Discrimination? Don’t ask. UNC needs to take moral stand against Army policy

November 17, 2009

The University’s increased collaboration with the U.S. Army flies in the face of UNC’s commitment to non-discriminatory employment practices.

The UNC system and the U.S. Army Special Operations Command recently signed a partnership to work together and share resources.

The University has a very clear policy on non-discrimination that clearly elucidates its commitment to offer educational and employment opportunities to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation.

But the Army blatantly discriminates against gays through its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Any openly gay individual is discharged.

Part of this partnership will include accessing the Asian language talent at UNC, which includes the in-demand Arabic and Farsi languages.

The University will give the Army the ability to tap into the talent pool of Arabic linguists and shamelessly refuse opportunities to gays.

This is a national issue. The Army has fired numerous linguists whose skills are vital to the war effort merely because they wanted to serve their country as openly gay individuals.

A connection to such actions undermines the moral authority of the University and the integrity of its commitment to non-discrimination.

It wouldn’t be new for the school to take a moral stance.

There is a clear precedent for holding the employers it deals with up to the same moral and ethical standards that it espouses itself. The University has severed ties with Russell Athletics because of its labor policies. It has also refused rights to Victoria’s Secret to use its brand on the company’s products.

So, rather than defer carte blanche, the University should tell the Army that it can no longer collaborate if it cannot share the University’s commitment to equal educational and employment opportunity.

To be clear, there is much to be gained from collaboration with the Army.

But there is also much to be lost by merely deferring to an employer that espouses policies that go against the values of our institution.

I completely disagree. Call

Submitted by mks5 on November 19, 2009 - 18:36.

I completely disagree. Call me "unenlightened" or whatever, but the military is much more qualified to make these decisions than ivory tower pundits and politicians.

First of all, 'Don't ask,

Submitted by Carter on November 18, 2009 - 08:57.

First of all, 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not an ARMY policy - it is a policy that the entire military has to enforce and it was President Bill Clinton that passed it and President Barack Obama who is dragging his feet about revoking it. If you are going to play a blame game, then point your fingers in the right direction.
Second - have you looked around at the campus lately? Besides the ROTC members, there are Reservists, National Guard and Veterans already sitting in the classrooms and more are coming. There are also the children and spouses of Veterans. Guess who is footing some of the bills for our tuition? You don't like it.....tough.
Get over yourselves....and try getting your facts straight.

If UNC were to cut this

Submitted by acehilM on November 17, 2009 - 19:25.

If UNC were to cut this program just beacuse it morally objects to military policies, then it would logically have to cut all ROTC programs (as part of the military), which obviously would never happen. If you don't like the policies of the Army, don't join the Army, and don't try to knock on a culture you don't understand.

GILBERT KEITH...Do remember

Submitted by regadd1066 on November 17, 2009 - 14:45.

GILBERT KEITH...Do remember that "warmaking" is why you are able to enjoy a life of freedom. All top research universities work on military related projects. They always have and always will.

LIFELONGCHAPELH...I take it

Submitted by regadd1066 on November 17, 2009 - 14:42.

LIFELONGCHAPELH...I take it you were not part of the infantry. I am currently a major in an infantry unit and the people of which you speak are not accepted within a team and are effective outcasts in combat arms branches. Remember, the infantry, the lifeblood of the Army, is a unique culture very different from that of which you might find in any other branch.

I am currently an officer in

Submitted by regadd1066 on November 17, 2009 - 14:35.

I am currently an officer in the Army Reserve and a student at UNC. Having been a part of the Army for over ten years, I understand deeply the culture and the thoughts that define this culture. Doing away with don't ask, don't tell would negatively impact the operational effectiveness of our military and impede a unit's ability to form an effective, cohesive team.

How would doing away with

Submitted by joe mama on November 24, 2009 - 14:11.

