Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 14:55:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "David J. Edmondson" THE QUILL Queer Individual Liberty Letter, Vol. 2, No. 5, October, 1994 A publication of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty A QUESTION OF HONOR Bill Boushka Reviews Joseph Steffan's _Honor Bound_ In September, 1992, I bought an autographed copy of Joe Steffan's _Honor Bound_ at a book-signing. Its 245 pages detailing his frantic race for the finish line as a midshipman at the Naval Academy, his own personal "coming out," his expulsion for acknowl edging who he was just a few weeks before graduating near the top of his class, his account of the Navy's tactics, and the legal battle that followed, as well as the reaction of his family -- it played out before my imagination like an Oliver Stone film. But this is more than the story behind one of the pivotal cases of "The Ban"; it suggests a few moral principles fundamental to an evolving modern world centered much more around the individual than any society in the past. Its central issue: What makes someone trustworthy, and what makes one successful in life? Joe's narrative of his adventures at the Naval Academy are partly pure adventure, partly a musical sonata-allegro, and partly an epic poem. We see the regimentation and hazing of plebes to which he easily adjusted, his career in the Academy choirs culminating in two appearances singing the national anthem at the Army-Navy football classic, his summer submarine cruises complete with chess games, his taking his Academy choir to see _A Chorus Line_, his own evolving leadership as an upperclassman. What an opportunity a service academy education is for the right person -- a chance to see the world and grow quickly into adulthood while getting paid to do it. How does one make it in this kind of environment? It takes incredible concentration and focus; yet, military life is very structured: There are no mortgage payments, corporate downsizings or hostile takeovers to worry about, nothing in the environment to take your life away from you if you're good enough at military routine, stay focused, and can cram in your studies in a very compressed time. His subsequent account of his dismissal is indeed riveting, but what makes his story is the way he wraps everything around the notion of personal identity. On page 16, he writes: "What can be better than allowing people to live their lives as they chose, to give them the freedom to live their lives as they choose, to give them the freedom to take the limited time they have on earth and craft an existence that is uniquely theirs?" Now, isn't this the central idea -- not only personal _freedom_ but also personal _autonomy_ -- around which the conflicts in modern society revolve? After all, the painful restructuring of the economy and workplace, the mergers, down- sizings, and resulting "layoffs" are arbitrarily denying people of average means control over their own lives, so that others can get rich. Well, not exactly. Any of us who live a comfortable, "productive" life have always depended on the risk-taking of others in ways we don't think about anyway. Joe talks a lot about the paradox of _individual excellence_, on the one hand, and _teamwork_, bonding, task and social cohesion, on the other, as the military must install both in its future officers. After all, doesn't the head-shaving on the first day of Plebe Summer make everybody "the same"? And, one of the worst offenses is _bilging_, deliberately making a teammate look bad by showing off. But one specific virtue of military teamwork is _fungibility_, the ability of each team member to every other team member's job. But, gradually individual performance and character take over, and central to all of this is the Honor Code. Steffan obviously believes that personal honor is the trait that earns a person his right to a "unique existence." And, on p. 145 he defines it without compromise: "Personal honor is an absolute -- you either have honor or you do not. No one can take it from you; it can only be surrendered willingly. And once it is surrendered, once it is compromised, it can never again be fully regained." Someday, this may be known as one of the most powerful statements in American literature. The context for this principle, of course, was Steffan's answer to the question, "are you a homosexual?" (which had been brought about by an NIS investigation that should never have been initiated). The answer, a proud, "yes, Sir, I am" -- and his refusal to hide his inner self just to get his Navy commission, is now the underlying legal problem with most of the constitutional challenges to The Ban (whether "old" or "new" policy, which in practice are the same). "Equal protection" challenges to The Ban are not likely to succeed because gays are not a legally protected class, and "Due Process" challenges may be undermined somewhat by _Hardwick_, but the "Free Speech" challenge, based on this principle, could prove compelling indeed. That is, the statement "I am gay" is now held to be a statement of personal identity, something much broader than a "propensity" to engage in forbidden sexual acts. Of course, to convince conservative Justices of this will be no simple feat. What does this "identity" consist of? Perhaps the desire to explore mated psychological bonds for their own sake rather than for social approval, as suggested by psychotherapist Paul Rosenfels in the 1970's? Perhaps a biological gift -- not sexual attraction per se, but a hypersensitivity to color and form that tends to make homosexual interest more likely? At least, in the recent decision by 3 Republican Appellate Judges in the 9th Circuit, the intangibility of this notion of identity seems to be overcome if the character of the person making the declaration is strong enough. Keith Meinhold, after all, made famous the simple explanation, "I am proud of who I am." Honor has to be the most important part of a person's credibility. Civilized living requires that men and women be able to trust each other. Honor, in the workplace, would mean that when one actually sells one's work to the public, one has done the work with total concentration and will warrant the work to the best of his or her ability. In the military, lives depend on this. In the civilian world, the viability of businesses ultimately depend on trust. But Joe's thesis makes us ponder what causes