piece of social legislation that has been enacted in the past. As a result, Americans should pressure President Obama to fulfill his campaign promise to help repeal DADT. Americans should also applaud the efforts of senators like Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who recently proposed the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would make it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation.

While Heller’s novel left readers with a sour and hopeless taste in their mouths, I don’t think Americans should view the debate surrounding “don’t ask, don’t tell” with the same nihilistic outlook. As a matter of fact, repealing DADT would be the ultimate sign of American patriotism and prosperity. It would be a symbol that America believes so deeply in its core beliefs—freedom for all, regardless of creed, race, sex or sexual orientation—and it would, literally, push those beliefs to the forefront of American interaction with the rest of the world.

Luke is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at luke.schiel@wustl.edu.

This legal discrimination did not end because of some benevolent act of Congress. Blacks fought for their civil rights with protests, marches and boycotts all over America, many of which resulted in imprisonment, injury and, in some cases, death. They did not struggle for their rights alone: Many whites fought in the civil rights movement. Prominent white leaders fought the injustice side by side with blacks. In the march on Selma in 1965, John Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr. and others joined arms with white leaders like Abraham Joshua Heschel and Maurice Davis to protest the injustices faced in the area at the time. White college students fueled the Freedom Summer of 1964, which aimed to register as many blacks as possible in Mississippi, a state that had only 6.7 percent of eligible blacks registered in 1964. This white dedication to civil rights went beyond marching and organizing.

During the Freedom Summer, the Klu Klux Klan murdered three people working to register blacks: James Chaney, a 21-year-old black civil rights worker; Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old white social worker; and Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old white college student.

Even with the threat of violence, whites continued to fight for civil rights. These whites would not directly benefit from the successes of the civil rights movement. They had the right to vote and access to public facilities, yet they chose to protest, boycott and suffer with blacks because they believed what was occurring was wrong. They believed people should not be discriminated against because of who they are. They believed, as King wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

King’s declaration rings true today just as much as when he wrote it in a Birmingham jail cell in 1963. Many of the same injustices the black civil rights movement fought still are applied to members of the gay community. In 32 states, landlords can legally evict tenants because of their sexual orientation, just as landlords could deny housing to blacks based on their race. In 29 states, it is legal for a company to fire an employee based on sexual orientation. This legal right to fire based on sexual orientation is exercised constantly by many employers, including the U.S. military, which has discharged more than 13,000 service members because of their sexual orientation. These brave and loyal American men and women want to defend their country. They were deemed fit to serve and did so, many in occupations the military defined as “critical,” until their sexual preference became known.

This injustice towards gay Americans affects more than just housing and employment. By forbidding committed homosexual couples the same rights as committed heterosexual couples, the government refuses homosexual couples more than 1,100 statutory provisions it grants to heterosexual couples. This includes denying partners the right to visit their loved one in the hospital, refusing American citizens in binational relationships the right to petition for their same-sex partner’s immigration, and forcing estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner. It is just to amend the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples just as it was just to amend the definition of marriage in 16 states in 1967, when anti-miscegenation laws forbidding interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional.

Heterosexuals must stand up with our homosexual peers to demand the righting of the wrongs the government allows, endorses and participates in. We must demand gay equality under the law by signing petitions like the one being circulated by the Right Side of History at therightsideofhistory.org. We must walk arm in arm with the gay community as we fight for the rights these individuals want, need and deserve. Heterosexuals must fight for homosexual rights because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Senior David Dresner, co-founder of the “Right Side of History.” (Sam Guzik | Student Life)

Pat Carr | MCT Campus

Several weeks ago, senior David Dresner approached a military recruitment table at a University career fair, announced that he was gay and asked for an application. He was promptly denied.

The moment was not an extraordinary one.

Campus career fairs contradict the University’s non-discrimination policy by allowing the United States military, which will not enlist openly gay men and women, to recruit on campus. The University career fairs generally host employers that have non-discriminatory hiring policies akin to those of the University’s.

But because the University receives federal funding, it is required by law to allow military recruiters on campus, even though the military’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bars openly gay people from enlisting in the armed forces.

Law students are already aware of the University’s conflicting obligation to allow recruiters on campus, as they are notified by letter every time military representatives attend a law school career fair. Now, thanks to the “Right Side of History” LGBT rights campaign, undergraduate students will soon be receiving similar notifications.

