Newspaper Page Text
February 25, 2011
c/ ’
The Spelman
SPOTLIGHT
The Voice of African-American Womanhood Since 1957
Volume 47, Issue 7
The Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Civil Rights Triumph or Hindrance to Military Cohesion?
Faith Porter
Staff Writer
In a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans
joining Democrats, the Senate repealed the
17-year-old law, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This
Clinton-era legislation ended the practice of
banning homosexuals from military service,
and instead required that they keep their
sexuality a secret, or risk being discharged.
Senate’s vote followed a review conducted
by the Pentagon that found that repealing
the law would present a low risk to military
effectiveness, in spite of concerns among some
combat units and the Marine Corps. The Palm
Center, a research institute at the University
of California at Santa Barbara, which studies
issues related to gays and lesbians in the
armed forces, made similar findings. Director
Aaron Belkin said in a statement on the
group’s website: “It has long been clear that
there is no evidence that lifting the ban will
undermine the military, and no reason to
fear the transition to inclusive policy...If the
president and the military leadership quickly
certify the end of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ they
will ensure an orderly transition with minimal
disruption.”
In spite of the findings of the Pentagon
and the Palm Center, there are still fears
concerning the army environment after the
repeal. In a New York Times article published
in May 2010, a 29-year-old lesbian in the
Army National Guard expressed her concerns:
“[‘Don’t ask, don’t tell] actually allowed for a
lot of protections. Getting rid of it completely
without modifying it is kind of worrisome.
The number of incidents against gays in the
military is going to increase.” In November
2010, roughly one month before the repeal
of the legislation, the chiefs of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force all remained reluctant to
end the ban. The comments of Marine Corps
commandant, General James F. Amos, were
heavily publicized.
Amos said that ending the ban in the middle
of two wars could prove to be detrimental for
Marines who, unlike other service members,
share rooms to promote unity, “...when you
talk of infantry, we’re talking our young men—
laying out, sleeping alongside one another and
sharing death, fear, and loss of your brothers. I
don’t know what the effect of [the repeal] will
be on cohesion.” Those opposed to the repeal
of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ like Elaine Donnelly,
president of the Center for Military Readiness,
worry that “zero tolerance” policies toward
anti-gay discrimination might keep those
who oppose homosexuality on religious
grounds from being promoted, or that same-
sex couples in family housing will prompt
families to decline re-enlistment or request a
change in station.
The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is also
of significance to the Spelman community.
Senior JeShawna Wholley, comparative
women’s studies major and Afrekete president,
described her initial reaction to the law being
repeal as joyous. While Afrekete did not have
any programs specifically geared towards
‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ being rescinded, Pride
Week occurred around the same time. During
Wholley’s time as president, Afrekete has
operated through programming rather than
politics. “I’d rather have a conversation about
normalizing sexuality than ‘don’t ask, don’t
tell’,” Wholley said.
Wholley went on to explain that she attended
a military academy in high school and knows
homosexual members of the armed forces
who are now retired and who are still serving.
She described military life under the policy as
“suffocating and scary,” and said that is one
of the reasons she is no longer in the military.
Like many other critics of ‘don’t ask, don’t
tell,” Wholley refutes claims that the policy
protects homosexuals in service, saying that
the idea is “ridiculous” and akin to saying
that blacks were kept out of the military and
women kept out of the office for their own
protection. “People forget that blacks were
once not allowed to serve in the military, and
when they were they were forced to serve as
cooks,” Wholley said after expressing her
confusion about homophobia within the black
community. “If we allow one community to
enforce policies on another [community] and
to police them, then what’s keeping the powers
that be from policing others?”
“My fear is that it’s going to be hard for
people to swallow and there will be a reaction,
[but] my hope is that the repeal of this policy
will result in institutionalizing a change,”
Wholley said. Changes that she hopes to see
include benefits for homosexuals regarding
housing, children, and pay that match those
of their heterosexual counterparts. “[The
government] needs to implement policies
that make egalitarian environments,” she
continued. “At the end of the day, everyone is
risking their lives.”
At the end of the day, the debate on whether
or not to repeal ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ has come
to a close. Now, the government and the
armed forces must decide how to answer the
questions they face in a post ‘don’t ask, don’t
tell’ society.
Chick-fil-A’s Ethical Battle:
Will Gay Marriage Dispute Stand in the way of Great Chicken?
Coressa Brown
Staff Writer
Recently, there has been major controversy
over Chick-fil-A and its religious views, since
the news has been aired about Chick-fil-A
supporting anti-gay organizations. Many have
expressed their outrage through angry blogs
and interviews. Numerous individuals are now
calling for a boycott of the popular restaurant.
