1. ROTC cadet comes out; 2. Army career over & 3. now owes $79,000 for her tuition

Keep hoping, Ms. Isaacson...

Meanwhile, Isaacson needs a new life plan. The old one, which started with ROTC and included medical school and a career in the Army, is gone.


CHAPEL HILL -- Though she has long wanted to be an Army doctor, Sara Isaacson says she also wants to live an honest life. So on Jan. 25, the UNC-Chapel Hill ROTC cadet handed her commander a written statement revealing that she is a lesbian.

Doing so ended her military career and will likely cost her more than $79,000. That’s what she owes the federal government, which was paying for her UNC-CH schooling -- at out-of-state rates -- while the Wisconsin native went through her military training.

"I’ve dreamed since I was 13 of a career as a military officer," Isaacson said this week. "But I knew I wouldn’t be OK with myself if I had to lie every day."...

Drawn by a strong undergraduate sciences program, Isaacson chose UNC-CH over the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Northwestern University. She was among the top five students in a high school class of 215, and she first came to UNC-CH on an academic scholarship that was eventually replaced by the federal funds.

She’s been busy in college. Along with her ROTC classes and early morning workouts three days a week, the chemistry major has been a resident assistant, worked with a sexual assault prevention group and played the piccolo in the marching band....

Isaacson now needs a fifth year at UNC-CH -- and some financial aid -- to get her degree. Medical school is still an option, but she’s also become interested in activism. She enjoyed talking to members of Congress about don’t ask, don’t tell.

Her father, Ken Isaacson, has spent a lot of time brainstorming solutions. Could she get the money back if the federal policy is repealed? Will there be an installment plan for repayment? Could she somehow fulfill her commitment in a civilian role?

So far, no answers.

"It’s disappointing that our country doesn’t want her," he said. "But she will find some way to make her mark."

http://www.sldn.org/news/archives/mcclatchy-coming-out-costly-for-unc-rotc-cadet-sara-isaacson/

Obama is trying to end DADT but he is trying to do it in a way that the military is comfortable with. There is a fine line between ending DADT in an organized way that will allow for a good way to end DADT and a do it NOW approach that could cause bigger issues later.

The military already knows that there are gays serving and a lot of us are fine with it. Allowing them to serve openly is not a big deal. However there are members who are not comfortable with it and a lot of them are the junior enlisted who will have to share showers, foxholes. etc. with gay service members.

The military needs time to be able to educate these service members about the gay community. These are the teabaggers kids who never had an independent thought in their life who are now going to share a barracks room or fox hole with a gay service member. The military wants time to make sure they can prevent acts of violence against gay service members. Not only would attacks be disgusting but they would also send the message that the military is unsafe for gays.

Ending DADT immediately would give the neo-cons want they want, a military where gay service members are afraid to serve openly. Allowing some time to prepare for the transition would make a big difference in ensuring the change happens so it is accepted and acts of homophobia are repugnant rather than quietly endorsed.

...concerned about issuing "comfortable" orders.

Most of the military forces in first world countries had no problem and no lengthy transition either.

:sarcasm:


As long as the rethugs keep telling themselves that they can sleep better at night.

of protecting us from al Qaida. :)

What the military is deadly afraid of is ending DADT too quickly then having some teabagger's offspring end up beating the life out of an openly homosexual recruit. At which point openly gay potential recruits decide that they don't want to risk getting hurt by joining the military and serving openly.

This is why the military wants time to study the issue. They want to make sure that this scenario doesn't happen. If it does it will be a HUGE black eye for that service and the military at large. It will force a lot of senior staff to resign and cause a huge public out cry against the military.

The majority of the senior leaders of the US military know that ending DADT is going to happen. They are fine with it but want to make sure it happens in a way that allows gays to serve openly but also does not harm the military.

This issue has been studied to death for years. They're not going to learn anything new. American troops are suffering discrimination while these bastards cover their @sses until they can retire and hand it off.

Most of these kids going through basic training, or boot camp in the Marine Corps, are straight out of high school and very few have had a lot of contact with anyone with a different point of view than their parents. These recruits can help or hurt other members of their platoon in basic training.

Drill Instructors and Drill Sergeant can influence a lot of happens during basic, as can other instructors at follow on schools. However there is just way too much time when the recruits are in a position to intimidate or hurt another recruit and get away with it, when the DI's aren't around. If a recruit comes in with an anti-gay bigotry they can do a lot of harm in the process.

Also, the military looks to its junior enlisted and junior NCO's to lead the new crop of enlisted. These new service members can be easily swayed by their NCO's. It will take a bit of time to educated the current NCO's how to handle the ending of DADT. It will take some time to ensure the training is effective and that the bad apples are weeded out. (Here we go back to worrying about one bad apple causing or encouraging an indecent that can cause a national firestorm.)

a competent person can lay down clear boundaries for recruits and there are already rules and regs in place for assault, let alone, sexual harassment.

Bull shit.

I don't understand. If they murder a gay servicemember, either now or after the ban is lifted, how does that change?

No, sorry, you are espousing the same delay and study crap that has been going on far too long and harming way too many people.

a couple of military executions will calm down the murderers in the ranks, quickly

Expecting a death sentence for a gender orientation related crime in the military is like expecting a death sentence for a murder conviction to have an impact on murder rates. By the time it happens the resultant expectations will not be what was hoped for.

If the culture has not been shaped to look down upon these type of attacks, they will not be discourage. Changing the culture of an organization is one of the hardest things to do. The NCO's run the military and the military needs time to train their NCO's to ensure that openly gay members are safe to serve.

A lot of gay service members already serve openly in their ranks--they're just not open with their commanders. What difference would it make if DADT were to be repealed tomorrow? Would their brother and sister troops suddenly turn on them? Harm them?

I think that what moves very slow is some Democrats effort to overcome their own bigotry and let go of it. That seems to be moving at a glacial pace.

Bigotry is not "the culture of an institution." If that is the "culture" in the military, all the more reason to take it on full force now rather then later.

The notion that we cannot stop inequality, because then there would be more bigotry, and then there would be worse problems is utterly absurd on its face.

circa 1965 -

"Yes, there are a lot of bigots in the South. It is the culture, and that takes time to change. So, sorry, no voting for you, because then the bigots might get angry and kill you, and then other people might not even try to vote because of that, so we would have less votes, and that would hurt democracy. So no Voting Rights Act, sorry. We will let you know when it is safe for you to vote. Changing cultural institutions is one of the hardest things to do. We will let you know when the right time comes."

I have yet to meet a soldier who has issues with their LGBT fellows. This is a politician problem, not a troops problem.

How will that affect gays wanting to serve in the military? This is the biggest issue the military is worried about. If a gay recruit gets hurt by fellow recruits it will make the military look very bad and discourage potential gay recruits form joining. That is the last thing the military wants. The military knows it needs gay service members to meet its needs and it is worried that a couple bad acts can convince potential gay recruits from joining.

This is a big issue the military needs time to prepare for. The concept itself is a lot easier to envision than it is to implement. The military has spends a lot of time and money in education of its members. Ending DADT is something that will require a lot of education. The military services, mainly the Army and the Marine Corps, are going to need time to make sure the new policy is implemented effectively.

I've seen some spin before, no offense! :rofl:

will cause a black eye to the military and caused any future recruits who might be gay to join.

If you were a parent to a gay teen and saw a report about how the military was dealing with attacks on openly gay recruits or service members, would you allow your child to join?

This worries the military. Gays already fill many critical MOS's and the idea that serving openly may cause a serviceman or women to be discourage from joining and it will hurt the overall mission accomplishment.

Once again this is a bottom up issue. The military needs time to ensure the NCO's understand the changes and educated them. This ensures that the changes are implemented in the right way.

Your argument is ridiculous. You're saying that if DADT is repealed, the homophobes will harass and/or kill gays in the service, which will result in gays being afraid to enter the military, and will also not result in prosecutions which put an end to such attacks.

Here's how it would really go down: the military would issue a "zero tolerance" policy, and start kicking out any knuckle dragger who doesn't fall into line. Those who engage in attacks will be prosecuted, convicted, and shipped off to serve their time.

except for the fact that a significant portion of the military are those "knuckle draggers."

Where is the line? Violence? Social stigmatization? Personal views on homosexuality? Are you going to kick out a young E-3 who says he doesn't want to hang around gays on his facebook page?

At what point are you going to punish the average joe who isn't comfortable jumping into a shower with a person who's orientation may lead them to find the Soldier sexually attractive?


The idea that you can just say "suck it up" is short sighted at best. The problem is that there is no good answer otherwise it would have already happened. Thats also the reason DADT has stayed in effect as long as it has. Leadership knows it is coming but the best way to do it is still up in the air (if there is a best way)

And good riddance to them.

We need men - not overgrown adolescents fearful about their manhood - in our military.

