Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

Socarides: Incrementalism Is Dead; Protesters Are Heroes

Filed By Dr. Jillian T. Weiss | October 27, 2010 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Socarides

Last night, Richard Socarides spoke at Seton Hall Law School, my alma mater. Socarides.jpg

Mr. Socarides is well-known as a former advisor to President Clinton, and he is currently of counsel to the New York and Los Angeles law firm of Brady Klein & Weissman, where his practice focuses on litigation, family law and the legal rights of gay men and lesbians. He was standing in for Nathaniel Frank, author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America (2009), who was called in to meet with White House officials at the last minute.

He appeared at Seton Hall to speak about the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. This was in conjunction with the American Association of Law Schools' policy that law schools must not permit recruitment by employers who violate AALS's non-discrimination policy, which includes sexual orientation. However, the law schools are required by law to comply with the Solomon Amendment, a Congressional law preventing federal funding of any school that does not permit military recruiting. To ameliorate this, the AALS requires law schools to explain the fact that the military is an organization that violates AALS policy, but which is permitted to recruit on campus because of the law.

In a discussion with the ever-interesting Professor Marc Poirier, who is an expert on property theory, environmental and natural resources management, cultural property, and law, gender, and sexuality, Mr. Socarides explained the origins of the policy, and how we got to where we are.

His take on these issues was perhaps a bit more nuanced than my headline. More after the jump.

Most significantly, he said that the incrementalism of the Clinton years, while seeming a good idea at the time, are no longer effective given the current social and political climate. During the Clinton years, ending gay discrimination in the military polled at about 30% favorability. When President-elect Clinton said he would make good on his promise to end gay discrimination, he did not realize the extent of the backlash. Military and Congressional officials immediately arranged to pass a law preventing such an executive order. The resultant compromise was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which, like all laws, are intended to do one thing but often result in another. The military justice apparatus immediately set about enforcing the law, resulting in discharges by the thousands based on unsubstantiated rumors. hearsay and supposedly-confidential communications. Many women were discharged for little more than fending off the advances of male soldiers.

President Clinton eventually realized that DADT was a disaster, and said so publicly.

President Obama's downfall on DADT was trying to avoid the mistakes of President Clinton, leading to blunders of his own. Rather than trying to use executive orders to mitigate the discrimination, President Obama said this was a legislative matter, and called on the legislature to fix its own mistakes. He struck a deal with Secretary Gates to end DADT, but on the military's own timeline, however long that might be. The social and political climate on DADT, however, had greatly changed since the Clinton years. Instead of polling at 30% favorability, ending gay discrimination in the military is now polling at something like 80% favorability. Speaker Pelosi, unwilling to wait forever, put a bill through the House to end DADT. The Senate, however, being a House Divided Against Itself, couldn't do it. And so here we sit, with President Obama insisting that he has to follow the law of DADT.

There was an interesting colloquy with a professor of constitutional law, Edward Hartnett, regarding whether President Obama had to enforce the law and appeal the recent ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in California that DADT is unconstitutional. Professor Hartnett said that President Obama could decline to enforce the law if it was genuinely judged unconstitutional, but not if he simply didn't like it. At the same time, the recent ruling was surprising because it was a case of a U.S. lower court issuing a world-wide ban on DADT enforcement, while its authority is generally perceived to be over cases and controversies originating within its venue. (He didn't say it exactly like that, but I'm rushing off to a meeting and I'm no constitutional expert. Feel free to make comments at the end if you wish to correct my somewhat inexact phrasing.)

Mr. Socarides also said that those who have been protesting for the end of DADT, for workplace protections, and other LGBT rights are "heroes." He said that he thinks, for the most part, they have been effective. "There is room for all kinds of strategies, and I think that if everybody was chaining themselves to the White House fence that would not be good," he said in what probably was a reference to Dan Choi and GetEqual. "We certainly have no shortage of people on the inside who want to advance LGBT rights by making nice. We do have a shortage of people who want to advance the cause by making a lot of noise and chaining themselves to a fence. I think, pretty much, in every case, when people have taken radical action, it's been a positive and resulted in positive movement, and I think they're heroes."

