Leaping Into Controversy

A while back -- back when my blogs were published through MySpace, the online equivalent of saying when dinosaurs roamed the Earth -- I blasted Star Trek: Voyager for their episode "Repentance." I called it "a misguided, one-sided, unsubtle treatise on the death penalty, loosely disguised as entertainment," and I stand by that assessment. Now it's time for a similar review, although this time the controversy at hand is Gays in the Military, and the sci-fi show under question is Quantum Leap.

Now, before I go any further, I must establish that this rant isn't coming from a hater; Quantum Leap has always been one of my favorite shows, with compelling writing, excellent production, an intriguing premise, and likable characters. And all of these qualities can be found in "Running for Honor," the episode under question.

For those of you who don't know, Quantum Leap is about Sam Beckett, a time traveler who leaps into people's bodies (sort of like a temporary possession), fixes their lives up, and then moves on to the next leap through time. The show never shied away from controversial subject matter, a fact which eventually led to its cancellation when, despite strong ratings, sponsors pulled away from the show one by one until it was no longer commercially viable.

In "Running for Honor," Sam leaps into the body of Tommy York, a cadet at the prestigious naval academy Prescott College. On the surface, Tommy's life seems just about perfect: He's an honor roll student in line for valedictorian, he's got lots of friends, he's the school's biggest track star in generations, and he's even dating the dean's daughter -- with the dean's full approval. Things couldn't be rosier.

Yet beneath the veneer of perfection lies a reality of danger, intrigue, and prejudice. Tommy's roommate Phillip, who had (apparently single-handedly) published the campus paper, has recently been kicked out of the college for being gay. Sam discovers that Phillip and Tommy have been conducting an investigation to expose the CHAIN, a group of masked cadets who secretly bully rumored homosexual classmates into leaving Prescott. Sam also learns that CHAIN is comprised of Tommy's track team buddies, which pretty much makes it impossible for Sam/ Tommy to remain friends with both Phillip and his teammates. Sam has to make a choice, and he chooses Phillip, thus earning the absolute hatred of CHAIN. Tommy's former friends immediately turn on him, with beatings, threats, false accusations, and even a mock execution that comes dangerously close to being all-too real.

Phillip is alternately brave and cowardly, altruistic and selfish. As viewers, we are encouraged to judge him by his actions rather than by his sexual orientation. Similarly, the CHAIN thugs are villainous due to their loathsome attitudes and tactics, rather than their political position. Yet script writer Bobby Duncan has definitely chosen a position of his own, and he is unashamedly in favor of -- or at the absolute least, sympathetic towards -- gays in the military. This is made clear by the fact that our hero, Sam, vehemently defends the right of homosexuals to serve. Over the years that the show has been on the air, we have grown to love -- and, more to the point, identify with Sam, so when he gets offended by homophobia, we are implicitly encouraged to be offended as well.

Personally, I feel that I don't know enough about the "Gays in the Military" issue to pass a learned judgment; I know nothing about being gay, and nothing about being in the military, but my gut instinct tells me that if there's a problem with gays in the military, the problem lies with the homophobes more than the gays. But what do I know? I only know this: On Facebook, I recently asserted that "if you're going to address a controversy, you should either be neutral or take a side, but don't PRETEND to be neutral in a disguised attempt to discredit your opponent. That's just disgraceful." I stand by that assertion. Integrity depends on not just what your views are, but also -- and perhaps more-so -- on how you express those views.

And that leads to what I disliked about "Running for Honor": The episode, despite the clear leanings of writer Duncan in favor of gays in the military, does make a half-assed attempt to present the opposing viewpoint. There is one scene in which Admiral Spencer, the dean of Prescott College (and, don't forget, the father of Tommy's girlfriend) gets involved in the conflict between Sam and CHAIN. Faced with the accusation that Sam / Tommy is gay, the dean is forced to use disciplinary action against Sam. The dean is presented as a sympathetic character: he sincerely likes Sam/ Tommy, and is clearly uncomfortable with the regulations that require the disciplinary action. He's not a homophobe in the same vein as the bullying, possibly deadly CHAIN gang, but he does oppose gays in the military, and his attempt to explain his position is awkward, fumbling, and full of vague statements that fail to provide any actual reasons.

More to the point, the dean's position is strongly supported by Al, Sam's usually loyal sidekick. Why did writer Duncan make this decision? Clearly to present the appearance of neutrality. The show has only two regular characters, both thoroughly likable. And it turns out that Sam is in favor of gays in the military, while Al is opposed to it. But why is Al opposed to gays serving in the military? Tellingly, his arguments are as fumbled and imprecise as Admiral Spencer's.

I consider this a serious mistake on writer Duncan's part. Al has always been presented as a political and social liberal, so his opposition to gays in the military seems acharacteristic. Could it have something to do with the fact that Al has served in the military? Al says yes -- but is still unable express his reasoning. That's a real missed opportunity to explore the reasoning of some high-ranking military personnel who oppose allowing homosexuals to serve. Al is obviously proud of his military background; despite the fact that his job clearly doesn't have a dress code (judging from Al's usually outrageous suits) he still occasionally chooses to wear his dress uniform. But writer Duncan chooses to ignore the implications of all of this. Instead, Duncan presents Al (who is often used for comic relief) as a buffoon whose mind is full of stereotypes and myths involving homosexuality. He foolishly starts to worry that, by leaping into Tommy's body metaphysically, Sam has picked up some of Tommy's traits and might be becoming gay himself. Sam angrily and rightfully ridicules these comments, but where does that leave us?

The way I see it -- and writer Duncan seems to agree with me -- is there are more or less two types of people who oppose allowing gays in the military. CHAIN represents the outright homophobes, who respond to homosexuals with anger, hatred, and violence. And then there are the people like Al and Admiral Spencer, the dean. Neither of them have any problem with gay people in any other context, but they fear that allowing gays and straights to serve together poses insurmountable practical difficulties. Now, you and I may or may not agree with their position, with their reasoning, but here's my point: They do have reasoning behind their position, and that reasoning, whether or not you think it's ultimately logical or valid, is certainly more sophisticated than Al's bumbling "well, you know, it's just, uh . . ."

If you're going to address the issue, then address it. Otherwise, you do a disservice to both sides of the argument (and no, that doesn't mean that it's therefore okay because it somehow "cancels out"); people on one side of the argument don't get a voice at all, while people on the other side don't have a position to argue against. An unchallenged argument isn't stronger for the lack of counterbalance; with no opposing view to contrast itself, an unchallenged argument is forced to rely on broad statements ("opposing gays in the military is wrong!") that oversimplify views and ultimately fail to convince anyone of anything.