Gay rights for national security

George W. Bush seems to think gay rights are bad for the War on Terror. Here's why he's wrong.

Last December, the Bush administration revised several sections of the "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information," the document used to determine who may be granted security clearance. The guidelines are meant to gauge candidates' "reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information, as well as their vulnerability to pressure or coercion by foreign interests."

Besides addressing "Drug Involvement" and "Financial Considerations," the guidelines also include a section on "Guideline D: Sexual Behavior," cited because, according to the document, "Sexual behavior that involves a criminal offense, indicates a personality or emotional disorder, reflects lack of judgment or discretion, or which may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information." The regulations established under the Clinton administration in 1997, however, stated explicitly that "Sexual orientation or preference may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for security clearance." This specific protection was inserted upon an executive order from President Clinton.

Under the Bush administration, however, a revision of the new guidelines issued last December has removed this clause entirely. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley instead substituted the protection with: "No adverse inference concerning the standards in the Guideline [on sexual behavior] may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."

This revision was made with little fanfare. A few newspapers reported it several weeks ago, and a number of bloggers got pretty huffy, but many major news sources passed over the story entirely. Even White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan didn't seem to know much about the new language when questioned about it at a press conference in March. As he stammered to a White House reporter, "I don't know what language you're specifically referring to, because I think the language is very similar to what it says in the executive order and the policy remains the same."

At that press conference, no one asked about the other changes to the guidelines. Currently, "any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States" may be considered a disqualifying condition for a security clearance, whereas before December, only "acts" demonstrating a foreign allegiance were disqualifying. In other words, potential spies, no joking about moving to Canada!

The most troubling change, however, when coupled with the removal of protections for gay candidates, is the new language permitting the government to deny a security clearance without citing a "single criterion" for their denial. In other words, investigators may conflate multiple suspicions in order to deny a security clearance and not be held accountable for a specific explanation. Thus, in a fudging of the requirement that sexual orientation not be the "sole" basis for disqualification, applicants may theoretically be denied security clearance because of their sexual orientation and miscellaneous other "adverse information."

Ironically, these wording changes will likely present greater threats to national security where gay candidates are concerned.

The new guidelines are encouraging openly gay candidates to jump back in the closet to pass background checks, even newly declaring in the Sexual Behavior section that sexual behavior that is "strictly private, consensual and discreet" could "mitigate [what might otherwise be considered] security concerns." The use of sexual orientation is allowable as a condition for disqualification apparently because knowledge of an individual's homosexuality "may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress." But by further stigmatizing homosexuality and encouraging gay candidates to keep their homosexuality a secret, the Bush administration is actually increasing the chances that government workers' homosexuality may be used for extortion.

Yet another reason why gay rights are good for national security. Catherine Rampell is an anthropology major from Palm Beach, Fla. She can be reached at crampell@princeton.edu.