ROTC Poll

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I received my first taste of the level of accuracy which marks Crimson reporting Freshman Week, while reading an article on Sophomore Standing. I learned, to my very great surprise, that I had changed my major from Government to Biochemistry, planned to study in Europe for a year and been interviewed by a crimson reporter who quoted our conversation. While I have learned other such "news" about myself in the course of the year without responding, two recent statements in this paper concerned me sufficiently to now write.

In an article on a recent Undergraduate Council Services committee meeting, I was reported to have said that all "ROTC students are economically disadvantaged." In fact, this view was expressed by someone else at the meeting, and is a blanket statement with which I cannot concur. Certainly, there are students in ROTC who cannot afford to attend Harvard without scholarships the program provides them. It was to help these students, some of whom receive smaller scholarships than they otherwise could and undergo great hardships as a result, as well as those who cannot afford to attend Harvard at all due to our present policies, that I co-sponsored a resolution calling for the return of ROTC to campus. I would never, however, suggest that all ROTC students are economically disadvantaged, nor that the money is the primary motive of most who participate in the program. To do so would be factually wrong and would ignore the idealism and dedication that mark these students, who are prepared to give their lives in defense of our country.

This misquotation, however disconcerting, seems, at least, to have been an honest mistake. The same cannot be said, however, of a more recent Crimson article. According to this report, I called the Crimson on the night before the Undergraduate Council reconsidered the issue of ROTC, unsure as to whether I should reverse my vote of the previous week. I asked, supposedly, for poll results, on the basis of which I would determine my vote, but was denied them and so retained my initial position. What actually happened, however, was quite different. On returning from a trip to Princeton, I received two message, respectively "urgent" and "imperative," to call the Crimson. I returned these calls out of courtesy, though I had adopted a policy three days before of not giving further interviews on the issue. On calling, I was told that I had been called as a part of a poll of UC representatives, and informed of the results, which had been published in that day's paper. Disappointed to learn that my resolution was headed to near-certain defeat, I nevertheless reaffirmed my original position.

I find the Crimson's reporting in this matter both mind-boggling and insulting. To suggest that I would reverse, on the basis of a poll, a position which I had spent seven months researching and debating before deciding to support, is ridiculous. In contrast to the four positions on the issue taken by the council's illustrious chair, I remained firm, once I had fully considered the issue, in my initial stance, confidant that I had correctly weighed the multitude of questions raised by ROTC. I had already scheduled a strategy meeting for the next day with other council leaders who shared my view, and no thought of abandoning a position I believed right. For The Crimson to make up and twist facts to suggest otherwise reflects very poorly on its qualifications as an objective source of information.

I am happy to note, in passing, that the majority of The Crimson's reporting on the issue was considerably more accurate. Despite its anti-ROTC editorial views, it refuted the false charge of some anti-ROTC activists that gays and lesbians in the military could be jailed solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, and reported that the UC's initial stance on ROTC reflected the views of a large majority of the student body it was created to represent, even at the peak of anti-ROTC sentiment. The Crimson's editorial on the issue, in conjunction with the numerous dissents by its editors that accompanied it, reflected the honest confusion and disagreement of many students on campus, all concerned by the same questions of financial hardship, U.S. foreign policy, discrimination within the military, academic freedom and freedom of choice. The Crimson's coverage was, for the most part, thorough and interesting. I ask only that it work harder to assure a level of accuracy appropriate to a newspaper of its great tradition and prestige. Joel D. Hornstein '92   Undergraduate Council Representative