LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Randy Shilts : Fighting Against the Rules Restricting Gays in the Military

Walking from the front door to his back yard can be an exhausting experience for author Randy Shilts. The jaunt makes him breathless. But even as he collapses into a lawn chair, Shilts’ thoughts and words seem to spill out at a pace out of sync with his frail form.

Diagnosed as being HIV positive before he plunged into the research for his best-selling book “Conduct Unbecoming: Gays & Lesbians in the U.S. Military,” Shilts seems an unlikely firebrand in the raging debate. But the author, who took it “as an article of faith” that he would live to complete his “Conduct,” then took the results of his research a step farther, appearing on the talk-show circuit and roundly attacking terror tactics used by military investigators to purge homosexuals from the ranks.

Though recognized as a chronicler of gay issues, the 41-year-old journalist’s role has not been without controversy. Within the gay and lesbian community, the onetime founder of the Illinois chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom has been criticized as being too conservative. His earlier best-selling book on the AIDS pandemic, “And the Band Played On,” was attacked in the gay press. His articles on closing gay bathhouses at the outset of the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco were so poorly received that one acquaintance told a reporter that Shilts could not walk within that city’s predominantly gay Castro District without receiving abuse.

Shilts counters that, as a journalist, he’s been obliged to cover both sides of that, and other gay issues. And he has taken steps to make sure his legacy is that of a reporter: He is endowing a journalism scholarship at his alma mater, the University of Oregon.

Though he has no plans to begin another book, Shilts says he will continue writing. He recently married his lover, Barry Barbieri.

*

Question: What do you think about Clinton’s decision on gays in the military?

Answer: It’s sort of like saying: You can be a Catholic. But you can’t tell anyone you’re a Catholic and you certainly can’t practice Catholicism. So, there’s far less in this policy change than meets the eye. Another thought I have is that some will say, “Well, this is just a first step.” But no President is going to want to go near this issue for the next 20 years. So any reform bills will have to go through the courts.

Q: Why?

A: After what we just went through? Politicians are terrified of issues with high emotional content.

Q: What should Clinton have done?

A: Well, I’m not good on that sort of thing. . . . (But) this is a policy-wonk solution. It’s looking at the fine points and ignoring the broader principles.

Q: What made you, three years ago, start a book on gays in the military?

A: (It was) completely a fluke. . . . I started in the summer of ’88 doing the preliminary research. And, of course, my great concern was that nobody would care about this issue . . . . I really didn’t know that they were still putting people in prison for being gay. And that they did it fairly routinely . . . .

It really is a reflection, in a broader sense, of the whole gender conflicts that we’re having within society now. We know that the old ways don’t work, but we don’t really have new ways of dealing with gender differences . . . . I don’t think there is a better case study of homophobia than the military.

Q: Why is that?

A: First of all, everything is written down. It’s the most bureaucratic subculture. If you deal with discrimination by a private employer, you know it very much is claims and counterclaims. Whereas here, it’s mandated discrimination. So that it’s much more black and white. There’s a wonderful paper trail. A lot of the arguments about facts you don’t have to worry about, which in any private situation you almost always do. You can say, “Oh, no, I didn’t really fire him for that reason or something.”

. . . The basic argument all boils down to showers and barracks and bunks--which all basically reflects the social attitude that gay men are all obsessed sexual predators whose sole purpose to get in the military is to glower at people in the showers. And that’s a social attitude not a military attitude . . . .

It is absolutely remarkable that all of the arguments have been focused on men and around sexual harassment. And it’s so interesting, ‘cause it’s like the men are petrified of the idea that they might end up being treated the way they’ve been treating women all these years.

Q: Are their fears unfounded?

A: Yes, on the whole. There’s no evidence at all that gay men are going to be engaged in more sexual harassment than straight men. I think at some point that side of the argument has to present some evidence. Also, saying that you’re going to exclude all gay people because there may be a few who behave inappropriately--it’s like going after a gnat with a cannon. It’s a response that’s totally out of proportion with any problem. There are people who engage in sexual harassment (and) absolutely should be kicked out. Whether they’re gay or straight--that’s wrong.

Q: Why is gays in the military the central issue in the gay community now? Why not some other issue, say same-sex marriages?

A: It’s an issue that you didn’t need Congress for. This is not a law. It’s an administrative (regulation of) the Department of Defense. It’s something that a President could change with the stroke of a pen. I think the gay-activist types perceived it was an easy win--that all you needed was one President in there to change it. Whereas with, say, the federal gay-rights bill, you know you’ve got 535 members of the House and Senate that you have to cope with.

Q: Do you think the gay community is disappointed by Clinton’s inability to push the issue along?

