Universities that don’t allow Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs on campus could lose millions in federal funds under legislation passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The measure also strengthens the 1996 Solomon Amendment, under which the Pentagon has threatened to block federal grants to schools that limit military recruiters’ access to students.

Members of Congress singled out Harvard for rebuke, sharply criticizing a 1969 vote by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to ban ROTC on campus.

Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., a former member of the Harvard Business School (HBS) faculty and an alum of both HBS and Harvard Law School (HLS), assailed his alma mater in a speech on the House floor Tuesday.

“This bill…might just as well be called the Harvard Act—because it squarely addresses the scandal of Harvard University and other schools banishing ROTC and military recruiters rom campus, while cashing Uncle Sam’s checks for billions of taxpayer dollars each year from the Department of Defense and other federal agencies fighting the global war on terror,” said Cox, the fourth-ranking member of the House Republican leadership.

Under the legislation, Harvard could lose all funding from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and a handful of other federal agencies unless the University allows the military the option of establishing an ROTC unit on campus. Currently, Harvard students participate in ROTC programs at nearby MIT. The University does not fund the program directly, instead letting anonymous private donors pick up the tab.

But Kevin Casey, Harvard’s senior director of federal and state relations, wrote in an e-mail that the Pentagon has “not—to my knowledge” requested permission from the University to set up a ROTC station on campus.

“We believe our recruitment policies are in compliance with federal laws and regulations,” Casey wrote. “It is not clear if [Harvard’s] policies would be required to be revised if the [House] proposal were adopted.”

EYES ON THE SENATE

The bill passed by the House last week needs the approval of the Senate by the beginning of next year in order to become law. Political scientists who closely track Congress agreed that the Senate is likely to vote in favor of the measure.

“The lopsided House vote would suggest the bill has a good chance of making it through the Senate,” Professor of Government Eric Schickler wrote in an e-mail. In the House, 343 members—220 Republicans and 123 Democrats—voted for the measure. Two Republicans, 78 Democrats and one independent voted against it.

“It strikes me as an important appeal to conservative constituencies that Republicans in the House, Senate and White House will want to have on the books before election day,” wrote Associate Professor of Government Barry C. Burden in an e-mail.

“If some Democrats slow the bill in the Senate, they will only be blamed by Republicans for being hostile to the military in a time of war. For that reason I expect Senate Democrats to allow the vote to happen if workload permits,” Burden wrote.

But according to Associate Professor of Public Policy David C. King, “what we see in the House bill will not be the final say.” Senators will likely limit the broad powers granted to the defense secretary under the bill, King wrote in an e-mail.

A MATTER OF FAIRNESS