Agreed.
 

"It's still more acceptable to discriminate against gays than it is against blacks."

Yes, it is more acceptable; indeed, it's the policy of our government (precisely because the Supreme Court finds it more acceptable for historical reasons, and doesn't [that I know of] apply a 'strict scrutiny' test to homophobic policies, in the way it does to racial categories). That is not to say that it is anywhere NEAR acceptability. But the Law School learned that you can't fight City Hall on the recruiting issue (or did you forget? the military DOES recruit on campus). Power gets a vote on acceptability -- which is reason number 6.02 x 10^23 why any reporter who covers a Republican post-1998 as if he were a viable candidate for federal office is doing something very irresponsible.

I'm in favor of ROTC being on campus. I'm VERY in favor of the government not discriminating against gay people. The campus boycott is far too blunt an instrument. Also, it feeds into right-wing myths about fictitious campus antipatriotism.

I don't think Harry's case is made all that well (the heart of the morning-prayer talk, surely, was the bit about his mom). I'm not in favor of seeming to endorse our current civilian-led adventurism by calling deployments in Iraq a 'defense of our freedoms,' as if they had ever been under threat from abroad.

But as on almost every issue except blocking, I agree with Harry.

Standing Eagle
(proud holder, since long, long ago, of the highest rank awarded by the nation's largest homophobic paramilitary youth organization)
 

OMG -- you are the closest to being gay it's possible to be without actually being gay. Did one of those scout leaders teach you about sharing body warmth in an emergency?
 

Now, Harry, be NICE.
 

It is sad to see the hypocrisy of the university accepting government funds (including funds from the DOD), but refusing to pay for the costs for Harvard students who join ROTC.Greed over principle once again.
 

Well, Sam, just because you accept one gov't policy doesn't mean you have to buy into 'em all.....
 

Well, Richard, at least you are consistent. Don't like the drinking age? Ignore it. Don't like the Congressional policy about gays in the military? Don't pay a nickel to help your own students pursue their career ambitions. Make your university a state unto itself -- sort of a Vatican within America, as one correspondent wrote me today, enjoying its protections, only holier, and with no reciprocal obligations. (And no, SE, that wasn't me above!)
 

Well, now, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. To say that the acceptance of one government policy requires compliance with all of them is illogical unless one presumes total subservience to the government. (Precisely the argument Bart Giamatti made in explaining why he would pay for the loans of college students who refused to register for the draft and thus lost their student loans. Remember draft registration in the late '70s? An inane policy that has probably cost the country billions and led to a massive decrease in personal privacy...for absolutely nothing other than trying to make Jimmy Carter look like less of a wimp. In which task, of course, it failed.)

Though of course one can see why the federal government would encourage such blanket subservience.

As for not paying a nickel to help students with their career ambitions, why exactly does Harvard have a responsibility to help fund people who want to go into the military? Isn't the military suppposed to pay people who want to go into the military? Moreover, there is still the question of whether Harvard should subsidize careers in a discriminatory institution, which I find a thornier issue than you do.

On the question of alcohol: I am certainly not suggesting that Harvard authorities ignore the drinking age—although I would have liked some states to do so, but they were forced to buckle lest they lose federal highway money. (And thus is federal power extended farther.)

I do think that parents with children should ignore the federal drinking age, though, and teach their children to drink responsibly from a considerably earlier age than 21. Everyone knows that the idea that you can't/shouldn't drink till the age of 21—but you can own a gun, you can fight in the military—is absurd. Is there a single parent in the world who wouldn't let their kid have beer until age 21?

On the matter of Harvard and drinking, I've said that I take the point that Harvard can't subsidize parties where alcohol is being served to minors. Clearly not.

On the other hand, yes, I'm pretty much all for college students drinking. As a result, I'm glad I'm not a college administrator, in which role I would have to enforce (as I would) a policy I think is absurd.

Do you not think those ROTC candidates throw a few back from time to time?

Harvard doesn't go along with this federal mandate because it's good policy; the university does so only because of the money involved. (And because of concern over lawsuits.)

It's this tension that produces tortured college policy, and that I try to get at in my posts on college drinking.
 

One final thought: I still think we wouldn't be having this discussion if the military were discriminating against any other group besides gays. Imagine the outrage if Harvard hosted recruitment for an institution that banned African-Americans! No difference with gays. And in ten or 20 years time, perhaps, the shame of this will become as stark and irrefutable as the shame of Jim Crow (etc.) is now.
 

