Sunday, July 19, 2009
It's all just part of the conversation
Dan Radmacher
Recent columns
- Heading back to the debate in Appalachia
- Redistricting process must be taken from pols
- A shutdown remains a very real possibility
- U.S. Navy Vets case argues for campaign limits
From the RoundTable blog
Debbie Meade, The Roanoke Times publisher and president (and my boss) sent me an e-mail last week letting me know she had gotten several calls from readers upset about a commentary we ran about gays in the military ("Letting gays on board just isn't practical," July 9).
The readers didn't appreciate the retired Navy man's take on whether gays should be allowed to serve openly onboard naval vessels.
Callers to the publisher said the piece was "illogical, poorly reasoned and unfit for the pages of this paper," she told me.
All due respect to Dana Jackson, I agree with the first two characterizations, but not the third -- though I admit I cringed when I first read the piece prior to its publication.
As much and as passionately as I disagree with Jackson's point of view, I believe publishing it served a purpose. First of all, I believe that Jackson had a right to be heard. He was expressing thoughts and beliefs shared by many -- and suppressing that expression because I disagree with it would do nothing to change the fact that many feel exactly as he does.
But publishing the point of view opened it to full debate, and I do believe that the conversation that followed, both in print and on The RT, our editorial page blog, was extremely valuable and enlightening.
One blog post in particular, by a reader identifying herself only as DT, was especially persuasive. I asked DT to put her real name to the piece and allow us to publish it, but she said doing so might harm her own military career and make it possible to identify a lesbian service member she discussed in the post.
I understand the reluctance, so I'll just share a few of her remarks here.
She made quick work of most of Jackson's objections to gays serving openly, especially his noxious claim that drunken gay soldiers returning to berthing compartments at 2 a.m. would be unable to control themselves upon "seeing a bunch of people in their racks in full view." DT pointed out that racks have curtains and that drunken sailors tend to be more dangerous to themselves than others.
She pointed out that non-fraternization policies could and should apply to same-sex couples as well as to heterosexual couples.
But the heart of her compelling post was this: "While aboard ship, I (an officer) saw one of our best NCOs sitting alone on the mess decks by herself. She looked way south of depressed, so I sat down next to her. After normal chitchat, I asked her what had her so down. Using indirect but obvious terms, she indicated to me that she was a lesbian. She had been without a partner for nine years because she put her service first. For weeks I had been encouraging her to finish her requirements for promotion, but she confided in me that she didn't know if she could handle the loneliness that another five-year re-up to get the promotion would bring.
"It was heartwrenching. Here was a woman who has been to the Sandbox twice, superior NCO quality, the kind of enlisted every officer dreams of having at their back, highly decorated (five-tier rack) 18-year veteran, liked by everyone in the crew, having to decide whether to leave in the hopes of finding the love of her life or stay knowing there will never be anyone waiting with a kiss and roses on the pier for her return. That woman's discipline and dedication to service leaves me in awe. And yet my heart cries out for her or anyone to never have to make this decision again. ...
"The strain on our forces is so great that we all value each and every brother and sister that stands shoulder to shoulder with us, no matter what they do when the lights are off. We serve and we fight, we laugh and we cry, we live and we die, for each other and for our beloved country. It is time this petty nonsense that has caused so much pain for our brothers and sisters to end."
That's what this debate is about. This anonymous blog commenter put into crystal-clear focus the individual and national cost of a nonsensical policy. Had we not published Jackson's commentary, this blog post never would have been written.
Of course, a single post won't change everyone's mind -- much less the policy. The conversation will continue, on this issue and on many, many others.
Faith in the conversation, and in the community having it, is why we do what we do. It's why we publish editorials espousing our opinion and why we publish commentaries that we disagree with, even if we find them "illogical and poorly reasoned." The conversation may not always conclude to our liking, but the conversation is what informs and propels democracy.
Radmacher is the editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.
