Mixing Up Messages on Tolerable Forms of Intolerance

It’s been a mixed week for the short-haircut crowd. One worries that the conflicting events will confuse youngsters who look to adults for behavioral clues.

On the local scene, some skinheads got busted for threatening to act out their hatred of minority groups, particularly blacks and Jews. The skinheads got the message from the federal government--in the guise of the Justice Department--that such intolerance is intolerable.

On the national scene, however, the military didn’t get busted for espousing its dislike of a minority group--in this case, homosexual men and women. This time under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs and various legislators, the same federal government that cracked the skinheads let the military continue treating gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

On paper, the new military policy represents a step forward for gays. But, make no mistake, a gay person still knows his or her place in the military. To wit, a gay person still can be discharged for acknowledging his or her homosexuality. No matter how you slice it, the policy still says to them: You’re not only different from the rest of us; you’re not as good as the rest of us.

Maybe I’m missing a distinction between that and your basic skinhead credo.

I would shut up on this issue if someone could make an axiomatic statement that gays and the military don’t mix, such as the equivalent of: Blind people would make bad soldiers. But an axiomatic statement can’t be made, because many people who have served in the military have already said the presence of known gays in military units has made no difference at all.

To press the point, when political figures as polar as George McGovern and Barry Goldwater (both World War II veterans) agree that there should be no ban, you’re left to conclude that the reason for treating gays differently is purely arbitrary.

What we’re left with is that morale and, therefore, the effectiveness of the unit would be undermined because straights would feel uncomfortable around gays. But even that statement has to be amended to say some straights would feel uncomfortable around gays. But beyond that, what does it mean that some straights would feel uncomfortable? Does that mean they couldn’t do their jobs? Does it mean they would lose concentration at critical moments as they worried about their bunkmate? Does it mean that the military would be gutted of potential recruits?

Or, does it mean what I think it means, which is that some people would feel uncomfortable? Period. As if feeling uncomfortable in the military would be a new experience or is grounds for depriving someone else of their basic human rights.

However the military argument is framed, it eventually circles back to a single point: gays are second-class citizens. Their opportunities for self-fulfillment are deemed less important than everyone else’s.

If the heterosexual soldier is uncomfortable showering next to a gay man, it is the gay soldier who must go. If the heterosexual soldier can’t maintain the esprit de corps because a gay soldier is in his unit, it is the gay soldier’s fault.

Or, let’s put it this way: When it’s a dismissible charge to say you’re gay but not a dismissible charge to vilify a gay, there’s no misinterpreting the message that sends about one’s personal ranking.

You may conclude that I’m upset with the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. I’m not, because reducing this issue to a four-word catch phrase strikes me as so pathetic that it doesn’t lend itself to outrage.

We shouldn’t be surprised that such a policy is widely acceptable. After all, what is it if not classic denial? Don’t ask me if I’m gay, and I won’t tell you. (I suppose if a gay soldier were to save a buddy’s life, he might want to pass on the information to him, just to see his reaction.) Then again, maybe he wouldn’t, because the admission could constitute grounds for discharge.

The main reason I’m not really outraged is that it seems pointless to fault the military. Its decorated generals and platoon sergeants and grunts are merely products of their society, a society that wishes that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” were the standard operating procedure in civilian life.

It’s a society that still doesn’t care to see why that’s so dehumanizing to a group of people who basically just want to live their lives. It’s the logical outgrowth of bestowing second-class citizenship on people.

You can say one thing for the skinheads: They’re not confused about where they stand. They dislike and mistrust people who aren’t like them and are damn proud of it.

As for the country at large, all it can say to its children is:

“We don’t believe in discrimination . . . “

“Yes, we do . . . “

“No, we don’t . . . “

“Yes, we do . . . “

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.