Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I want to do some historical review this week, and I have some memories of this.

I had to look up some dates, and I think the conversations I remember having about it had to have happened before DADT was enacted. There had been a lot of conversation about gays in the military at the time. (That was what we called it then; we might use a different term now.)

I remember it because one of the RAs in my dorm had been in the military (Navy, I think), and had to leave (probably an undesirable discharge, but it could have been dishonorable). He was interviewed by the local news channel.

One thing we found out is that there were two people with Michael's name on campus, because the other one started getting flack after the article aired. Given that this is close to twenty-five years ago, perhaps it's not too surprising, but I can imagine that happening today too, and worse with the online elements. I hope not.

Mainly though I remember it being considered progress that there were less restrictions on serving. Michael was not at a point in his life where he wanted to go back, but he believed it could be good for other people.

I mention this because then in 2011 when DADT was struck down, it was seen as a repressive, outdated policy. That makes sense, but it was not merely a repressive policy in itself. It was a policy that was a step up from a previous repressive policy - or series of policies - going back to the Revolutionary War. It is possible that President Clinton should have been bolder, but it might have gone a lot less smoothly.

That was never my area of greatest information. I left on my mission not that long after Clinton's inauguration and then didn't read a paper for 18 months. I am not the best person to play Monday morning quarterback on DADT.

I still think it can illustrate that context is important. We don't usually get where we want to go in a single step (and not only due to a lack of consensus on where we want to go). Things still happen, and sometimes they work out.