It's an idiotic policy; no argument about that. I actually suspect most of the military officers would have no problem changing it, just as the army desegregated itself pretty efficiently when told to do that, long before desegregation became popular in the parts of the country where lots of soldiers come from. We live, thank goodness, in a country where the military actually does respond to civilian authority. Tell them to desegregate, they desegregate. Tell them to exclude gays, they exclude gays. And as of today, those two directives from the US CONGRESS, via the executive branch of government, are the way the military works.

To agree with you some more, there are enough sexual issues between heterosexual men and women in the military that it is laughable to say that having a gays would create unprecedented problems on that score. It's a stupid policy, and wrong too. I couldn't agree more.

None of that was the issue I addressed. The reason Harvard should provide that very modest subsidy to the ROTC students is that we help students pursue their career goals. Being a military officer is an honorable career, whatever you and I may think of the CONGRESSIONAL (not military, in the first instance) policy against gays serving in the military. So the reason we should support students who what to pursue this career is that helping them enter their chosen careers is part of what we do for all students to provide an education. And I don't think the students should be the pawns in the morality play you suggest, where we stand against the policies voted by our duly elected representatives and signed into law by our president, because it makes us feel good to do so.

Richard, do you hold back some of your income tax payments because they pay for things you don't think are right? You could. The reason you don't, I suspect, is because you know there could be consequences for you. Righteousness has its limits, even for you. But wouldn't it be morally right, if you don't like the war say, just to refuse to pay for it? After all, just because you support some government policies doesn't mean you have to support them all.

Our posture against ROTC is a no-cost gesture -- no cost, that is, except to the students who want to participate in the program. And no cost except, perhaps, to the country and the university in the long run.
 

Harry,

Just a couple small things.

While I don't hold back taxes because I disagree with the government on many issues, I do reserve the right to protest those issues in other ways. But the idea of withholding taxes always seemed like self-interest pretending to be selflessness to me.

I think that you are making too much of the fact that the gays in the military pan is Congressional. In this case, the Congress certainly reflected the will of the military, and was, I think it's safe to say, acting in affirmation of that will.

And finally, on the ROTC question, you may well be right; I happily concede that. I'm not entirely convinced, but your point that Harvard's current policy is doing no good for anyone is well-made. Perhaps there is a way to bring ROTC back and combine it with some sort of pro-civil rights gesture to demonstrate Harvard's commitment both to civil rights and to support of our nation's military.
 

By the way, that should have read military ban, not military "pan."
 

Richard,
You said “In this case, the Congress certainly reflected the will of the military, and was, I think it's safe to say, acting in affirmation of that will.”
The military was opposed, until after the Second World War, to African- Americans serving with white members of the armed forces. It was opposed because the “morale of the troops” would decline. President Truman put a stop to that and as Harry Lewis said, the military accepted it… and in fact became a model for integration in the workplace.
The policy of no gays in the military is absurd. President Clinton’s policy of don’t ask, don’t tell is absurd. The military was once again saying that “morale of the troops” would decline if gays served. As someone who served on active duty for three years in the military, I feel confident in saying that this is pure nonsense. Morale would decline for about two seconds if the policy were changed and then everyone would get on with their job. That’s the way the military works.
 

Nice post, Sam. Thanks for writing.
 

Of course Harvard should allow ROTC on campus. Harvard still has much to learn from the military on racial integration and, who knows, it may in turn teach a thing or two to the military about inclusion of gays. Is Harvard in fact less discriminatory of gays than it is of racial minorities? What is the percentage of gays among the faculty and among the tenured faculty? Is this something Evelyn looks into?
 

Would someone ask Professor Matory what he thinks about the ROTC issue and about free speech about the need to bring ROTC back to campus?
 

ROTC is not a problem for Harvard. The problem are all those newly minted MBA advising deans on 'Strategy and management issues'. A sign of not been up to the demands of the job methinks.
 

Let's see. Harvard is closed tomorrow for Veterans Day (but HLS is open... interesting that this is so).
The FAS faculty is now whining about the proposed cap for indirect expenses on DOD grants. FAS faculty still accepting DOD grants? Of course they are willing to work with (their) devil if the issue is getting money.
Closed for Veterans Day, whining about caps...the FAS faculty should stop the hypocrisy and allow Harvard to pay for the training of the Harvard ROTC cadets . It might take some guts on the part of one or two faculty members to assume the lead on this issue, but surely one or two have some guts, don't they?