Dr. Franklin Kameny's speech "We Throw Down the Gauntlet" is from a case in 1969 in which he is an attorney defending Benning Wentworth's right for industrial security clearance. The United States Department of Defense believes that since Wentworth is a practicing homosexual he may nor have clearance, despite Wentworth's long history as a member of the United States military. Kameny's argument can be described using the stasis theory. It is well known in 1969 when this case is going on that homosexuality is a shunned practice, and that people who practice homosexuality are considered "less than human." Kameny believes that the dehumanization of homosexuality is caused by the "popular opinion" that heterosexuality is the American standard, and that the effect of being homosexual involves having limited rights and abilities. Kameny doesn't state that homosexuality is a good thing, but he does believe that private personal preferences should not have an effect on security clearance, which entitles that he believes that equal rights for LGBTQ members would be a good thing.
Kameny believes that equal rights should be implemented in defense of Benning Wentworth. This is proven when he says in his speech "Mr. Wentworth will get his clearance as the sexually active human being that he is. Just as heterosexuals get their clearances as sexually active heterosexuals. Unfortunately, the United States Department of Defense decides the fate of whether or not Wentworth will get his clearance. Kameny states that since the Wentworth case had turned into a national topic, large numbers of US citizens would be paying attention to see if the Department of Defense decides to make what Kameny believes is the "ethical, moral, decent, logical, and sensible" decision to grant Wentworth his clearance. If the Department of Defense decides against granting Wentworth's clearance, Kameny believes that the government would be the object of "disdain" and "disgust."
Good analysis of the speech through stasis theory. I would maybe elaborate a little more on the effects of this discrimination and the action that should be taken. I would also link out Benning Wentworth. Good job overall.
ReplyDelete-Allyson
I'm not entirely clear on what industrial security clearance is or entails, so that might have been a good thing to expound on a bit.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, this issue reminds me of the French debate over public versus private life of public figures such as politicians. Traditionally, public figures in France are judged on their primary job, i.e., policymaking. In contrast, American politicians' status as "role models" is often emphasized as a highly contestable point in their ethos. Recently, however, French attitudes have started to lean more toward the American perspective. Controversy sparked over President Hollande's affair while in office, although it never escalated to the level of a national scandal as in the case of Bill Clinton in the US, for example.