Pike's Argument Flawed; Powell Was Poor Choice

In response to William E. Pike's letter "Powell Not a Bigot," I must question why Mr. Pike has failed to see that "high school graduates who joined the armed services as their only hope" also includes gay and bisexual men and women. Why is it that only straight men and women should be given the benefit of military jobs which "often serve as the... only way out for young people coming from bad schools and poor homes?" These unfortunate conditions do not discriminate based on sexual orientation, so why should the military?

Furthermore, asserting that the ban is justified because many individuals in the military "are often intolerant of those unlike themselves" and are prone to violence is punishing the innocent and validating the offensive. Arguments of this nature are reminiscent of those during the 1940s before Truman integrated the military. If there is a problem in the military, then it lies with the violent and intolerant. Allowing their hatred to flourish is the worst crime of all.

It is true that Colin Powell does not embody the issue of gays in the military. He does, however, represent a mentality that seeks to shelter military members from standards that decent human beings are all expected to demonstrate. The military is not a haven for violent outcasts. It is supposed to represent the character and integrity of the United States.

I recognize that Colin Powell is a prominent figure who has contributed considerably to this country. Despite his views on this issue, I am sure he will continue to do so in the future. Still, inviting him to speak at graduation was a bad choice in the midst of a controversial and emotional debate on which, in the eyes of many, he takes an offensive stand. The role of a Commencement speaker is to reflect a positive and forward looking vision in the name of Harvard, not one that clings to an outdated and embarrassing past. Chad H. Barker '93