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 Multiple examples prove that “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) should be repealed.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prove that unit cohesion would be affected was false, and even if the Zogby poll were not true, DADT should still be repealed.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.

“Open” is a small discussion group focused on helping LGBT students go through the process of coming out to their friends and family. Open, which began this fall, is led by Kline and Bailey Brenton, both of whom are undergraduate students. Open is also assisted by Katie Garcia, graduate social work advisor.

“First and foremost, it’s a safe space for people to go and speak openly and honestly,” said Kline, a sophomore. “We want to encourage people to move forward with their lives, to move through the coming out process to the extent to which they feel comfortable. But by no means would we tell anybody to come out to people if they don’t feel comfortable or if they feel like they’re in some kind of danger.”

Inspiration for the group came after Kline attended a Safe Zones meeting last fall centered on sharing coming out experiences. Safe Zones is an LGBT peer-educating group on campus. Kline, who came out in high school, said the meeting made him feel welcome. He realized the experience might be even more helpful for those who had yet to come out.

“I started bringing it up at Pride meetings because I’m on Pride Exec,” he explained. “People thought it was a good idea, but no one seemed willing to take the reins. So toward the end of last year, I was realizing that if it was going to happen, I had to be the one to start it.”

Kline approached Brenton to co-lead the group, and together they approached Michael Brown, former program director for LGBT student leadership and involvement. Brown directed the two to ASQ, a flexible 10-week, 10-step group training program on which Open is now loosely based.

Open is not the first organization formed to support students coming out on campus. But past groups, mostly from Mental Health and Student Health Services, have fallen flat, according to Garcia.

“I think students kind of know what they need and it wasn’t quite that,” she said.

Both Garcia and Kline said they see the fledgling group, which has now had three meetings, as distinct from any other services provided on campus. Pride Alliance focuses on fostering an extended LGBT community—planning social events, sponsoring health-related events and political activism—but in Kline’s view it “didn’t have the capacity or it wasn’t making the capacity to facilitate small group discussions.”

“Plus,” he added, “I felt like somebody who is not comfortable about coming out at all might not feel comfortable going to an organization called ‘Pride.’”

While Open brings students who are “out” to their friends and family together with students who have never told anybody about their sexuality, the leaders of the group emphasized that coming out is a process for all.

“It’s not something that happens in a mass e-mail,” Kline said. “No matter where you go, if you choose to be out you will have to continue coming out in some capacity. Even if it is a smooth transition to college—it was for me; this is a pretty accepting school. But it still happens again, and it’s still something you have to do again and continuing. It doesn’t stop.”

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. .

Whether in the United States or in any country, the purpose of gay pride parades is to raise awareness and money for HIV research, as well as to promote acceptance of homosexual activity across the nation.

As far as fundraisers go, the gay pride parades are great: They make quite a large contribution toward funding extremely important research that aims at finding a cure to a deadly disease.

However, when it comes to promoting acceptance of homosexual activity, all I can see is the exact opposite. The problem with gay pride parades as I (and I think to some extent, Serbia) see it is that they’re too extreme. Since this opens the floor for all sorts of attacks on my character and intent, I’ll make myself clear: I don’t think that gay pride parades should or should not be run a specific way, nor am I trying to attack the gay and lesbian community. Rather, I think that if the community’s goal with the pride parades is to raise awareness and acceptance of non-heterosexual lifestyles, the way gay pride parades are set up is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive.

On the rare opportunity that I get to catch the Chicago gay pride parades, I don’t find myself watching for too long. The amount of blatant, overt and offensive sexuality makes it hard for me to take the gay pride parade as anything other than attention seeking (and perhaps rightfully so, since at heart, the parades do provide plenty of charity money). However, it’s hard to have a calm, rational discourse that clearly explicates the position of your interest group when the members involved look like they came straight out of a porno.

While everyone does have a right to their own lifestyle choices, if the goal of the gay and lesbian community is to gain acceptance within mainstream culture, it’s a terrible idea to shock and offend those very same people you wish to persuade to support you. If anything, all the shock factor serves to do is reinforce the negative and false stereotype that gays and lesbians are wild, immoral sex fiends.

Instead, I think this would be a better approach: Have a parade with completely gay and lesbian people, dressed as they would dress to go about their daily lives, and put an emphasis on their work and home life, their interests, their hobbies.

The best way to remove the social stigma of homosexuality is to show people that gays and lesbians are real people, with texture and substance—not mere caricatures of weird, abnormal freaks. Of course, this doesn’t only extend to the parades themselves: This message should be carried by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Gays and lesbians are people too and fairly well adjusted people at that.

Of course, all of this could just be seen as enforcing heteronormativity and marginalizing the voices of minority subcultures. Perhaps this is just an “Uncle Tom” approach to appease those who seek to oppress the gay and lesbian communities. These points are valid, but ultimately there will be no gay pride parade in Serbia. My emphasis is on the goal: If homosexuals are okay with being unfairly stigmatized for their behavior, they should express their individuality and solidarity as social groups in any way, shape or form. However, I’m sure that at least some people are sick of being treated unfairly and simply want to be treated normally. If that’s the case, the closed-minded, ignorant population isn’t going to change all by itself—it has to come from within the community itself. Consider this an outsider’s view.

In the same week that I read the recent Student Life article about the Right Side of History, a new movement beginning at Wash. U. designed to engage straight youth in the struggle for gay rights, I also read a post on The New Republic’s Web site called “The Worst Argument You’ve Ever Read For Banning Openly Gay People From the Military.” The post was a critique of a recent Weekly Standard article written by James Bowman that argued, with no apparent sign of jest, that gay men and women should be excluded from military service because homosexuality contradicts traditional notions of masculinity.

Lest you think I am oversimplifying the argument, here is a direct quote from the article explaining its thesis: “This is not, of course, to say that homosexuals are weak or cowardly—only that the reputation of manliness, which we know to be an important component of military honor, is in practice incompatible with the imputation either of homosexuality or of weakness and cowardice.”

It was the kind of argument I find more appropriate for The Onion than for a leading conservative magazine, and its severe weakness only proves that there are no good arguments left in support of such bigotry and exclusion.

Bowman’s only answer for the obvious rebuttal that his conception of “manliness” (which is hardly an essential part of military service anyway, especially given the brave service of many women in today’s armed forces) is not inherent but rather socially contrived and can thus be challenged is to claim that such a challenge is not worth the minimal national security risk.

The truth, however, is that there is little reason to believe that the presence of openly gay soldiers would negatively affect military performance. In fact, the most compelling recent argument against excluding gays from the military was published last week in an official military journal. As its author, Air Force Col. Om Prakash wrote, “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” As more and more military officials call for repeal, civilians have no legitimate reason to continue supporting our current flawed policy.

The real threat to national security is that our military continues to discharge qualified servicemen and women, whose skills and experience are badly needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, for no other reason than that they are openly gay. We should be thanking these individuals for their brave service and willingness to sacrifice for their country. Instead, we are firing them. Particularly troubling, we have discharged multiple Arab linguists despite the fact that they are critical to our mission in Iraq and are in short supply.

The reality is that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not just a discriminatory policy that is unfair to LGBT individuals; it is a nonsensical policy that has negative consequences for all of us. It is also one of the most compelling of many reasons why the struggle for LGBT civil rights is one that should concern us all.

The Right Side of History has based its strategy on this premise that discrimination of one minority group is harmful to all and should thus be a universal issue. The group has yet to prove itself, and I am anxious to see the results that their efforts will hopefully produce. Meanwhile, however, I am glad to see students at Wash. U. standing up for what is clearly the right side of this debate.

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