Dresner, co-founder of the “Right Side of History,” is spearheading a movement to bring similar notification letters to all undergraduate students. The “Right Side of History” seeks equality for the LGBT community by engaging straight youth. Dresner recently met with representatives from the Olin Business School, who agreed to send out the letters to business students.

“[They] were incredibly supportive, enthusiastic and gave me ways to move forward,” Dresner, an Olin student, said of the business school representatives.

Mark Brostoff, dean and director of the business school’s Weston Career Center, says he believes the letters will make clear that the University does not support the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Brostoff, an openly gay man, served in the U.S. navy from 1982-2002, before and after congress implemented “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Since he left the military, Brostoff has been nationally recognized for his work with LGBT career development.

“[The letters are] an acknowledgment that military recruiting on campus is not aligned with our school’s non-discrimination policies and that we recognize this as a matter of law that we do not condone,” Brostoff wrote in an e-mail to Student Life.

Senior Michael Freedman, a member of the “Right Side of History” campaign, says he thinks notification letters will help raise awareness on campus about society’s discrimination against gays and lesbians.

“I think [a letter] sends the message that discrimination is something real and is still happening now,” Freedman said. “I think oftentimes we mistakenly think of discrimination as a thing of the past. Hopefully, the letter will cause some straight students who maybe haven’t thought about the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy or discrimination against LGBT people to think,” Freedman said.

History: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and military recruiters on campus

News of the notification letters comes just days after President Obama announced that he is committed to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Obama’s pledge, made at a benefit on Saturday for the LGBT rights group Human Rights Campaign (HRC), comes more than 15 years after the military’s policy went into effect.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted under the Clinton administration in 1993. In response, many schools refused to allow military recruiters on their campuses. Congress, in turn, responded with the Solomon Amendment, a 1995 law that permits Congress to cut federal funding from any university that does not allow military recruiters.

“[The Solomon Amendment] was this poison pill that schools were forced to swallow,” said Davin Rosborough, former president of OUTLaw, the law school’s LGBT activist group.

Following the Solomon Amendment, law schools across the country started sending notification letters to their students.

Rosborough says he understands the University is abiding by the Solomon Amendment but emphasizes that the University is not obliged to follow it.

“I think many of us understand the choice that the University made but we should remember it’s still a choice, although the University’s hand was forced,” Rosborough said.

Drafting the letter

Freedman is currently working with the deans of the business school to draft this letter. Set to be sent out before the next business school career fair, the final letter must be approved by Dean of the business school Mahendra Gupta.

The Right Side of History is currently working with Mark Smith, director of the Washington University Career Center, the National Society of Black Engineers and deans from each of the University’s individual schools to get other career fairs on campus to issue similar letters. .

Senior David Dresner doesn’t want his children to have parents who are second-class citizens.

Over the next two years, Dresner hopes to jump-start a national movement by applying new strategies to gain equal rights for the LGBT community.

Dresner’s journey as a gay rights activist started just seven weeks ago when he was approached by Brian Elliot—the older brother of 2008 Washington University alum Marc Elliot—to join him in a project called “The Right Side of History.”

Senior David Dresner works with sophomore Michael Weiss in his mission, entitled “The Right Side of History,” which strives to launch the gay rights movement into the mainstream and eventually to pass legislation guaranteeing the LGBT community equal status. (Sam Guzik | Student Life)

Dresner and Elliot—both openly gay men—hope that The Right Side of History will reshape the status quo of the LGBT movement by using straight youth to garner mainstream interest and propel the movement into the national political sphere.

Equal rights in 26 months

The Right Side of History’s 26-month goal is to pass legislation akin to the 1964 Civil Rights Act that would ultimately afford the LGBT community equal rights in the United States.

The idea to engage straight people in the struggle for gay rights came to Elliot after he read a Columbia University study conducted in every state. The study showed that at least 75 percent of each state supported equal legal rights—a figure much larger than Elliot had anticipated.

Despite this widespread support, however, 29 states do not have laws on record prohibiting employers from terminating employment based on sexual orientation. Additionally, 13,000 people have been discharged from the military in violation of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” for admitting their homosexuality.

“The second takeaway of the study was [that] the young folks overwhelmingly support the most controversial issues,” Elliot said. “Young people were the vanguards of the civil rights movement. This is their generation’s turn to hold our country to its own ideals. It’s not fine for laws to treat people differently.”