people to have, or not to have, honor. Some criminals, of course, simply have no moral values and care about nothing except their own gratification -- we call this sociopathy. But more disturbing is the growing tendency towards dishonesty. We saw this recently in the Naval Academy's cheating scandal long after Steffan's dismissal; a Navy that kept Joe Steffan probably would not have experienced a Tailhook, a cheating scandal, a Schindler murder, or the constant discipline problems associated with spousal abuse. A more chilling example is the ring of "insider trading," associated with takeovers and mergers, that went on in the securities markets throughout the 1980's. It seems the perpetrators were giving away the fact that they really couldn't earn an honest living, and stay "comfortable," if they were forced to do so by honest free-market competition (or by the Darwinian values forced on today's workplace.) In fact, the underlying cause of un-trustworthiness may be _defensiveness_, a person's suspicion that he doesn't really have what it takes to make it. Perhaps the biggest problem of defensiveness is that it keeps one from learning enough to keep up. The military paradigm is important for two reasons: It provides one way to overcome defensiveness by complete concentration on performance in a team environment, and it provides a chance to pay one's dues. Conservatives like to point out a main reason for people not making it -- the breakdown of the family. Men, especially, supposedly need to have responsibilities as husbands and fathers in order to remain useful adults and "trustworthy" citizens. A deeper reason may simply be the need for genuine human ties -- even getting back to bonding and teamwork. There are certainly other ways some people can make genuine commitments to others outside of the traditional nuclear family. But this requires the freedom to be honest about the deepest parts of one's personal identity, sexuality. The aversion to "don't ask and don't tell" comes from the realization that the "privacy" paradigm just doesn't always work in this competitive, decentralized brave new world. Yet gays (men particularly) are going to remain under pressure that their identity is something more than a juvenile narcissism and upward affiliation. Joe Steffan's book should make us ponder the character of the "best and brightest" of tomorrow's leaders. When we supposedly pick the cream of the crop for military service academies and over 100 of them cheat on an electrical engineering exam (_60 Minutes_, 9/11/94), we ought to be very concerned. Has the world become too competitive, too "me-centered"; has the balance provided by family and by "teamwork" been lost? Joe's book is also a movie that just has to be made, a film that could put away The Ban for good. LETTER TO THE EDITOR [Regarding " 'Animal Rights' and AIDS Research," by Daniel T. Oliver, Vol. 2, No. 1, February, 1994] Sick article. I believe that Oliver has missed the basic priciples of Libertarianism. Supporting torture????? Libertarians do not torture or kill. I assume Oliver has never seen a dog run over? We are animals. Then do the testing on Oliver and other so called humans and libertarians. If so called Libertarians support animal torture and they are animals themselves then volunteer to be tortured. AZT is poison. I don't believe in our government and Margaret Heckler's announcement for Ronnie Babe Reagan that HIV has anything to do with AIDS. You might want to read and pass the following Libertarian statement on to Oliver. If you are going to torture some animals then why not torture tham all including Oliver. I apply this principle in ALL my affairs. I do NOT support non consensual torture to animals whether they have two legs or ... [From the 1994 Libertarian Party Platform] HUMAN RIGHTS "We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty. "Until such a global triumph for liberty, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn, however, the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political and revolutionary groups. "The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights. Only private individu als and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue." -- Tom Hicks VOLUNTEERS NEEDED GLIL needs volunteers for the following three activities. First, our president, David Morris, is running for ANC commissioner in SMD 2F04, which runs from Massachusetts Avenue to Logan Circle between 12th and 13th streets, N.W. He needs volunteers to do literature drops. Second, we need people to write policy papers on health care, education, crime and guns, anti-discrimination laws and civil rights, and other topics. Third, we shall need a newsletter editor for 1995. If you can help out, please call David Morris at 202-789-2536. WHAT IS GLIL? _The Quill: Queer Individual Liberty Letter_ is the bimonthly newsletter of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), an organization of classical liberals, market liberals, limited- government libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and objectivists organized to promote the political philosophy of individual liberty, both generally and as it affects lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons. Opinions expressed are strictly the authors' own, unless otherwise noted. In addition to this newsletter, GLIL sponsors a happy hour on the first Tuesday of every month at Trumpets, 17th and Q streets, N.W., from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. We also host speakers and debates on issues of concern to our community; as events are scheduled, they will be announced both in _The Quill_ and in _The Washington Blade_. For more information, please contact GLIL as follows: Mail: PO Box 65743, Washington Square Station, Washington DC 20035-5743 Telephone: 703-920-4023 Internet: glilguy@aol.com We welcome articles and letters to the editor. You may send submissions for the next issue through November 15. You may also call for information on advertising. We shall also be happy to add you to our mailing list; while we do not currently charge for _The Quill_, we should appreciate a contribution to help cover the costs of printing and mailing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Edmondson ghoti@netcom.com, 72020.600@compuserve.com, dave.edmondson@glib.org "Exalted Master, you told us that the world would end yesterday." "My child, it did end yesterday, but you're too sinful to notice."