Advertisement

None

Yielding to Bigotry

Harvard Must Keep Its Promise and Break Ties With ROTC

That message seems to be lost in the relatively apathetic campus of today. The BGLSA, once a frontrunner on this issue, has grown somnolent.

Even The Crimson, which long called for the severing of ROTC ties, recently reversed itself and declared that refusing ROTC scholarships would hurt Harvard students.

Since few on this campus are willing to argue that discrimination against homosexuals is a positive thing per se, the argument has shifted to more murky ground.

One common tact is to accuse the anti-ROTC camp of hypocrisy. After all, goes this argument, Harvard accepts all sorts of scholarships limited to specific groups: Cuban-Americans, students from a particular town, female science students, etc. Isn't this the same as the ROTC discrimination?

No. This argument ignores the distinction between money that by design promotes the presence of certain groups and that which by design excludes others.

Advertisement

The scholarship given only to those of French Huguenot descent is not designed to eliminate the French Catholic population at Harvard.

ROTC is not intended to promote the presence of any particular group; its purpose is to train college students to be military officers upon their graduation. This opportunity is naturally limited to those who meet the military's description of those fit for duty.

No one argues that physical fitness and mental acuity are not reasonable criteria; to exclude students on the basis of sexual orientation, on the other hand, is a prejudicial and pointless policy. Gays and lesbians have long served their country with distinction.

The second instance of hypocrisy often cited has to do with the University's acceptance of military research grants, estimated at as much as $8 million.

Yet this comparison ignores one very basic fact: no military grant has ever been denied or pulled on the basis of a researcher's sexual orientation.

The military has no interest in the personal lives of its researchers, merely in the work produced by them. Yet it fails to take this common sense approach when it comes to its own personnel, perpetuating a hidebound and irrational bigotry.

Some say that, rather than target innocent students, Harvard should use its clout to pressure Congress and President Clinton to change the military's policy. This argument ignores the problem that any lobbying Harvard might do is greatly weakened if its money is not where its mouth is. University administrators would be put in the awkward position of saying, "Discrimination against homosexuals is bad. But thanks for the check, anyway."

Moreover, the harm to students is grossly exaggerated. To begin with, present ROTC students would no doubt be grandfathered out of any new policy (as they were in 1969). Some then argue that would be Harvard students would be forced to go elsewhere without ROTC.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the Undergraduate Council in 1991 found that 89 percent of then-ROTC students would not have come to Harvard had the University not offered the program. Yet this same poll showed that, for the overwhelming majority of those in that 89 percent, financial reasons were their primary or secondary considerations.

Harvard offers need-based financial aid to every student who qualifies. Trying to make this an issue of "the gays versus the poor" ignores this fact.

And while some would say that such need-based aid ignores the problems faced by middle-class students, the proper solution is to reexamine how to make Harvard more affordable for all, not just for those interested in ROTC.

As a Crimson staff editorial put it in December of 1991: "However beneficial the scholarships are for those who qualify, are we willing, in good conscience, to accept scholarship money that is denied to certain Harvard students out of pure bigotry?"

Two years later, that remains the true issue. Despite attempts by the University to obfuscate and by ROTC supporters to equivocate, the University's current relationship with ROTC supports an atmosphere of intolerance inconsistent with Harvard policy. The Faculty recognized this four years ago. It's time for the administration to do so now.

Advertisement