Straight support

Dresner said it mathematically makes sense to place a large emphasis on targeting straight people since straight people make up between 90 and 95 percent of the population.

“My efforts right now really need to be focused on the larger 95 percent of the people, and if I’m going to really demonstrate and get the show of force that I’m looking for, I need to go for the harder demographic first,” Dresner said.

Dresner said he believed that gays in the United States would achieve equal rights within 30 years time. But when Elliot said he could fast-forward these results to the year 2011, Dresner knew he wanted to take part in this movement.

Facing Congress

Every year since 1994, Congress has attempted to prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual identity and orientation as well as disability through the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. That bill has consistently failed to garner enough support to pass both houses of Congress.

Senior David Dresner (second from left) leads a meeting of students involved with nascent organization fighting for gay rights; the movement, known as The Right Side of History, hopes to see sweeping gay rights legislation passed nationally in the next two years. Also pictured are, from left to right, are sophomore Jeremy Cramer Gibbs, sophomore Michael Weiss, junior David Klein, junior David Dobbs and Gregory Hogan, regional director of the Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity. (Sam Guzik | Student Life)

If passed in its entirety, the proposed bill, The Civil Rights Act of 2011 with Religious Exemptions, would be more expansive than the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The 2011 Civil Rights Act would prohibit job discrimination and afford LGBT Americans the same federal rights of citizenship that are afforded to heterosexual Americans.

The ‘Theory of Change’

Elliot and Dresner hope to tackle this ambitious goal by following the “Theory of Change”—a model developed by the movement that aims to empower youth and engage millions to make change and demand equality.

By doing so, Elliot and followers of the movement hope to pervade American culture and make the issue of gay rights a prominent one–one on the minds of national legislators.

“We’re hoping to engage millions of youth across the country,” Dresner said. “We’re trying to charge straight youth in an autonomous action.”

Powerful support

A professional group, dubbed “Creative Geniuses,” has been formed for The Right Side of History in New York and Washington, D.C. A leading executives from consulting firms are already on board and they said they have spoken with several strategists responsible for the Obama campaign’s success.

Dresner and Elliot are currently seeking to expand the group.

A band of brothers

Dresner is launching the campaign at Wash. U., and he found his first supporters in his fraternity house—Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp). His brothers have provided assistance to the movement at the University.

“At SigEp, there are a lot of people who want to get involved and help out,” said junior Lionel Johnnes, a member of SigEp. “The challenge will be branching out and stepping outside of the Wash. U. bubble and spreading to the majority of the population.”

While the support has already spread beyond SigEp on campus, Dresner said he hopes to use the fraternity as a platform from which to reach other college campuses.

With more than 13,000 current members, Sig. Ep. is the largest fraternity in the nation in terms of current members, and Dresner has plans to visit SigEp chapters through the country to garner support.

A group of approximately 25 Wash. U. students has been meeting each Saturday to discuss strategies for spreading the group’s message and expanding the movement.

The right approach?

Although Dresner said he has received overwhelming support for his campaign on campus, The Right Side of History’s tactic to primarily engage straight people represents a controversial stance within the gay rights movement.

In the past, the gay rights movement has traditionally been led by members of the LGBT community.

Junior Ayla Karamustafa, an advocate for LGBTQIA rights, said that while she respects Dresner and his team, she believes the movement disregards the history of the LGBT movement and excludes many people who have devoted their entire lives to the cause.

“Our movement centers on gaining rights for individuals of various sexual orientations and gender identities of all racial backgrounds; to take away those identities or to refuse—at the very least—to acknowledge them renders the entire thing senseless,” Karamustafa said.

Senior Laura Lane-Steele, president of Pride Alliance, said her group agrees with the intention and goals of the Right Side of History but will be working toward the goal of equality in different ways.

“Obviously everyone on Pride is going to have a different opinion on this movement and the issues surrounding it,” Lane-Steele said. “Pride and the Right Side of History have different strategies in achieving goals for LGBT people.”

The ultimate goal

Dresner said he expects challenges along the way but will continue to garner support until he gets the American youth on the right side of history.

“I think a lot of people at Wash. U. care about this issue,” Dresner said. “People can’t believe these types of inequities exist in this country. Wash. U. can be the start of a civil rights movement.”

With additional reporting by Kate Gaertner