President Drew Gilpin Faust said on Monday that Harvard University would end its decades-long campus ban on ROTC when the Pentagon ends its own ban on openly gay and lesbian military personnel. She made her comments to editors and reporters from The Boston Globe as the U.S. Senate declined to consider repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Harvard expelled the Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1969, during the Vietnam War. President Faust said the ROTC ban remained because Harvard forbids discrimination against any group. Harvard students who wish to participate in ROTC must do so through an arrangement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
17 Responses to ROTC Can Return to Harvard When ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Ends, Faust Says
greenhills73 - September 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Students usually know before applying to college if they want to participate in ROTC. At some schools, it’s (at least the first two years)optional, and at others, participants have to be selected. Also, to be on scholarship, candidates must pass a very rigorous screening process that may begin as early as their junior year of high school. These kids are probably not going to apply to Harvard if it doesn’t offer the program. Who needs Harvard?
22259152 - September 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm
I agree, who needs Harvard?
profmomof1 - September 23, 2010 at 4:23 pm
This is truly disgusting and childish pc behavior.
12018010 - September 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I would recommend that the federal goverment stop funding research at Harvard until Harvard lifts its ban on ROTC.
quacker - September 23, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Surely President Faust must have been misquoted when she reportedly said that the ROTC ban remained because Harvard forbids discrimination against any group. Surely the overwhelming majority of military servicemen and women who support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as being the best path for assuring military effectiveness feel discrimated against. I guess that group just doesn’t exist in the eyes of Dr. Faust. I agree with greenhills73 and would add this corollary – Harvard needs the military far more than the military needs Harvard. Without the military, Dr. Faust and Harvard would not be free to make that choice. Hurrah!
drangie - September 23, 2010 at 4:47 pm
There’s nothing childish or disgusting about it. Harvard is taking a principled stand here. It cannot support any organization to engage in this sort of discrimination, even if it is the government.
cu_alum - September 23, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Harvard and many other universities make all of their programs and classes available to students without regard to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If Harvard had ROTC, it would have to exclude openly gay students from that program. The ban on ROTC is not a swipe at the military. It’s just a specific instance of the university’s general anti-discrimination policy. It looks like it’s directed at the military because only the military wants to discriminate. The university is taking a principled — indeed, noble — position, and is not just being politically correct.
drangie - September 23, 2010 at 5:22 pm
cu_alum, you said it better than I. It only *looks* like Harvard is targeting the government because the government is the only mainstream organization left out there that still thinks this kind of discrimination is OK.
wmartin46 - September 23, 2010 at 5:22 pm
If you haven’t followed the Harvard/ROTC controversy, here’s a little history –Harvard ROTC Coverage: 1950 – 1989:http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/harvard/1950.html18 April 1969 Time Magazine article “Harvard and Beyond: The University Under Siege”– SDS activists (Students for a Democratic Society) charged that the university wanted ROTC because “These businessmen want Harvard to continue producing officers for the Viet Nam war for use against black rebellions at home for political reasons.” It’s not until- 27 February 1984 Harvard Crimson article “Gay Conference”. Note: A conference speaker compared discrimination against gays by the military to discrimination against blacks by the Ku Klux Klan.–Well .. as they say .. if it’s not one thing .. it’s another.
mmeisens - September 23, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Then Harvard should return all of the Federal funds it has received since ROTC ended. I always knew that Harvard was filled with anti-military and anti-American individuals, both faculty and students. That is the Obama hot house. We are doomed. Thanks Harvard.
barban - September 24, 2010 at 7:22 am
Harvard is being hypocritical, elitist and condescending toward the country that offers more freedom and opportunity than any other in the world. My son is in the Marines and was injured at Marjeh, and for the President of some university to suggest his fellow Marines are not worthy of Harvard’s blessing is outrageously arrogant. The entire faculty at Harvard doesn’t have the dignity or integrity of my son’s Company of Marines.
laurencejgillis - September 24, 2010 at 7:23 am
It is, and has been for a long time, utterly unsurprising that the Harvard community’s political agenda includes outright opposition to ROTC. It was obvious to me when I was in the ROTC program there. I’m just curious that it took until 1969 for Harvard to kick us out. At least I had a choice on whether to join ROTC. Since then, forty years of students have had Harvard’s political choices imposed on them.Shame on you.Larry Gillis ’64
quacker - September 24, 2010 at 7:56 am
cu_alum, your statement that “If Harvard had ROTC, it would have to exclude openly gay students from that program” is patently false. Harvard would not be excluding those students, the military leaders of the ROTC program would be excluding them. Admission to the ROTC program is not Harvard’s decision to make. The US military is not a democracy and cannot be effective if run as a democracy. Anyone who joins voluntarily gives up many “freedoms” that civilians take for granted. Freedoms that are limited include speech, free association, etc. The freedom to openly profess their sexual orientation is just another example.
