Article mischaracterized the militaryIn response to your article "Current ban, though flawed, ought to remain" (Forum, Sept. 28):

Ms. Stoker's column is so full of unsupported conclusions and stereotypes, I wonder if she has ever even spoken with a service member or a veteran.

It's quite apparent that she has no idea what life is like during military service. As a Brandeis alum and a retired naval officer (5 years on active duty, more than 15 years of active participation in the reserves), I can assure her that there is no stage in the military induction process where the enlistee or officer candidate is asked if he or she hates gays.

It is astounding that Ms. Stoker could conclude that there is anti-gay violence in the military based upon a 10-year-old study indicating that service members witnessed an incident. Would she conclude the same thing about our public schools based upon a like number of fights among classmates where anti-gay epithets were exchanged? She has offered nothing demonstrating that there is a greater incidence of anti-gay violence among service members than among their civilian peers.

I can only suggest that she have a dialogue with a soldier, sailor, airman or marine and learn something about their lives. She might learn that, while the existence of open heterosexual or homosexual activity between coworkers in her workplace might be a momentary surprise or embarrassment, such activities and relationships among members of military units can destroy trust, degrade unit cohesion and, ultimately, put lives in more serious danger than the unit's mission. While I can respect her desire that all members of our society enjoy the same rights regardless of sexual orientation, it is very sad that she holds such distasteful prejudices against the people who have volunteered to protect her.

-Barry Bloch '82



Anti-gay attitudes are no excuse

In response to your article "Current ban, though flawed, ought to remain" (Forum, Sept. 28):

I hardly think that the "bad things might happen" argument is very relevant here. I am no supporter of the military; however, the people who choose to serve do so for their own reasons, not yours or mine. "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a deterrent to keep gays out of the military; it's a discriminatory policy that forces gays joining and already in the military to keep their lives quiet.

The argument for repealing DADT isn't so everyone can start wearing pink uniforms to suddenly declare that they are gay. Currently, if someone in the military finds out that you are a homosexual, you lose everything and gain a dishonorable discharge. This excludes you from the health benefits, college scholarship monies, etc. The denial of rights and privileges is the argument for repealing the ban.

Stoker's argument is flat and fails to look at the larger picture. It's not about your personal views that nobody should be joining the military in the first place or that it would be dangerous for us. Bad stuff happens all the time to all kinds of people. Everyone is so quick to point to this statistic and that. But again, you're only looking at one number that represents one group, not the big picture. I'm flattered that you want to keep us gays from getting hurt by those evil straights in the military, but we're big boys and girls and don't need you to mascarade a discriminatory law designed to keep gays from serving and then reaping the benefits of that service as something to keep us safe.

If you have a problem with the way the student protests are going, that's a different argument. However, there are a lot of people that this law very personally touches and I hardly think that because you watched a few protests and didn't feel inspired to join is a good enough reason to draw the conclusions that you did.

I was called a "faggot" and threatened just the other night here in Boston. The police didn't come, and I had to deal with the situation. Could it have ended badly? Of course it could have. However, according to your arguments, there should have been a "Don't park here if you're gay" sign. Then I could have just avoided the issue all together, which is what your op-ed does.

-Benjamin Williams (GRAD)