He also discussed the complex landscape of court rulings, administrative policies and executive orders surrounding DADT, suggesting that more could have and should have been done sooner, and more can be done now. In response to my question, he noted that it is true that President Obama had originally said that this is legislative matter that should be settled by the legislature. But, over time, he has issued various orders, or had his Administration issue or arrange for various orders that loosened up on the vicious anti-gay kangaroo court that passes for military justice. (My words, not Mr. Socarides'.) The discharges based on rumor and confidential communications, the privilege of commanding officers to discharge without real evidence or effective right of appeal, these have now been ended, and the discharges must now be approved by the top of the chain of command, effectively constituting a moratorium. These change to effect simple justice could have been implemented two years ago. Instead, thousands have been discharged while President Obama waited for a clearly dysfunctional Congress to act.

There was more, but now I must rush off to that meeting. Mr Socarides was brilliant, engaging, and extremely knowledgeable, and I hope to hear more from him in the future.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Angela Brightfeather | October 27, 2010 9:57 AM

His words fly in the face of those in our community who do not believe that direct action is affective in any way and hurts our causes. Perhaps we should take some of those complainers and chain them to a few fences in DC and at least get some use out of them besides arguing about who or what is affective.

Seriously, Dan Choi and others who have taken a more radical route with DADT to keep it in the spotlight are as hero's usually do, have pointed to an example of how other issues might be more persuasive and less apt to be subject to incremental thinking and acting, such as ENDA and DOMA.

It has always been the case that those who are willing to put it on the line and stand in the face of fire and lack of progress, usually do end up showing everyone else what leadership is all about and how to make progress in a town where only whispers and slight of hand seem to be business as usual.

This is slightly off topic, but I thought I'd comment.

Obama's standard operating procedure seems to involve a lack of leadership (in regards to Congress). The health care situation would be perhaps the first case in point.

We were put thru the whole summer of 09 fiasco (tea parties, Nebraska compromises, no single payer, you name it)because Obama (and the Dems) wouldn't use reconciliation. But then they did use reconciliation - after the damage had been done.

This DADT episode seems eerily similar to the health care debacle. Get both conservatives and progressives mad, undermine the Democratic bases, in the pursuit of some 'principled stance'.

If Obama does use any kind of 'stop-loss' measure, or drops the DADT appeal, post mid-term election - you've got to wonder about the political smarts of this admin.

I'm old enough to remember Carter's presidency, and the aftermath. I respect Carter immensely, and believe he was probably one of the finest people to serve in terms of character. But politically his admin failed us.

And the result - 12 years of Reagan/Bush I.

I worry we're looking at the same kind of backlash to Obama's admin, if something doesn't change. (Most people don't remember how the thought of a 'President Reagan' was considered almost an impossibility in the late 60s and early 70s. 'President Palin' anyone?...)

It was an interesting talk. On the issue of whether Judge Phillips could issue a world-wide injunction in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, isn't that because it was a facial challenge, rather than an "as applied" constitutional challenge?

Mr. Socarides also said that those who have been protesting for the end of DADT, for workplace protections, and other LGBT rights are "heroes."
Of course he said that, Socarides was one of the founders of GetEQUAL. He endorses their childish strategy of "embarrassing, humiliating, irritating on inconveniencing people into submission." That "strategy" has made us look foolish and it has clearly alienated many friends - even if the word "friend" is used subjectively.

There is absolutely no evidence that any of GetEQUAl's publicity stunts did anything to benefit the LGBT community. The real proof is in participation and GetEQUAL has never had more than a dozen people at their "actions." In fact, for most actions they had to fly activists in from other cities - many of them paid to be there.

Dan Savage's (mostly free) "It Gets Better" Campaign has done a lot more for our community than all of GetEQUAL's publicity stunts.

From one your GetEQUAL "heroes" Lt. Dan Choi:

“Harry Reid is a pussy,” Choi angrily said after the failed vote in the Senate last month, vowing to speak out about the Democratic leader, “and he’ll be bleeding once a month."

Great stuff. We should be so proud.


Stonewall Girl Stonewall Girl | October 29, 2010 2:02 AM

I hate to say it, as an admirer of some of his prior words and actions, it seems that Dan has lost some of his focus and needs, for now, a "time out".

Civil disobedience for the sake of civil disobedience is counter-productive! Embarrassing and hurting one's friends is just plain .....(you fill in the blank).

Right now we should be out there trying to help as many pro equality Congress people as possible and just maybe we'll get something done in the lame duck.

Otherwise I'll think of a quote from Laurel and Hardy ... only it is really NOT a laughing matter. Elections matter!