The question should be "What is the best way to make our military stronger?"

If that means waiting IOT implement changes gradually rather than jamming them down everyones throat to keep combat effectiveness as high as possible then so be it.

Round them up, discharge them, get them out of the military. We can replace them with service members who are smarter, better adjusted, and lacking in such simpleton notions as homophobia.

You grossly overestimate the value of such trained soldiers. We need less, not more, dunderheads in the military. If they're in the military, they can get with the program or they can get out.

You're not the only guy here who has been in the military, you know, but most here outgrow the limited horizons of such service. The overgrown boys in the military can catch up or get out. They won't be missed.

At what level are you going to initiate action against that young E-3?

If you can't get your troops in line, it's time to evaluate your performance.

As the military would say, homophobia sounds like a personal problem, soldier. Tell it to the chaplain.

All anyone can give is nice vague general answers that make everyone feel like they are doing "something."

"Well, we just get rid of anyone who doesn't get in line" Well, what does that mean specifically?

Are you going to punish the other Soldiers in your "just throw em in" plan? Do you care how it affects readiness? Do you care about their emotions as much as you do the gay Soldier? What is more important to you? Is it military strength or social equality?

Are you going to counsel that Soldier because he told Bob that he doesn't want to shower or bunk with him? Are you going to force him to do it? Will you punish Soldiers for socially excluding an open homosexual? All of these questions and many more need to be answered properly before any progress is made.

Specifics.. details... intricacies of a plan... that is what is needed and that is what is lacking.

On edit: You claim to have been in the military so think of it from that mind set. What was the last patrol that you went on that wasn't fully planned out and instead was "Well, were just gonna wander over here with some guns and see what happens." Thats just a one time thing. You are talking about a social and ethical (sometimes) restructuring of the armed forces of the most militarily powerful nation on Earth. Maybe we should write some of this shit down instead of winging it, eh?

If civilians order the military to end DADT and prohibit prejudice based upon orientation, it's the duty of the chain of command to fall into line. A lower level soldier such as you will be given his orders, so you won't have to worry about it. They'll lay it out clearly, and your job will be to follow their orders, not argue about the impact on your homophobic troops.

Your examples belie the truth, too. It's the lifers who have a problem with gays, not the younger soldiers. You like to pretend it's some young troop, but it's not. It's mainly guys who are on their second tour of duty and beyond. The longer the person has been in the military, the more likely they are to embrace homophobia, as poll data have demonstrated and as is generally recognized as true. It's the oldest soldiers who have the most problem with gays, and who most resist the end of DADT. They've hung around too long. The military will be better if they all retire.

Again.. You look to someone else to figure out the specifics. The thing is I've never seen a workable and realistic plan from anyone with the details (let alone someone in charge.)

My point is that it is the young troop who will bear the brunt of this. Your claim that it is the 2+ deployer who has a problem came straight out of your ass. Your average O-5 won't have to worry about his bunk mate. The aforementioned E-3 will have to deal with it. He'll have to worry about what he can and cannot say. My concern lies with the Soldier and as always what benefits the US military best.

It sounds like you're the guy who can't get used to the idea of a gay man showering with you.

Do I need to say it one more time, soldier? Your job is to follow your orders. If you can't do that, the military will fire you and get someone else to do it.

There is no reason to ease the nation into repealing DADT. The majority of the country is already in favor of it. The stupid neo-cons not withstanding.

Those who can't get with the program can take their discharge and become civilians. We're better off with them out of the military. We don't need homophobes in the military. The sooner they leave, the better.

nm

Why, those Confederates might not like having former slaves working with them, eating with them, going to school with them. We can't move too fast!

It's often those who have been lolly gagging on equal rights for decades who say "slow down."

It's as much bullshit today as it was under George Washington.

Trying to get approval or permission from the extreme right wing, or fearing their reaction, has not and never will work.

You have just admitted that the president is not leading on this. You argue that he should not. But he was elected to lead, on this and many other issues, not to check with the Republicans and see what they think. The public threw the right wingers out of power.

WE are in charge of them, not the other way around. WE are THEIR bosses. All of us taxpayers, not just the President. Time to end this illegal and immoral discrimination. And it is high time the President grew a spine and shoved this down their throats. Fuck the military and it's old boy's club network bullshit.

My children will be amazed that this happened in their lifetime. I hope.

For many, it will be too late.