A: I think Clinton was clearly unprepared for this. See, I think Clinton is genuinely not prejudiced against gays. I don’t think he expected a controversy, because people tend to project their own beliefs on other people. And I still think that the gay issue terrifies politicians, ‘cause they see it as a no-win situation, even if they’re morally inclined to be against prejudice. There’s this huge constituency out there--not a majority but certainly a large group of people--who feel so strongly about it, and that always makes politicians nervous. They like doing easy decisions on easy issues.

Q: Will there be any erosion of support for Democrats because of this?

A: The gay issue is going to clearly be a major issue, (and) the Democratic Party is in this bind. You cannot really get past the Democratic nominating process without being for gay rights . . . . The trouble is, then you shift over to a national election and you’re not worried about carrying San Francisco or Los Angeles--but you’re worried about carrying the Deep South, and all of those electoral votes. Then the gay issue can be a detriment.

I think, the Republicans, what their mistake last year was--they got the gay issue mixed up with Murphy Brown and single parents, and all of these other social issues and abortion. And that made people uncomfortable. Whereas if they had just focused on the gay issue, they probably would have done much better.

Q: Why?

A: Because I think there’s a lot more fear and ignorance around homosexuality. It’s much more of a button for people. People pretty much know how they feel about abortion and these other issues. I think Pat Robertson remains the greatest hope for the gay-liberation movement. Because when you get the real extremists like that, even if they only talk about gay rights, that will scare people, because there is so much hatred. When you’ve got some of these people in these conservative Christian groups who publicly espouse the death penalty for gay people. Even people who don’t like gays don’t want to see box cars lined up. . . .

I don’t think people are as malicious as much as just uninformed. If you bring information and replace their fiction with the truth, you can eradicate the fear and the prejudice. See, that’s what’s been so frustrating watching this debate--is that it’s being argued on this level of ignorance. You can tell most of these experts testifying have probably never, in their entire lives, ever talked to a gay person in the military. So there’s no sense of reality.

Q: Was there any particular aspect of the situation that really surprised you?

A: Just the appalling tactics that the military investigative agencies use. I think even people who support excluding gays from the military would be shocked if they knew how this ban gets enforced. You know, how they drag people into small rooms and tell them they’ll be sent to prison if they don’t turn in others. Telling single mothers their children will be taken away from them if they don’t turn in others--these massive lists of suspected gays. It’s astounding that can happen so routinely in the United States in this day and age--that’s what scares me when they talk about compromise.

First of all, you know there’s two prongs to the gay policy. The administrative regulation that would be affected by the compromise. But there’s also the uniform code of military justice, which bans sodomy. So I think these investigative agencies, which seem so obsessed with homosexuality, are just going to say, “OK, well, we won’t do investigations to enforce the administrative regulation. But we still have to enforce the uniform code of military justice.” So I think you’ll still have the same purges going on . . . . By caving in, Clinton has given the military carte blanche to continue the witch hunts against gays.”

Q: Is there any case that really stood out to you?

A: The Tom Dooley story did. Tom Dooley, during the 1950s, was a Navy doctor but more famous for being America’s answer to Albert Schweitzer. He set up clinics all through Southeast Asia that brought medical care to millions of people for the first time. What most people don’t know is when he abruptly, in 1956, announced that he was resigning to carry on his work in Asia, what had really happened was the Navy had heard rumors that he was gay and they did to him what they do to anybody who they hear rumors about--they launched around-the-clock surveillance, tailed and tapped his phones, opened his mail and established that he was gay. He was allowed to resign but given an undesirable discharge.

Because Dooley was so famous--he was the youngest medical corpsman in the history of the Navy to be awarded the Legion of Merit--they kept it a secret why he resigned. But that undesirable discharge remained the great disgrace of his life. I mean here is a man who, after his death, the Catholic Church wanted to make a saint . . . . But none of that mattered to the Navy.

. . . . The other thing is, I think, this policy calls into question whether we are truly a free society. And I don’t mean just in terms of discrimination or those sort of buzz words that liberals use all the time. I mean in terms of, here you are, presenting a whole segment of the population with a list of jobs that they are not permitted to have. You know, that does not happen in a free society . . . .

Q: Is gays in the military the defining civil-rights issue for gays?

A: . . . Society’s attitude toward gay people is one that’s going to be evolving for decades. This week, you know, it’s the issue. But no matter what, I think we’re going to keep on having issues. There’s too much damage that’s been done to too many people . . . .

The gay community isn’t really fighting discrimination so much as it’s fighting what has long been a social taboo against homosexuality . . . . Taboos only have their power if people don’t talk about it and never question it. Once you start questioning it, then it’s gone in time. (So) whenever homosexuality gets discussed, it’s a win for the gay community.