STUDENT debate this week has centered around a variety of misconceptions about ROTC and its role on campus. Here is a list of some of the implicit and explicit policies espoused by ROTC:

ROTC and the U.S. military discriminate on the basis of race. Minorities vying for leadership in the ROTC programs are routinely given low-level jobs and systematically kept in the lower rungs of the military hierarchy.

ROTC and the U.S. military discriminate on the basis of religion. A 1986 Supreme Court decision denied the rights of an ordained rabbi to wear a yarmulke while in uniform. The plaintiff had entered the Air Force in accordance with the rules of the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program, a doctoral version of ROTC.

ROTC and the U.S. military discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, openly denying admission to the gay and lesbian community. The military has the right and has used the right to prosecute and incarcerate officers discovered to be gay.

THE Undergraduate Council's call to reinstate ROTC on campus violates every tenet of its anti-discrimination policy. Should Harvard University decide to allow ROTC back on campus, it will violate its own anti-discrimination policy as well. Inconveniencing a Harvard student with traveling to MIT--in council terms, known as "discrimination against the economically disadvantaged"--justifies this flagrant disrespect for all minority groups on campus.

Yet in the debate surrounding the Undergraduate Council's decision to reinstitute ROTC, it was the opponents of ROTC who were characterized as elitist and excluding. One Eliot House sophomore complained about the "militarization of the lower classes" and the offenses to "patriotic people." A Dunster House senior expressed his concern for "the lower classes of American society" who would have "a lot of very serious problems" encountering homosexuals in their platoon.

Repellent condescension to ROTC members aside, the council position distorts and insults a legacy of hard-won University independence from outside control. Student opposition to ROTC does not stem from elitist discrimination, but from objections to ROTC's own discriminatory policies.

For some ROTC members and council representatives, patriotism means supporting U.S. foreign and military policy. But for others, and for the Constitution ROTC claims to defend, patriotism also means the protection of minority rights. By endorsing the presence of ROTC on campus, the council is denying an enormous portion of Harvard students those rights.

Harvard students have never been prohibited from participating in ROTC programs. Those who belong to ROTC, like those who belong to final clubs, have every right to join and enjoy ROTC without the approval and encouragement of the Harvard Administration.

Harvard does not have to encourage ROTC in order for students to take advantage of its programs. If Harvard were to support ROTC, it would violate an anti-discrimination agreement promised to all students.