<p>Members of the Navy and Marine Corps community who have watched from a distance the Naval Academy Alumni Association rebuff lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered alumni may want to start paying closer attention. This defacto "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and the insular approach behind it, impacts not just this gay alumnus but the association, academy and the sea services. </p>
<p>That DADT is a failed policy, and an untenable one as well, is reflected in the Defense Department's ongoing struggle to meet recruitment goals. In this time of war, the absurdity of discharging otherwise qualified military personnel, including those in critical fields, solely because of their LGBT identity, and discouraging thousands of others from seeking military service, is plain. Moreover, any official policy predicated on one group's inequality will not stand.</p>
<p>The ground beneath this current policy has already shifted. A solid majority of Americans, according to numerous polls, believe lesbians and gays (unfortunately, bisexual and transgendered people are not normally specified in poll results) should be allowed to serve openly. In the newly elected Congress, bipartisan support for DADT's repeal will grow. Cook v. Rumsfeld, a constitutional challenge filed in 2004 by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on behalf of 12 service members discharged under DADT, is also moving forward. And as Americans witness the despicable protests occurring at military funerals, borne of anti-LGBT bigotry, remaining support for DADT is likely to erode further.</p>
<p>DADT's eventual demise creates a need for strong leadership now. Representing such a large and influential group of Navy/Marine Corps officers and, importantly, as an entity not subject to DADT, the academy's alumni association has a crucial role to play.</p>
<p>Whatever one's personal feelings about the issue, integration of out LGBT personnel must be handled successfully -- their well-being and that of the academy and Navy and Marine Corps are at stake. The association has the responsibility today to set a positive example for that future. However, twice refusing an LGBT-inclusive chapter -- decisions inconsistent with association criteria and precedent -- does just the opposite.</p>
<p>The association cannot dismantle official military policy, but it can dismantle its own DADT posture.</p>
<p>Embracing the full diversity of its membership would not only benefit me personally and the association and academy overall, but also would put the Association on course to assume leadership in the transition beyond DADT, thereby serving the entire Navy/Marine Corps community.</p>
<p>So I would urge members to voice their support for greater minority representation on the association's mostly white, heterosexual, male governing body (the Board of Trustees) and consideration in the formulation of the association's policies.</p>
<p>And I would urge the Navy/ Marine Corps community to closely watch its progress. An inclusive and forward-looking association is in all our interests.</p>
<p>Navy Times
December 11, 2006</p>