To the Editors of the Crimson:

I believe there are a number of extremely relevant points which have been all but ignored thus far in the debate over allowing ROTC on campus.

First, Mr. Frewing and Mr. Hornstein introduced their resolution to the Undergraduate Council as a legitimate attempt to support those who participate in ROTC. The proposal was not an attempt to create a showdown over homosexual rights. I am disheartened that some people seem determined to turn this issue into a conflict between supporters of ROTC and supporters of the gay and lesbian community. The coverage of this issue so far seems to equate ROTC with homophobia. Please do not confuse the policies of the United States government and the senior military leadership with the personal convictions of those who participate in ROTC.

Second, I believe the members of the Undergraduate Council and the Harvard community as a whole must decide what they are trying to achieve regarding this issue. If you wish to make a symbolic act to ease your own consciences, then vote to continue the exclusion of ROTC from Harvard's campus. I can absolutely assure you this will do nothing to influence the military's policy on homosexuality. However, if you wish to improve the situation and to ultimately effect change, you will do everything in your power to encourage Harvard graduates to enter the military. Being educated in the open-minded, liberal environment of Harvard has certainly made me better prepared to deal with the issue of homsexuality should it arise during my military career. Denying a Harvard student a ROTC scholarship does not mean that there will be one less officer in the military, it just means that officer will come from another source...almost certainly somplace that places less emphasis on civil liberties.

Third, there has been a widespread implication that people choose to participate in ROTC only for financial reasons. This is simply untrue. While ROTC scholarships are certainly an important avenue for students from from lower- and middle-income families, the desire to serve one's country comes before the need for financial aid in most cases. Serving as an officer in the military has been a desired and respected profession throughout the world for hundreds of years. To imply that the only reason one would choose to do ROTC is for money is an affront to the values and beliefs of those in the program.

Finally, I believe this is largely a symbolic issue. I don't know how influential the UC's resolution will be to Harvard or to the government, but I know it is important to the members of ROTC at Harvard. We are a group of people with a set of values and principles. We are not homophobic, but we do believe in the importance of defending our country. We are a part of the Harvard community and, like any other group, we would like to be recognized as such. We have pledged our lives to defend the Constitution of the United States and the rights and freedoms of all Americans. We respect your right to disagree with us. As a matter of fact, we would die for it. All we ask in return is that you respect our right to be at Harvard like any other group.

Don't reject the presence of ROTC at Harvard because you find one policy of the government and military discriminatory. By doing so you would throw away your only chance to eventually improve the situation. Kurtis Paul Wheeler '89   Marine-Option Midshipman Naval ROTC