Meanwhile, the courts will soon take up lawsuits challenging the Arizona anti-immigrant law, and they are likely to stay or enjoin the law's implementation pending adjudication. In the same way, a moratorium should have been imposed when the DADT review was announced. That could have prevented senseless actions under a policy that could well be here today/gone tomorrow.

When something as fundamental as civil rights is at stake, which makes more sense--erring on the side of DENYING rights, or erring on the side of UPHOLDING them?

:kick: K&R

I mean, straight, white, Anglo-Saxon, American-born, Christian, Republican, middle-class males--or anyione else's? It's an imporatant distinction.

:puke:

"straight, white, Anglo-Saxon, American-born, Christian, Republican, middle-class males"?

seem to think so. Many of the ones I know indicate that they are the most oppressed group in the country.

As for me, I don't see it. But who am I to judge? :shrug:

Maybe they can tell the judge there that they "want their planet back". :)

has a contribution to make?

Can someone explain this to me without giving themselves a miserable headache?

So unfair

"It’s disappointing that our country doesn’t want her"

I'm thorougly confused by your post.

The quote was in the OP. I said I bet the country wants her to pay her taxes: the quote says the country doesn't want her.

It just strikes me that something is wrong with that pic.

While it may be off topic, in a similar vein it also bothers me that some folks would will collect money from the public for some reason, perhaps as a trade for merchandise, yet would refuse to give a job to the same folks.

I think my brain's taken the night off--sorry.

Golly gee, that would be the end of America, as we learnt it from "Leave it to Beaver" n' stuff.

First off, there is no reason for that girl to have joined the military if she genuinely had these concerns.

Secondly, and this is really important- and people are overlooking it- that girl knew what DADT was and meant when she decided to out herself to her commander. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that young lady knew that meant no more military career. And can we look at her college price tag? 80,000 dollars is not a sophmore people- that young girl was at the end of her college career. Kind of convenient to get yourself removed from the military now after they paid for your education? Am I the only person that raises an eyebrow at that last part?

I'm half convinced, albeit no one here really knows all the specifics, that she was trying to get out of a contract after having gotten the military to put her through school.

Repeal DADT. :/

and they will get it ...in one way or another..

I do agree though, that is you were gay and knew the hassle you would have and the lie you would have to live, it would seem to me that you might just want to forget about a military career...at least for now..

Maybe she thought she could just get the education now, and deal with the messy part later..

Did you read the rest of the story at the link? Like this part?:

"Isaacson realized last fall that she is a lesbian. There was no moment of epiphany, just a slow light turning on to finally provide her some clarity. She was in her seventh semester at UNC-CH, a senior enjoying her ROTC leadership role."

and in that article it pointed out she was, before ROTC, not paying tution since she had scholarships. So all that happened was a different 3rd party paid her tuition.

I know there are people, like for instance, on here, who read these stories and just don't get it. It's some sort of abstract thing...or, for some, a bunch of whiny people whining about something trivial.

But it ISN'T. DADT affects people's lives. People who want to serve this country in the armed forces...and my God, shouldn't we THANK those people....are thrown out of the military solely because of who they are. Lt. Dan Choi, a hero to me, says that DADT goes against the basic tenets of the military. DADT forces gay and lesbian servicemembers to lie. Sara Issacson didn't want to lie. Sara Issacson wanted to be honest about herself. And she's paying a terrible price....in every definition of the word.

DADT needs to be repealed NOW, so that we can utilize the talents, the abilities, the skills, the desire to commit oneself to serve their country, of people like Sara Issacson. And if so called "fierce advocates" obstruct us, then we work around them.

I can't say what she did was -smart-, per se, but it was a wonderful example of exemplary bravery, courage, self-respect and an honesty of both character and spirit. I hope that this wrong is righted at some time in the immediate to very near future. This woman is, perhaps ironically in the context of DAD, the type of soldier and the type of American that makes me proud of my country.

too late to Rec :-(

The integration of homosexuals (just like the integration of Blacks) in to the military will have to be a slow, well thought out, gradual process to make sure the military is comfortable with serving alone side homosexuals.

What’s that??? President truman integrated Blacks in to the Military by Ecexutive Order? Over the objections of the military?? Never mind then. :P


Macoy

the person they don't like. It isn't so easy with homosexuality/bisexuality/transgender people who could be the friend, CO etc of the people who hate them or are uncomfortable with them.

Should it take this long, probably not, but I'm okay with it if there is good research being done on how to make the transition better than the one allowing women in the armed services only to have such high rates of sexual assault, which I think is related to this the culture aspect that exists in the armed forces.