Explanation

MAIL

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Since I was the only Undergraduate Council member to vote against Resolution 7S-33 calling on the military to admit gays, I think I owe my constituents and the gay community here an explanation. I view the military's policy barring gays from the service not as homophobic or anti-gay, but as an extension of its policies regulating the sexual activities of its recruits. Given the disruptive effect a sexual relationship between between a man and a woman could have on the discipline not only of the individuals involved, but also of the entire troop, the military must severely limit the interaction between men and women. For example, men and women stay in separate barracks, and, as Joel Hornstein has told me, a man and a woman in the same ROTC troop are prohibited from having a relationship.

Within these structures, it would be virtually impossible to prevent homosexuals from having relationships, especially given the close-knit community men live in together in the military. It is not that homosexuals are any more inclined to sexuality than men or women (sic); the problem is that they are just as inclined, and there would be no way the military could prevent gay relationships from forming in the same way they can prevent heterosexual relationships from occurring.

In any case, regardless of where one stands on the issue, I view Resolution 7S-33 as merely a way of the council assuaging its own moral conscience given the heated discourse that has gone on here in last weeks. When discussed at the Executive Council meeting, someone cynically remarked that this was just a face-saving measure on the part of Joel Hornstein, and that is precisely what it was. Having essentially gone back on its original position, the council still felt it necessary to take what was, in my opinion, a hastily considered statement on a highly complex and nuanced issue. Lawrence Goodman '92   Council Representative