How would doing away with DADT "negatively impact the operational effectiveness of our military and impede a unit's ability to form an effective, cohesive team?" The men and women who serve in our military are professionals and would obey an order from our Commander in Chief. Period. Coincidentally the same arguments were made against racial integration and allowing women in the military.

Then maybe it's time to

Submitted by Gilbert Keith C... on November 17, 2009 - 18:41.

Then maybe it's time to switch up who's in our military, no? People made the same arguments against integrating white and black units, or against letting women in.

Also, regadd, note that none of the freedoms I use in my university study are a result of warmaking - it seems like university students in most part of the world are studying in a similar manner, despite having a fraction of the military spending or occupations that the US has (except for students in afghanistan and iraq, where the infrastructure has been blown to hell and schools are occupied by troops, i.e. Fallujah)

It would be nearly impossible

Submitted by regadd1066 on November 18, 2009 - 13:51.

It would be nearly impossible to switch up who's in the infantry. Such attitudes largely come about due to a lack of education which is prevalent among the enlisted members of the infantry. Encouraging more educated personnel to enlist as a warfighter would be a near impossibility; it is a difficult life and people with better options do not often opt for such hardships.

Also, all of the freedoms that you use in your university study are a result of warmaking. If World War II had not been fought our nation would be vastly different and possibly exist under a dictatorship. Other students in other countries (i.e. the European Countries) study in a similar manner as yourself due in large part to the US warmaking efforts of World War II; had that war not been fought they certainly would be living under a brutal dictatorship. For those who do not study in conditions similar to yourself (i.e. North Korea and Cuba), it is largely due to a lack of warmaking activity from the people who are being brutally oppressed. So you young, idealistic child, why don't you go thank a WWII veteran today for all that he had to endure so that you might live a life of freedom.

Rumsfeld v. FAIR was a 2006

Submitted by corbds4 on November 17, 2009 - 09:52.

Rumsfeld v. FAIR was a 2006 Supreme Court case barring schools that accept federal funding from prohibiting army recruiters on campus based on their moral disagreement with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So long as UNC accepts federal funding, its hands are severely tied in many respects as to how it deals with the military. The University only has so much leeway in terms of telling the Army what it can and cannot do on campus. The Editorial Board should be encouraging the Executive to overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell instead of chiding the University for behaving squarely within its constitutional limits.

Has anybody on the editorial

Submitted by LifeLongChapelH... on November 17, 2009 - 07:06.

Has anybody on the editorial board actually been in the Army? Or even enlisted in any branch of the military? Probably not. Having enlisted in the military after my first failed attempt at college, I can speak from experience.

There are plenty of gay people in the military, and it is no secret. They aren't "hiding" or "living a double life". When you live in close quarters or stand a watch (for the editorial board and hippies: A military watch is when you stay up late at night, often tired, protecting others while they sleep. Not a thing on your wrist that tells time. Maybe you should try it.) with a bunch of people it is fairly obvious when somebody is gay. Everybody knows and nobody cares. Everybody does their own thing in their personal life, and when you're on base or on deployment everybody conforms to military standards. Hell, some of my best drinking buddies were lesbians, and were completely open about it when we weren't standing at attention, marching, or doing one of the countless other day to day tasks that require focus and attention and not professing out love for the gender of our choice.

Good editorial - if the army

Submitted by Gilbert Keith C... on November 17, 2009 - 02:22.

Good editorial - if the army is simultaneously firing gay Arabic speakers and complaining about not having enough, maybe they should reconsider policies based on homophobia. Although to be perfectly honest I'm also somewhat opposed on general grounds, in that I'd like to think my university doesn't support warmaking as a general principle.

News flash: Berkeley is

Submitted by Bill L on November 17, 2009 - 01:08.

News flash: Berkeley is supposed to hate the military, not UNC. After the lack of coverage that the DTH gave to Veteran's Day, however, I'm not surprised.

It is disgraceful to see that the DTH Editorial Board is content to put their own political agenda over the safety and security of our soldiers.