DoD, Ada, Homosexuality and Hypocrisy

DoD, Ada, Homosexuality and Hypocrisy

[Gregory Aharonian]

    The current dilemmas the DoD is trying to deal with in regards to
finding a policy for homosexuality reminds me of the dilemmas the DoD
is facing in trying to deal with Ada.  In particular, there are many
parallels between the 'de jure' "don't ask, don't tell" homosexuality
policy, and the 'de facto'  "don't ask, don't tell" Ada Mandate policy,
given the rampant violations of the Mandate within the DoD itself.
   Independent of the validity or utility of either of these policies,
is the issue of hypocrisy.  A recent article in Time magazine (July 26,41)
has some observations on this issue of hypocrisy that I would like to 
repeat here:
	"Don't ask, don't tell" is corrosive at several levels.  "By
	engaging in this hypocrisy", says the philosopher Sissela Bok,
	"by saying something matters and then ignoring it, by mandating
	duplicity, the government will further reduce the public's
	trust in the honest of its officials".  "It is ironic that
	the military should participate in sanctioning a catergory of
	falsehood by silence", says New York University law professor
	Stephen Gillers.  "More than any institution in society,
	probably including the family, the military insists that its
	effectiveness demands loyalty to the organization above loyalty
	to self.  If there's something amiss, you're supposed to
	speak up.  If homosexuality or its practice is considered wrong,
	you're supposed to acknowledge it and others are supposed to
	expose you.  This so-called compromise is dishonorable on its 
	face".


I claim, and have posted more data than anyone else, that the Mandate is
being violated in the main by the DoD, and yet no one has ever shown
any interest in the data - the DoD just does not want to know about its
people violating a federal law in ignoring the Mandate.  It is hypocrisy
pure and simple - hypocrisy that does not get lost in the minds of the
general public considering the adoption of Ada.  Why should anyone believe
the claims made by the Ada Mandated world when the Ada Mandated world 
apparently does not believe them themselves?

Read the Mandate legislation.  It applies to everything the DoD does with
software.  And given Reifer's data showing the cost-effectiveness of Ada
in general, any use of non-Ada in DoD projects (and I have endless lists)
is a violation of a federal law, which the last time I checked, is a felony.

Anyways, a bit of philosophy for those interested in ethics.

-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178