Evaluation Editorial the Ban on Gays in the Military

America is a country of freedom and is made of many different lifestyles and beliefs. One of the different lifestyles and beliefs of the American people is dealing with homosexuality within the military. This matter has been debated numerous times, dating back as far as 1778 when General George Washington had a soldier removed from the military for homosexual acts (Webley). The fight today is if a homosexual individual should be allowed to be open about their sexual preference in the military. In the editorial The Ban on Gays in the Military, according to The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric it is unacceptable, because it does not meet the criteria of making sure that both sides of an argument is viewed, that all viewpoints are analyzed, and that there is little foregone conclusions are determined.

In the editorial, The Ban on Gays in the Military the unknown author concluded, the U.S. Supreme Court takes each case and decides which cases they will hear. The Supreme Court decided in 2009 not to hear the case of gays in the military. The author of The Ban on Gays in the Military maintains that either the President or Congress was in no urgency to stop the ban. President Bill Clinton brought up the ban, but he was unproductive in overturning the ban. In 1993, President Clinton enacted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This policy has created havoc, because it has decreased the number of active members of the military in a time of need (New York Times Opinions: The Ban on Gays in the Military) .

The editorial argues that the mindset of leaders in the military and the public has transformed to tolerance of the gay and lesbian life style in the past few years and is felt that this highly debatable subject is a reviewable topic (New York Times Opinions: The Ban on Gays in the Military). So how does the editorial look to a critical thinker?

This editorial is an editorial so therefore the judging of the editorial is a little difficult. With an editorial, you usually look at someone's opinion. With that being said, observing the editorial from the critical thinking rubric from the textbook, it fails to reveal a lot of critical thinking. In the ranking process of the editorial, it would rank a two, unacceptable, according to the rubric. Even though the editorial does "accurately interpret evidence", it does not give opposing arguments and it does not give other viewpoints. The editorial only vindicated one result. Since it is an editorial, it was based on self-interest (Facione). Let us look at how the editorial does look correctly at the data of homosexuals in the military.

In looking at the editorial The Ban on Gays in the Military, it does give the correct information on the Supreme Courts not listening to the case of allowing homosexuals to be open about their sexual preferences. It even discusses the policy "don't ask, don't tell" that President Clinton had enacted. It also gives correct information that President Obama had promised that he would address this issue during his presidential campaign, but has made no major effort to act on this subject. One last thing that proves the editorial gave correct information is that it mentioned how the military lost a large amount of soldiers, due to the ban, during a time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (New York Times Opinions: The Ban on Gays in the Military) . Even though the editorial does give correct statements and evidence, it does not give both sides.

One of the main reasons this editorial is unacceptable in The Critical Thinking Holistic Scoring Rubric is that it does not give the pros and cons of the story. In the editorial, it only gives the government's side of the ban. It does not discuss the soldier's view or the outcomes of the soldiers that were discharged for disclosing their sexual preferences. In addition, the editorial does not address the benefits of the Supreme Courts not hearing this case or the benefits of the fact that President Obama has not had the ban