dvacchi - September 24, 2010 at 10:03 am
We have here a discussion led and followed by the grossly uninformed. This is the problem with most of these strains. One should qualify comments with “my opinion is” as most of you are just passing on urban legends perpetuated by the media. I was a professor of military science at UMass and one of my peers/friends was the PMS at MIT. Here are some facts:1. ROTC has been continuously offered to students at Harvard since 1969, just no offices and classrooms at Harvard.2. Students can have scholarships and Harvard takes the money – this is how they preserve federal funding.3. Openly gay students can take any ROTC class and can participate in any activities they want to as long as they are not disrupting the learning of other students. The blogger is right, only the Army can prevent them from commissioning, and they also will not award a scholarship as President Clinton enacted the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy for the military.4. No Harvard student would waste their time with an ROTC class, as Harvard doesn’t give credit toward a degree by taking the classes, which are provided at the MIT campus.5. Drangie – how is discriminating against Harvard students who want to pursue a commission in the military justified, given that Harvard is supposedly doing this because the military is following the law of the land?6. Harvard does not do this for any high-minded or principled reason, it is simply because the gay and lesbian community are noisier than the military community and are everywhere on the Harvard campus (not that there’s anything wrong with that) Harvard is simply claiming high-mindedness for those of you who fail to get informed to believe it. Harvard has done the minimum to preserve federal research dollars and student loans, which in turn preserves their endowment. It would really be a principled action if Harvard were to forgo all of those funds b/c DADT is still a law. 7. See point #5 – a Law is a law is a law. Most serving in the military (including this retired officer) believe we have long since passed the time when DADT should be repealed, but it’s not.The only fault I find in Harvard is claiming to be principled in this issue when they are not. They are discriminating against great young Americans who want to serve the country in time of war, period.
dank48 - September 24, 2010 at 10:08 am
Harvard’s holier than thou stance on this is lovely. (Perhaps “sixtieser than thou” would be more accurate, if less euphonious.) Laurence Gillis gets it right. Harvard (et al.) can’t get over the idea that it should be making these decisions for its charges. Who knows what would happen if students were given the option to decide for themselves? My God, some of them might actually go into the military!Thirty-some years ago Alfred Kazin got it exactly right. “Harvard doesn’t hate America. Harvard mistakes itself for America.” Note to Drew Faust: It’s not 1969 any more. It hasn’t been for quite some time. Get over it.
optimysticynic - September 24, 2010 at 11:25 am
I was AT Harvard in the 60s and, believe me, there was total support for ROTC by the administration at that time. Students (maybe 30% of them, very vocal) opposed its presence; everyone else (all admin, most faculty, many students) either actively supported it or didn’t care. This was actually a rather bitter fight (physical at times) because there was such staunch ROTC support by Harvard. What is perhaps not understood is that Harvard is attempting speaking for freedom for the minority in both instances: back then, it was freedom to join ROTC if you wanted to, even in the face of massive antiwar sentiment. Now it is freedom to be gay and military if you want to, even if at the price of making ROTC participation inconvenient. And it is only “inconvenient”: Harvard students can join MIT ROTC and have always done so by preference (better on-campus vibe for the uniform)–just down a road a few blocks.Harvard is hardly “liberal” across the board; it’s primarily a bastion of old money and conservatism cloaked in the language of intellectual academe. It is a thoughtful place, however, and tries to make the best difficult calls possible after lengthy consideration and debate (often years-worth, to the distress of some.) In this case, two freedoms are competing and need to be reconciled (freedom to be in ROTC and freedom to be gay and military)–a tough call.What’s the difference between “walking the talk” and “being holier than thou?”, by the way? Maybe whether or not you happen to agree?I have a Marine WWII vet father and an active-duty Marine son (scout sniper, hetero, pro-combat), have a Marine flag on my car…but I respect Harvard’s out-front leadership in this difficult decision.
jrod643 - September 24, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I completely agree on Harvard’s stance. However, the military does have the complete right to stand firm in its decision as well. In the case of fighting men and women it is important that the military make the choices that will serve in the best interest of the men and women fighting. Where as I, a Marine, would have no problem fighting alongside a gay individual I know too many men and close friends who would. The burden of the military in and of itself must endure sometimes politically incorrect behavior for the greater good of those fighting. Plain and simple. In this case too many men would not feel comfortable in combat with openly gay individuals and in combat a soldier is only as effective as his faith in the man next to him. I’m all for discrimination if it means saving even one life. As it stands right now. The openly gay population is better serving the military by staying out and in my humble opinion the only reason there’s even a debate about is because of the policy being openly discriminatory. Politically incorrect yes. Wrong in essence? Perhaps not. When it comes right down to it the loudest voices are the ones seemingly subjugated. However, as for the majority, this policy stands with great support. And who are we to make decisions for them. As for Harvard’s stance. I applaud their willingness to stand tall for their mission of nondiscrimination and also somewhat support there decision. But these inherrant facts must be taken into consideration. The policy “don’t ask don’t tell” is not going anywhere until the overwhelming majority of Americans no longer see homosexual behavior as taboo.