DURING high school, my buddies and I thought nothing of using anti-gay slurs. After graduation, most of my friends went off to serve their country in the military, while I came to Harvard. Today, I recognize the malice and inhumanity of homophobia. My high school best friend, on the other hand, has been transformed, during three years in the Marine Corps, into a (literally) violent gay-basher.

The presence of gay-haters such as my high school classmates in the armed forces is discouraging to advocates of gay rights in general and non-discrimination in the military in particular. The underlying assumption is that the dregs of society who fill the enlisted ranks of the armed services--"crackers," "rednecks," "hillbillies" and "homeboys"--cannot be expected to uphold the same standards of tolerance and non-discrimination as the rest of the country.

Of course, most people recognize that no group should be punished because of the bigotry of others. Still, many hold the pessimistic view that the military is so conservative and backward that it will necessarily be one of the last hold-outs in the battle against homophobia.

This view ignores historical reality. With courageous political leadership, the armed services needn't lag behind the rest of society in acceptance of gays and lesbians. When it comes to carrying out social reforms, the military truly can be "a great place to start."

IN OUR democratic civil society, government cannot force people to be tolerant. It is the Constitutionally protected right of all Americans to be bigoted in their interpersonal relationships--so long as they do not discriminate in public accommodations or employment. No authority can force an intolerant citizen to live on the same block as a Black family or play on the same softball team as a gay man.

In the military, the rules are different. Subordinates are duty-bound to obey the orders of their superiors. If a superior issues an order that, say, Blacks and whites will henceforth serve in the same units, soldiers have no choice but to obey. Because of the inherent authoritarian nature of the military, the government can promote social reform in a way that is simply impossible in other arenas.

Although this practice has earned a bad reputation and the unfortunate appelation "social engineering," coercing people into tolerance is not necessarily a bad thing. In public schools, government uses its discipline over children to compel them to share classrooms with children of other races, creeds and religions. Casual observation and empirical study both show that such integration is a positive force for social reform.

So why not apply the same principle to a similarly coercive institution--the armed forces? It wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights, as people do actually choose to enlist in the service, if only out of economic necessity.

Back when political courage was a more abundant commodity, the military was actively used as a crucible for social integration. In 1948, Harry S Truman issued an executive order to begin desegregating the military, a process completed in the same year that school desegregation began. The Pentagon brass protested then as they protest now. But their protests didn't matter, because the military is subordinate to the civilian government in this country.

During the days of universal conscription, even before racial integration, poor Southern sharecroppers and rich New England WASPs shared barracks. The forced fusion of social classes during the Second World War (remember the ethnic composition of the platoons in John Wayne movies) was partly responsible for the unprecedented social mobility of the post-war period.

This is not to romanticize the prospects for improving society by forcing people to associate. Obviously, not every army batallion featured a Hawkeye Pierce and a Charles Emerson Winchester '40 learning to respect each other's humanity while tossing off wisecracks. But the forced fusion of diverse elements of the population made American society more fluid and less class-conscious. (It also ensured that decision-making elites had to bear their share of the costs of war; leaders are likely to be more prudent about using military force when their sons are in the trenches than when they are safely esconced at Harvard.)

Of course, the military has a task more important than turning aircraft carriers into laboratories for social reform. If I were convinced that there was a compelling threat to national security inherent in admitting gays to the ranks, I would probably favor excluding them. But I have yet to be convinced that any such threat exists, and almost all available evidence points in the opposite direction.

Not only does the military not serve as a laboratory for social reform, as it might, it actively impedes the understanding of individual differences. Instead of becoming more cosmopolitan and humane, my best friend from high school has learned bigotry and contempt for differences. He fervently believes the Navy's accusation--almost certainly false--that a homosexual romance gone sour was responsible for the deaths of 47 of his shipmates in an explosion on the USS Iowa. He has been taught--in the absence of any openly gay or lesbian peers--that homosexuality is a threat to the integrity of the United States.

The solution is not for liberal, Harvard-educated officers to infiltrate the military and counteract the backwardness and intolerance running rampant in the ranks. The likes of Navy Midshipman Sumner E. Anderson '92, who called homosexuality "deviant behavior" and "a disease," cast doubt on this approach.

The apologists for anti-gay discrimination are correct in thinking that the military is filled with soldiers who despise gays and lesbians. But that is a reason for including gays, not keeping them out.