Chick-fil-A may be in for a major battle as its
moral and ethical character is being called into
question.
The situation began in early January
when a local Chick-fil-A, in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, agreed to sponsor a Family
Life conference titled: The Art of Marriage:
Getting to the Heart of God’s Design. The
event seemed harmless until it was made
known that Family Life and the Pennsylvania
Family Institute both adamantly oppose gay
marriage. This controversy was seen as a huge
scandal for the restaurant food chain.
Dan Cathy, president and Chief Operating
Officer of Chick-fil-A, issued a response to the
comments on the company’s Facebook page
and website stating: “While my family and I
believe in the biblical definition of marriage,
we love and respect anyone who disagrees.”
This has done little to persuade people that
Chick-fil-A is not a homophobic business
establishment. Other reports have surfaced
that this is not the first time that Chick-fil-A
has used its religious views to as combative
business tactics. It is said that during the hiring
process, employees’ marital status, civic, and
church involvement are common questions
during the interview. In 2002, a lawsuit was
brought upon the company by a Muslim
restaurant owner in Houston when he said
that he was fired because he did not pray to
Jesus during a training session. Many people
are starting to question whether Chick-fil-A
is abusing their power as a powerful franchise
as a means of “bullying” employees into a
forced religion.
Cathy has vehemently stated that the
sponsorship of Family Life was a managerial
decision and not a corporate decision. However,
the damage has been done. Over the years, the
company’s operators, its WinShape foundation
and the Cathy family have donated millions
of dollars to organizations that support their
values. Organizations such as: scholarships
that pledge to follow Christian values, tons of
Christian-based foster homes and groups that
work to ban same-sex marriage.
This entire conflict has left many standing
at a crossroads. Select individuals have started
to take action in an effort to stop selling Chick-
fil-A on college campuses, while others have
chose to remain neutral. Customers love the
food but do not love the idea of their money
going towards organizations that support only
Christian ideals and the banning of same-sex
marriage. Although there has been talk of a
protest, most have just stuck to angry blogging.
It seems that many are upset but not to the
point of wanting to take down an entire food
chain.
Chik-fil-A has been known for its
Christian values and great food with even
better service. Only time will tell if Chick-
fil-A will decide to adjust their morals or hire
a better public relations team.
Obama’s Health Care Plan Deemed Unconstitutional
Sylonda Lang
Staff Writer
After years of effort and months of debate,
President Obama achieved a Democratic
victory on March 21, 2010. He signed the
pioneering health care plan, the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, into
legislation. Despite the bill being passed by
Courtesy of UPI
*
the House and Senate, it has met resistance
from the public domain and become a central
issue throughout America. The idea of
universal health care coverage is unsettling
to many. Some individuals are unsure of the
government’s ability to provide such a service
to the people, while others are diametrically
opposed. Thousands of citizens fear that this
bill infringes upon the rights of the people
to exercise free will. Still, some believe in the
power of the bill and its possibility to save lives.
One of the more immediate changes which
will be witnessed within the health care system
is that adults with pre-existing conditions
cannot be denied health care coverage.
More far-reaching measures include the
commencement of several health care plans
that differ from state to state. These new plans
will target various segments of the populace
including small businesses and individuals
who are not offered coverage from their
employers. This bill is estimated to assist 95%
of all legal citizens which is approximately 32
million individuals.
Many college students may have been
wondering how this will directly affect them.
As a result of the Affordable Care Act,
individuals under the age of 26 are allowed
to remain a dependent under their parent’s
health insurance. This initiative is supposed
to make it less expensive for young adults to
obtain coverage. Prior to this act, children
were removed from their parents’ health care
insurance at the age of 19 years old.
Though the benefits seem desirable, the
health care plan still has a long journey ahead.
The new social legislation passed by President
Obama has been deemed unconstitutional by
countless officials including several judges and
lawmakers. The issue is that the government
cannot constitutionally require all Americans
to obtain health insurance. Many argue that
it is the decision of the individual to deny or
purchase insurance. Numerous states have
begun a journey to nullify the bill and have
filed court proceedings to assist in the effort.
Yet, others oppose the bill. Former House
of Representatives and Speaker of the House
John Boehner stated, “By signing this bill,
President Obama is abandoning our founding
principle that government governs best when
it governs closest to the people.”
Obama’s health care plan is being weighted
on the scale of justice as the people attempt
to decide whether the plan will harm or
benefit America’s thriving democracy. “This
legislation will not fix everything that ails our
health care system, but it moves us decisively
in the right direction,” Obama said shortly
after the momentous vote was read. “This is
what change looks like.”
Contribute at
spefmamp0t(igh!@gitmrtxom