Members of the Harvard community should reconsider their anger and frustration about this year's Commencement. While the ban on gays in the military should be lifted immediately, General Colin L. Powell is not the proper target for protest. Powell's distinguished career and inspiring success deserve our respect, not misguided hostility. It would be wrong to infer nefarious motives from Powell's frustrating conclusion about the issue of gays in the military. In fact, Powell is no bigot--he is merely a pessimist.

Many people in this intellectual community become outraged when the dword is mentioned. Dare I mention the word? Okay, brace yourself, here it is: discrimination. I am often confused by the muddled thinking which surrounds this word. Discrimination occurs constantly, in all facets of life. Harvard, for example, does not admit every student who applies--and for important reasons. Also, the military itself has certain physical and intellectual requirements for entrance. It must be made clear that the outrage caused by discrimination only properly applies to arbitrary or unjustified discrimination.

This should be self-evident. Yet, without clear thinking, legitimate and illegitimate forms of discrimination often become confused. The distinction is crucial and must be kept in mind when considering the issue of gays in the military.

When Colin Powell supports the ban on gays in the military, he supports the ban on "openly" gay men and women. Many homosexuals have served in all branches of the armed forces--and many have performed with great success. Powell understands this simple fact. The issue is whether these soldiers should openly profess their homosexuality.

For Powell, this is not a matter of justice, but utility. Sexual orientation is obviously not a just criterion for exclusion from the military since homosexuality does not prevent a soldier from carrying out his or her duties. With this in mind, however, the ban on gays in the military is often branded arbitrary discrimination.

Yet individuals do not live or work in a vacuum. The ugly truth of the matter is that open homosexuality has an adverse impact on the performance of many other soldiers. Homophobia is an irrational fear--it is not a justification for behavior, but an explanation and an unfortunate fact. Everyone who, like myself, opposes the ban on gays in principle should recognize the inevitable consequences on morale and performance which would result from a lift on the ban. General Powell, after a long and distinguished career in the military, understands just that--probably better than anyone else. Thus, the ban on gays in the military should not be viewed as an arbitrary form of discrimination.

The ban on gays in the military is justified only if the adverse consequences of open homosexuality are inevitable. If homophobia is inescapable, then the ban on gays must be kept in place as a legitimate form of discrimination.

But it appears that homophobia can be overcome, especially with the military's strict code of obedience and discipline.

As a matter of justice, the ban on gays in the military should be lifted immediately. Powell, however, is acting properly to present the facts of utility. Powell knows the military. He knows better than anyone else the negative impact on morale that open homosexuality would cause with the current level of homophobia. Powell must take this into consideration, as his fundamental duty is a well-functioning military.

Thus, from Powell's point of view, the ban on gays is not consistent with justice, but it is consistent with utility: The ban is necessary. In Powell's eyes, the ban on gays in the military is much like war itself--a necessary evil. Powell apparently is a pessimist about achieving true tolerance and acceptance toward differences in sexuality. But he is definitely not a bigot.

Some might still object to Powell because they believe him to represent a faulty conception of justice. But it seems to me that the condemnation as well as the praise of General Colin Powell stem from one source--Powell knows his job and he does it extraordinarily well. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of either President Clinton or Congress.

The United States government must consider both justice and utility before pursuing any course of action. Powell must provide the president with an honest understanding of the utility of lifting the ban on gays in the military. Then, after fully considering the utility of the situation, Clinton must determine with Congress what action is just.

Powell does not determine matters of justice. Most fundamentally, Powell is not responsible for declarations of war. Powell's role as general is concerned with utility after the issue of justice is resolved by the president and Congress. Regardless of whether a war is just or whether Powell personally believes a certain war to be just, his duty as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requires that he execute the war effectively and efficiently. Powell's concern is obviously one of utility, not justice.

This distinction allows us to protest Desert Storm, yet admire and respect Powell's successful efforts during the war.

Similarly, once President Clinton persuades Congress with his conception of justice on the issue of gays in the military, General Powell will certainly make this conception of justice consistent with utility. In other words, Powell will successfully implement the declarations of the U.S. government. That should be clear. In fact, even potential protesters of Powell must admire his record of success and effectiveness in carrying out orders.

Thus, Clinton and Congress must make the right determination of justice, since that is their proper function within the U.S. government. Regardless of any changes in the conception of justice, however, General Powell should prove successful in its implementation.

We must hold Clinton and Congress responsible for the unjust ban on gays in the military, not Powell. But even if Powell must serve as a symbol for the unjust ban, then he should not be hated for his reasoning. Powell's only crime is pessimism. Instead of pink triangles, perhaps protesters should influence Powell by greeting him with yellow smiley faces.