Continuing the theme of the US military putting a proactively positive face on the end of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” US military academy professors are contributing to studies and journals virtually singing the praises of repeal.

US Air Force LtCol (Ret) James Parco should be one familiar name, as the former USAFA instructor was one of the “scholars” interviewed for the Palm Center report, and he has also vocally defended religious freedom critic Michael Weinstein.

David Levy is a current US Air Force Academy professor in the Management Department.  He, too, has been mentioned as a contributor to the biased Palm Center report.

In the Armed Forces Journal, the two co-authored a commentary pieced on “Why the anti-gay policy vanished without ill effects” — a subtitle that betrays its own bias.  Within the article, the two further that bias by implying irrational discrimination was behind everything all along:

The more fundamental argument [about repeal] centered on latent discrimination toward lesbian, gay and bisexual service members in the status quo of military culture.

In so phrasing, the authors start to paint the opponents of repeal as backward or old fashioned simpletons — an apparent attempt to criticize the person to undermine their argument.

Ironically, Parco and Levy actually point out what is likely a point of agreement among both advocates and opponents of repeal:

Chief among these [contradictions] was the creation of a policy of where the most esteemed value — integrity — was compromised daily.

Now comes the question, however: Are we talking about the policy of DADT, or the policy of homosexuals serving in the US military?

Even those who opposed repeal didn’t like DADT.  The law clearly stated homosexuals were banned from military service. DADT said ‘we don’t have to enforce the law if we don’t know.’ In so doing, it created a wink-wink culture in which homosexuals were “allowed” to serve, even though it was against the law.  Given the options, however, most opponents of repeal were content to let DADT stand.

There can be no question that those who served despite the ban had issues of integrity — they were, after all, breaking the law.  DADT was ambiguously moral for that very reason, and removing it was good.  The only question is what remains:  Do you leave the federal law banning homosexuals from the military in place, or do you remove it?

What would happen if the US military said it would stop drug testing (“asking”) for spice or marijuana — even while such use remained illegal — but it would still kick troops out if it was discovered?  It would likely create an underground culture of spice/drug users whose “integrity” would certainly be in question, whose lives would be filled with stress they might be caught, and whose peers, superiors, and co-workers would be placed in an awkward situation if they began to suspect a troops was a user.  That subculture is precisely one of the reasons the Palm Center claimed justified ending DADT.

But that environment doesn’t justify making marijuana/spice use legal; it simply proves that a morally ambiguous policy is bad policy.

If a regional write-up is correct, Parco and Levy apparently interviewed a grand total of 17 people to draw their conclusions.  They are also co-editors of an upcoming 2013 report on the “rise and fall of DADT.”

It will likely be as exhaustive and objective as the other reports to date.