At last Sunday's council meeting, the ROTC debate was framed in terms of "accommodating" cadets who are "inconvenienced" by their participation in an ROTC program at MIT. The authors of the bill introduced it as one which addresses "student services" rather than political issues.

However, political considerations cannot be excised from this debate. Despite Harvard's 1994 decision, students were allowed to participate in ROTC at the MIT campus, and ROTC students continue to have this opportunity today. The motivation behind the council bill was the inconvenience that ROTC members must endure to participate in classes at MIT.

However, all Harvard students have the choice to cross-register for classes at MIT, or even other schools of the university, some of which are located in far more "inconvenient" locations. In choosing to join ROTC, students accept the commute as an inconvenience in exchange for the opportunity to serve as a cadet or midshipman, and this is certainly a noble choice. Similarly, students who wish to cross-register at another school accept the commute as a cost of participation. However, while gay and lesbian students are allowed to register for most classes at MIT, they do not have the choice to register for classes sponsored by the ROTC. That is a fundamental argument made by the gay community in opposition to the council bill and the proposal for ROTC's return to the Harvard campus.

The Harvard administration should stand by the principle of non-discrimination that it asserted five years ago in barring ROTC activities and recruitment on our campus. In considering this issue, think about which is more valuable: accommodating the inconveniences of ROTC students who have participated in MIT's ROTC program successfully for the past 30 years or upholding the principle of non-discrimination which protects us as members of the Harvard community.

David Chao '99

April 13, 1999

•

Software an Individual Choice