Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) recently criticized Harvard for having its values “upside down” by supporting the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007 while banning an on-campus Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program. In his judgment, it is inconsistent to deny students the opportunity to serve their country and yet provide what he considers amnesty to students living here illegally. However, in our estimation, Harvard’s current stances on the DREAM Act and ROTC are perfectly defensible. This aside, the two issues are distinct; our rejection of ROTC stems from our opposition to the discriminatory practices of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, while our support of the DREAM Act reflects our commitment to citizenship and educational equality and opportunity.

First, Sen. Brown’s analysis was flawed by asserting ideological consistency as the sole virtue by which decisions are judged. Cases like these must be evaluated on their own merits, and this particular debate is far too complex for such broad-sweeping conjectures about what constitutes right and wrong. The DREAM Act and the ROTC ban must be judged individually not against the other.

That said, Sen. Brown mischaracterized Harvard and President Drew G. Faust’s dedication to public service. Suggesting that the ban on ROTC represents a slight to civic advocacy discounts the wealth of public service opportunities on campus. From Phillip Brooks House Association programs that engage with members of our community to concentrations that facilitate students’ entry into careers in public service, Harvard has shown a remarkable devotion to giving back. The school also provides fellowships, such as the Weissman International Internship Program grants, that encourage students to conduct meaningful and important work abroad. Considering the popularity of these opportunities that allow students to make a difference in the world, it is a gross misstatement to disparage Harvard’s commitment to service.

President Faust also deserves commendation for taking such a strong, definitive stance on the DREAM Act and ROTC. Harvard has an obligation to act morally, and the President’s principled positions are both bold and admirable. Considering the unequal treatment in ROTC toward certain students, we applaud President Faust for looking out for the entirety of the student body. Until our commitment to equality and fairness is echoed by federal policy, we hope that Harvard maintains its unswerving attitude toward these issues.

As Sen. Brown demonstrated, the debate on the DREAM Act and ROTC can easily become muddled. But we must stay true to our beliefs. We feel it necessary to echo our previously stated position regarding this matter: While we support the DREAM Act, we do not believe that military service should be mandatory for the students affected by the legislation. With that in mind, Sen. Brown should exercise greater prudence before he chooses to conflate these two policies. Harvard’s commitment to public service is resolute, and clearheaded analysis reveals that its stance on these issues is undeniably justifiable.