Harvard students protest ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
by Matt | May 27th, 2008 |In a campaign modeled after the 2006 Soulforce Right to Serve Campaign (I was the Greensboro City Organizer for the Soulforce action), students from Harvard University have set out upon their journey toward creating discussion and bringing attention to the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” gay ban of the U.S. Military.
They’ve already hit their first of four stops. On May 24, one youth attempted to enlist in the Army as an openly gay American. When he was turned away, others in the group sat in until police arrived.
Video below:
The group’s next stops will be in Portland, Maine; New York City; and Washington, D.C.
Learn More:
Harvard Right to Serve
“Touring To Protest ‘”Don’t Ask’” Harvard Crimson May 22, 2008
InterstateQ’s Soulforce page
7 Responses to “Harvard students protest ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”
I’ll never understand what people believe they are accomplishing by this type of protest.
The recruiters have nothing to do with the law. Many of them are even sympathetic to ending Don’t ask, Don’t tell. Crowding into their office makes it impossible to do their jobs, and forces them to call the police. Peaceful it may be, but it doesn’t make the recruiters or the military any more sympathetic to change.
If anything, this reinforces the stereotypes of the “radical gay agenda.” Some of those people who are sitting on the fence about gay rights are going to end up opposing us because of their perception that we are radical and disruptive.
By Pepe on May 28, 2008
Pepe… What did it accomplish for black students to sit in at a lunch counter in Greensboro? The owner of the store didn’t have anything to do with the law. The owner of the store didn’t write the law and all he could do was call the police.
Like the lunch counter, and as said in the video, the recruiting office is where “the rubber meets the road” - where the injustice of law plays out into the lives of citizens. It is there where citizens can stand up against the playing out of an unjust law and create awareness and action, thereby prompting forward movement in other arenas.
By Matt on May 28, 2008
DADT is law, created by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. In order for it to change, Congress will have to void it. When this will happen is anybody’s guess. To do so, the public will also have to be more forceful in changing the hearts and minds of Congress. There are even a few Democrats that don’t want to change the law. The only real good this law did was to eliminate the recruiting questions regarding “Are you a homosexual?”, or, “Have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior?”
It all goes back to not asking and not telling…and, not pursuing a rumor.
By juanito on May 28, 2008
I’m fully aware Congress created DADT and that it is, in fact, law. One of the many ways citizens can get Congress people to move is by moving their constituents. That is how the 1950’s and ’60s Civil Rights Movement worked. That is partly what I imagine we tried to do with the 2006 Right to Serve Campaign and what the Harvard students are doing now. And, Congress certainly knew about the 2006 Right to Serve Campaign. The news-media here in North Carolina sought after (and got on camera interviews) with two congressmen discussing the topic (one, a Republican, even admitted he had no problem with gay serving in the military, but that he had to support his constituency).
By Matt on May 28, 2008
“where the injustice of law plays out into the lives of citizens”
Rarely does the injustice of DADT play out in a recruiter’s office. There are lots of things besides sexual orientation that potential recruits don’t share with their recruiters.
The “rubber hits the road” after that recruit has been transformed into a soldier and the Army (or any other service) has educated him to uphold honor and integrity, only to turn around and instruct him to lie about his sexual orientation. Now the soldier is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
The rubber may again hit the road when the soldier has served for a few years, and has also met someone with whom he has fallen in love. More often than not, he has to make a choice between being with someone he loves or having the career he loves.
By Pepe on May 28, 2008
The comparison between the LGBT civil rights movement and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s reminds me of an old military maxim and its variations:
“We’re always prepared to fight the last war.”
Basically it means that leaders keep trying to apply the tactics that were successful in a previous campaign. We often fail to realize that due to the success of those tactics, our opposition has adjusted their own and we aren’t as successful as before. It is also important to understand that just as the other tactical elements (terrain, climate, etc.) change from one military campaign to the next, they also change in political campaigns.
By Pepe on May 28, 2008
Pepe, I respect and see great value in your thoughts and opinions. I think you make wonderfully valid arguments. I still think there is room in LGBT activism for some very real, on-the-ground activism. It is, unfortunately, the only way things have ever changed in this world, save an all-out military campaign (i.e. Revolutionary War — which started with acts of civil disobedience, by the way). Sometimes, I think queer activists are far too lazy and rely far too much on the “political process.” Unfortunately, our American “political process” wasn’t necessarily built to the advantage of the disadvantaged.
By Matt on May 28, 2008