Recruitemnt Policy violates campus stand on homophobia Online Edition Special

Author: Kevin Tierney '08

I am writing to address the college's policy on recruitment on campus. I am in favor of changing the policy so that those employers who cannot or will not sign our College's non-discrimination policy may not be allowed to recruit on campus. I truly think that this is in the best interest of any individual member of our community.

First, I will have to make the assumption that you are opposed to homophobia. As a member of the Middlebury College community, I trust that you agree with the non-discrimination policy that we have, and all of its aspects. Therefore, you ought to be as opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation as you are opposed to discrimination based on race, religion, etc.

Being a person opposed to homophobia, I would assume that you are as appalled by Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) as I am. DADT is a policy whose purpose is to accommodate homophobia. It is not in place to regulate sexual activity - such regulations are already covered by fraternization rules. It is in place to prevent any individual from having to accept a peer's sexual orientation. DADT declares not only that it is perfectly permissible to be homophobic, but also that the US government will make it much easier to be homophobic in the military by eliminating the presence of non-heterosexuality from military life. This is just as unsettling as any governmental endorsement of racism or anti-Semitism would be.

As a person who wants to end the injustice of DADT, what can you do? You can write to your representatives. This will accomplish a tiny amount of success, if any at all. Alternatively, you could amass a large community, such as Middlebury College, to declare its opposition to DADT by saying that it does not meet the standards of the school, and therefore we will refuse to accommodate its enforcers until they meet our standards. With the situation we have currently, this course of action is both incredibly plausible and incredibly powerful.

What sacrifices would we be making by taking such an action? We would not be sacrificing the discussion of important topics. Open forums, such as they are outlined by the current policy on recruitment, are not discussions - they are simply disclaimers that require no justification. Not allowing this loophole is no great loss. In fact, I believe that by forbidding the military from recruiting on campus since DADT does not meet our standards, we would be creating discussion, not stifling it. Yale has certainly not swept the issue under the rug by barring military recruiters. It has not hidden from the issue - on the contrary, it has created large-scale public discussion. The only sacrifice that I see being made is the sacrifice of convenient access of Middlebury students to military recruiters, and vice versa. For students interested in military programs, it will mean treks off campus to obtain information and signatures - an inconvenient, but not impossible task.

This sacrifice is not so great as to merit the passive condoning of DADT. DADT requires much more tremendous sacrifices. It costs the military tens of thousands of dollars annually for investigations and prosecutions. It prevents men and women in the service from being in contact with same-sex loved ones when overseas. Most significantly, though, it imposes on non-heterosexuals the closet. Incidentally, I feel that the experience of being in the closet can best be described as terror. It is the terror induced by being forced to keep a secret, which, if disclosed, could realistically jeopardize relations with your friends, peers, co-workers, faith community, employers and family members. Most of you have not personally known the terror of The closet, but to give you an idea of how traumatic it can be, research has shown that young non-heterosexual people are six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. This is how terrifying the closet is.

DADT is simply unacceptable. Its current legality has nothing to do with the fact that it is an abominable practice. If you support it, I am both profoundly disappointed, and wholly confused. It is archaic and bigoted. If you oppose it, I implore that you support a change of the Middlebury recruitment policy. By restricting access to Middlebury students, we can force our government to make a decision: do they want Midd kids, who can provide enormous help to our armed services, or do they want the comfort and ease of indoctrinated homophobia, which has no practical value? We, as Middlebury students, have a little to lose from barring military recruiters, but so much more to gain on a national level. We have the potential to help create an enormous positive change, and the end result is worth the sacrifices of temporary inconvenience.