"Don't ask, don't tell," the U.S. policy that bars the participation of openly gay individuals in the military, is inarguably unfair and wrong-minded, sporting justifications as laughably absurd as the suggestion that the mere presence of openly gay soldiers would somehow upset "unit cohesion" and "discipline." The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was a campaign promise of President Barack Obama and, as of last week, one that remains unfulfilled. Despite the heartfelt protest of people across the country, the bill that would repeal the policy was blocked by a 56-43 Republican vote. Though I agree that "don't ask, don't tell" is an unquestionably chauvinistic and exclusive policy, I find myself hesitant to engage in the passionate activism displayed by college groups across the nation last week. Tabling and protesting in favor of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" went on from the University of California, Los Angeles to the University of Oklahoma last week, but I found myself unmoved. I believe that, like most policies governing arenas of speech and private sexual behavior, "don't ask, don't tell" should not be government policy. However, I question the gusto with which students demand its destruction as a legal yet also as personal policy-that is, one mandated by the government as well as one maintained by choice.

After all, one can even imagine a little positivity in its present incarnation as a law-namely, in its service as a deterrent steering people away from military service. Being less than fond of the mission of American imperialism, I am universally in favor of policies that turn would-be soldiers away from participation in the business end of bloody foreign policy. If one looks closely, he or she can derive from "don't ask, don't tell" the same wisdom that backs seatbelt and anti-smoking laws, both of which are engineered to protect people from their own terrible decisions.

But alas, the slippery slope of legislating to save people from themselves does loom. Therein arises another strike against "don't ask, don't tell" as a law-yet not as a personal policy. Throughout the campaign to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," many have questioned what the lives of openly gay servicemen and women would be like. It is my sense that being openly gay in the military would be unwise.

To assemble a sketch of the military social climate: On Oct. 8, 2008, the Army Times published a presidential election poll in which Senator John McCain-an opponent of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"-carried 68 percent of intended military votes, with then-presidential candidate Obama winning only 23 percent.

A haunting dearth of information exists when it comes to anti-gay violence in the military. A charming study released by the Pentagon in March of 2000 confirmed that 5 percent of soldiers reported seeing an incident involving anti-gay violence within the previous year, which implicates thousands of people as witnesses to anti-gay violence.

So while it's clear that there is anti-gay violence in the military, it is most likely the fact that admitting to being gay results in discharge that prevents the creation of more solid data. And while some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have reported slight decreases of anti-gay violence upon full and open integration of gays into the military, one must recall that the United States is unique, exceptional. We suffer from some form of cultural island gigantism in which our policies have, over time, become somewhat extreme in comparison with countries of comparable wealth. From lax gun laws, to an ongoing usage of the death penalty, to a strange saga of gay marriage ping-pong in California, we are unusual in our class of nations, and we should not expect that our experiences will always mirror theirs.

In fact, the military seems to have something of a problem with investigating and prosecuting sexually motivated violence. For instance, it's not illegal to be a woman in the military, and, therefore, female soldiers often report rape and sexual assault-according to a Department of Defense report, there were 3,230 such cases last year. Yet a 2007 report published by the Pentagon noted that more than half of sexual assault cases reported as far back as 2004 resulted in no action and that in cases in which action was taken, a mere third concluded in courts-martial.

None of this bodes well for openly gay soldiers in the military, and it is on those grounds that I would personally shy from going into the military at all. But in the event that I did somehow wind up enlisted, I will refrain from expressing my sexuality. This isn't a good thing, nor one to permanently settle for, but rather a symptom of a society in which circumstances are so extreme that they manage to pervert justice.

And perhaps that is why I hesitate to participate in a college-style activism which urges policy changes for the rights of soldiers but fails to fully consider the conditions under which those soldiers live. The "don't ask, don't tell" debacle is one in which all answers are varying gradations of unjust, miserable or a combination thereof. One may choose to hide his or her orientation and serve in the military or to openly claim his or her orientation and possibly endure barely inhibited, scarcely prosecuted violence. I would therefore suggest a far more sober consideration of the course of action necessary to be both equitable to gays and mindful of the potential reaction of the society in which we live. College activism tends to be, in that respect, somewhat out of touch, erroneously conflating rights victories with conditions victories even when the gulf between them is enormous.