cssary, but it is a diversity of ideas that isrnneeded. A university may have biases,rnbut it is not in the business ol” employingrnbias in order to adopt a soteriology. Ifrnstudents and faculties enlist in universityrnlife to be indoctrinated without dissent,rnthen thev become mere foot soldiers inrnan ideological war.rnWhile I possess an ideology, I wouldrnresist to my very core the imposition ofrnany doctrine on campus, even a doctrinernconsonant with my own views. Universitiesrnshould resist the sometimes wellmeaningrndirectives by civil rights authoritiesrnwho want faeult} members to thinkrn”appropriately.” Those faculty membersrnwho have resisted the multiculturalrnjuggernaut in Connecticut have actedrnappropriately.rnIt takes extraordinary courage to standrnup to the diversit}’ police on campus whornhave arrogated to themselves the tag ofrncivil rights defenders. Yet that is preciselyrnwhat universities need. If the traditionrnon which the academy is organized survives,rnit will be because some people onrncampus recognize the importance ofrndissent.rn—Herb LondonrnSODOMY AND T H E LASH, accordingrnto Winston Churchill, were the outstandingrnfeatures of the British RoyalrnNavy. The United States Navy will be atrnleast half-British, if the American courtsrnhave their way. T he homosexuals’ battlernplan to gain acceptance, which includesrntaking dates to the Officer’s Club, nowrninvolves 100 or so discrimination claimsrnor lawsuits against the government.rnTheir key argument, of course, is thatrnforbidding a homosexual to serve is a violationrnof his civil rights. A corollary tornthe rights claim is that sexual orientationrnis not a reliable indicator of behavior,rnmeaning that a declared homosexualrnmay not necessarily practice what hernpreaches. Lawyers for the homosexualrnmovement adopted the orientationdoes-rnnot-equal-behavior tactic only afterrnthe Supreme Court, in 1986, upheldrnGeorgia’s sodomy law by deciding thernConstitution did not create a right tornprivacy to commit sodomy.rnThe case of Joseph Steffan v. the Government,rnthe one case in which a court ofrnlaw said homosexuals are not endowedrnwith a “right to serve,” shows what thernClinton administration has in mind forrnthe military. Just before graduating fromrnthe Naval Academy, Steffan made thernmistake of divulging his preference to arnfriend. Notwithstanding its ludicrousrnposition on women, the Nav’ still officiallyrnfrowns on sodomy. Steffan left Annapolisrnwithout graduating. He sued,rnwon, then lost an appeal.rnRetired Marine Colonel Ron Rav, onrnbehalf of the Naval Aiation Foundationrnand Institute for Media Education, filedrnthe amicus brief that sunk Steffan’s suit.rnUsing excerpts from My Country, MyrnRight to Serve, a book lionizing queers inrnuniform, the brief details Steffan’s sexualrnactivities, shooting a hole through thernargument that one’s desires are not arnreliable indicator of how one will act.rnIME’s Judith Reisman, a feisty grandmotherrnand valiant crusader againstrnsexual deviance, analyzed Steffan’s interviewrnwith the author of the book andrnhelped Ray pull back the sheets on thernhomosexual agenda. Steffan, she wrote,rn”engages in risky sex with anonymousrnAIDS-produetive partners. . . . He copulatesrn. . . without any control, as an animalrnin heat. . . [He is] the prototypicalrnprofile of the homosexual male. . . . Hisrnsex drive i s . . . a large enough part of hisrnidentity that he risked destroying his ownrnNaval career…. If Mr. Steffan would ri.skrnall for . . . anonymous sex, what elsernwould one expect him to risk, when itrnwould involve another’s life?”rnThe brief’s appendices are full of excerpts,rnagain, thanks to Reisman, fromrnpublications such as I’he Advocate, thernleading homosexual “newsmagazine.”rnThe magazine’s “special issue” on militaryrnmen, for instance, was quite openrnabout the erotopathie ob.session of homosexualsrnfor men in uniform: “Picturerna bare-chested young sailor in his whiterthan-rnwhite (and tighter-than-tight) bellbottoms,rnworking up a sweat as he swabsrnthe deck. Kind of makes you break out inrna sweat too, doesn’t it. And war may bernhell, but it’s also sexy as hell when NOU’VCrngot three hot, dirty soldiers crammed intorna foxhole made for one.” Not surprisingly,rnseducing military men is a staple ofrnhomosexual pornography and personalrnadvertisements.rnRay also revealed the two key sourcesrnof information for the Pentagon’s studyrnthat concluded homosexuals were not arnsecurity risk: the editor of Paidika: ThernJournal of Paedophiha, and the famousrn”sexologist” Dr. John Money, an advocaternof pedophilia. (One of the mostrndamaging Soviet spies found working forrnan American intelligence agency was arnpedophile blackmailed by Soviet agents.rnand it is no surprise that of the Army’srn102 punitive separations for homosexualityrnbetween 1988 and 1992, 47 percentrninvolved child molestation.) In MyrnCountry, My Right to Serve, where Steffanrnspilled the beans, we learn that thernmilitary “is heaxen for a ga’ person.”rnObviously, Ray argued to the UnitedrnStates Court of Appeals, orientation is arnreliable indicator of future behavior, justrnas any other “orientation” would be. ysrnRay says, homosexuals “want you to believernthat someone who calls himself arngolfer, someone who owns clubs andrnshoes, is no more likely to pla’ golf thenrnsomeone who isn’t a golfer.”rnOf course, the military has no legitimaternneed, such as a shortage of manpower,rnfor homosexuals to serve. Butrneen if there were, so what? Ihe argumentrnagainst homosexuals openly servingrnin the military doesn’t turn on practicality.rnIt turns on standards of decencyrnand morality. Ray drew part of his winningrnargument in the Steffan ease fromrnJohn Adams’ two-ccnturv-old militaryrndictum, which Congress incorporatedrninto the Uniform Code of IVIilitary Justice.rnAn iron-clad law, it directs commandersrnto set examples of honor andrnvirtue and to “suppress all dissolute,rnimmoral and disorderly practices.” Thatrnfundamental doctrine, Ray says, meansrnPresident Clinton’s “Don’t ask, don’trntell” policy is illegal.rnBut that won’t matter. Spinelessrnmembers of the Joint Chiefs of Staffrnhave implemented President Clinton’srnillegal order, Ray rightly observes, becausern”loyalt}’ to an administration andrnits policies [have become more] importantrnthan loyalty and responsibility to [anrnofficer’s] own command.” Instead, thevrntell officers disturbed bv the new regimernthat they should resign. The Secrctar ofrnthe Navy recently even decorated one ofrnthe more prominent homosexuals whornstill wears the uniform of his country. Asrnfor Janet Reno’s Justice Department,rnwhich is supposed to defend militaryrnpolicy, its lawyers simply don’t callrnwitnesses who would support a case tornexclude homosexuals. Rumors aboutrnReno’s own sexual orientation have longrnbeen rife, but in any event her lawyersrnpurposely lose, which is why the courtsrnhave torn up the discharge papers of sornmany homosexuals.rnRay concludes it is “no exaggerationrnto sav that moral principle may neverrnagain be decisive in a public debate.”rnTrue, but then again, military and politi-rn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn