Protest of ROTC's policies toward homosexuals (at UW-Madison, 1990)
At Harvard’s Reserve Officer Training Corps commissioning ceremony this Wednesday, Drew Faust urged Harvard’s class of 2010 future officers to:
Help reinforce the long tradition of ties between Harvard and the military, as we share hopes that changing circumstances will soon enable us to further strengthen those bonds.
What does the vague latter half of her sentence mean? By
“changing circumstances,” she presumably means the possible repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. By further strengthening bonds, she presumably means reinstating ROTC on campus, ending a forty-year-old ban that has been in place since Harvard severed its ties with the program in 1969, in the wake of student and faculty protests against the Vietnam War.
Should we take Faust at her (admittedly circumspect) words?
Former military correspondent Tom Ricks told the HPR in an interview that if Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed, he will be surprised if Harvard does not recognize ROTC within five years (note: you can read the interview on our website, but the remarks to which I refer do not appear in the magazine. I will work on linking a full transcript).
In contrast, Brian Bolduc ’10 wrote in the Harvard Crimson earlier this year that such confidence underestimates the University’s deep-seated hostility towards the military.
Even if Congress repeals “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ROTC will struggle to gain recognition.
Why the skepticism? Because excuses for the University’s policy have multiplied over time. Before 1993, students used ROTC’s exclusion of disabled people, President Ronald Reagan’s budgetary cuts to civilian aid, and the military’s discouragement of “openness and critical inquiry” as grounds to repel ROTC. The Harvard Crimson argued that the program would sully the University’s academic integrity. In 1989, the editorial board insisted, “ROTC should not return ever, under any circumstances.” Should Congress abolish DADT, more excuses will crop up. (emphasis mine)
Which imminent pundit is right, Ricks or Bolduc? Can we take Faust’s intimations seriously, or should we feel Bolduc’s mistrust?
It seems to me that Bolduc’s skepticism is understandable but overblown. The climate is favorable for ROTC’s reinstatement (assuming DADT gets repealed, which is far from inevitable). For conservatives, it might be satisfying to envision a faculty filled with troops-haters, but this is not the 60s. Faust has shown unprecedented support for ROTC—just read the full text of her speech from this Wednesday. The atmosphere at Harvard is mildly pro-military. Bolduc’s skepticism is understandable, but I wonder what “more excuses” could plausibly “crop up.” Since Harvard has centered all of its official criticism of ROTC around DADT, the University should find it difficult, if not impossible, to continue the ban on other grounds if the law is repealed.