McCain-Feingold Won't Solve Campaign Finance Problems

To the editors:

Re: Vasant M. Kamath's "Putting a Cap on Campaign Finance" (Op-ed, April 13).

First, the article's title is fallacious. None of the outstanding legislation, McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan or otherwise, puts a "cap" on campaign finance. For independently wealthy candidates or prodigal fundraisers with name-recognition, the sky will remain the limit. If all legislation does is limit contributions and make it difficult for less wealthy and less well-known individuals to raise funds, are we setting ourselves up for a plutocracy or, even worse to some, perpetual incumbency?

Kamath mentions in the article that the campaign finance legislation died in subcommittee. Not true. The Shays-Meehan bill actually passed in the House by a hefty margin (close to 100 votes, if I remember correctly), but the Senate's concomitant legislation couldn't muster the 60 votes to beat a filibuster, although it did have a majority. Campaign finance is not an "underdog issue," and in the upcoming legislative year it will have even more support and probably will pass.

Third, it is quite ironic that the article urges the "moderate" Speaker Hastert to try his "darndest" to pass the legislation. The implication, of course, is that he himself is a proponent of the legislation up against a recalcitrant opposition. In fact, he is one of the most stubborn opponents, and if anyone does manage to kill the legislation, it will probably be Hastert.

Lastly, Kamath, like many politicians, falsely conveys that McCain-Feingold is a campaign finance panacea. What the law would do is eliminate the "soft money" loophole that many candidates use to raise money. But candidates could still spend as much as they want. It's just that if they're not rich or famous, they're going to be spending a lot more time finding the money to spend.

The only real solution to the problem may be a more dynamic and educated populace that chooses to analyze the issues itself. Until we make the political market more egalitarian and until the political currency changes from dollars to discourse, we will continue to have a quasi-democratic system where an involved few drag along, kicking and screaming, an indifferent many.

Wayne Hsiung

Carmel, Ind., April 13, 1999

•

Council Ignores Gay Students

To the editors:

The Undergraduate Council's bill to put a Harvard stamp of approval (even if it is a compromised stamp) on the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) makes it clear that the majority is unable to take into account the interests of minorities and often even themselves, resulting in a persistent democratic threat: a tyranny of the majority.

ROTC is a good program. It provides a service to students and our government that only such a program could. It is patriotic and develops a specific style of leadership. It is also discriminatory, and the council's action is nothing less than a direct affront to Harvard's discrimination policy and an endorsement of homophobia in general.

ROTC is a program in direct defiance of Harvard's policy of non-discrimination and also an organization whose presence on campus would be threatening and offensive to at least one specific minority group. By approving of ROTC, the council has validated homophobic discrimination.

ROTC at Harvard is not about the "don't ask, don't tell policy," it is about Harvard students--and the message was clear: The council does not support its gay students and can support homophobic institutions on its own campus. I just wish the "student representatives" of Harvard had realized that their actions, while good for ROTC cadets, can threaten gay Harvard students.

Robert W. Christensen '00

April 12, 1999

•

Keep ROTC Ban in Place

To the editors:

John H. Whitehouse III (Letters, April 12) attributes the gay community's opposition to the return of ROTC to the Harvard campus to "self-righteous arrogance", citing the support by gay students of American troops in Kosovo. Whitehouse is correct in suggesting that gay students overwhelmingly support efforts by the United States military, in addition to supporting their peers in ROTC who have undertaken our national defense as their personal responsibility.

However, the U.S. military's valiant efforts in Kosovo do not excuse the discriminatory policies that this institution continues to enforce on our own soil and on our own campus. In this case, a right neither cancels nor justifies a wrong.

Whitehouse's assertion that the gay community's opposition to ROTC's return to Harvard's campus is a function of "feel[ing] uncomfortable" trivializes the challenges that gay students face each day in gaining and maintaining acceptance in our community. I urge Whitehouse to educate himself about the escalation of hate crimes against gays and lesbians in our society today, crimes which have been concentrated in areas where tolerance is not as widely practiced.

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

To the editors:

I want to clarify some issues raised in the article "Word, Excel No Longer Free on Harvard Network" (News, April 13). We chose not to participate in the new Microsoft Campus Agreement because it required payment for the software for every student, whether or not he or she used the software or already owned it. Picking software for personal productivity is an individual choice and students who own a computer should also own the productivity software of their choice. For students who need Microsoft Office but do not own it, we provide the latest version for use on all public lab computers.

An important note: The Crimson should also have mentioned that installing software which one does not own onto his or her personal computer is software piracy and could subject the offender to legal action.

Franklin M. Steen

April 13, 1999

The writer is director of computer services for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.