Faculty Criticizes ROTC Funding Compromise

In a debate pitting principle against pragmatism, faculty members yesterday challenged President Neil L. Rudenstine's recent compromise on ROTC and reaffirmed their opposition to Harvard's involvement in the program.

Two weeks' ago, Rudenstine released a report recommending that unsolicited alumni donors pay the annual $130,000 fee for Harvard students' participation in the ROTC program at MIT.

Faculty members said yesterday, however, that Rudenstine's compromise violates the Faculty's vote from more than a year ago to completely cut Harvard funding of ROTC if the military continued to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Because the ROTC funds will still go to Harvard and be administered by the University, many professors said they believe Rudenstine's declaration of change is illusory.

"Support of ROTC is inconsistent with Harvard's non-discrimination policy," Professor of Philosophy Warren D. Goldfarb '69 said at yesterday's meeting. "We're changing only the Harvard account through which funds flow."

Goldfarb brought along dozens of copies of a resolution to reaffirm the faculty's earlier statement to stop paying the fee to MIT beginning with the Class of 1999. Although no official count of the subsequent straw vote was taken, approximately 65 percent of professors voted in favor of Goldfarb's resolution.

Asked by McKay Professor of Computer Science Harry R. Lewis '68 if voting for the resolution meant voting against Rudenstine's decision, Goldfarb flatly said "yes."

The resolution also said Harvard should no longer allow ROTC commissioning ceremonies to be held on its grounds. It also recommended that "current and prospective students" should be given "full notice about ROTC discrimination and restriction on free expression, the University's policy, and available information about the future of the program."

Many faculty members yesterday addressed their remarks to the absent Rudenstine and the Harvard Corporation, the governing body which will decide whether to accept Rudenstine's recommendations. They largely ignored Acting President Albert Carnesale, who was sitting directly before them and is charged with all of the president's duties.

Two weeks ago, Rudenstine took an indefinite leave of medical absence, leaving Carnesale to chair yesterday's meeting.

The Discussion

Fifteen faculty members spoke on the topic, an unusually large number for one subject at a Harvard faculty meeting.

Some wondered whether the debate itself would have any effect at all.

"The Corporation is no doubt going to overrule us," said Professor of Sociology Theda Skocpol. "It won't be the first time, and it won't be the last time."

Even if the Faculty were to pass a formal vote against Rudenstine's recommendation, the final decision still lies with the Corporation.

On a more fundamental level, many professors questioned the morality of the University's stand on ROTC.

"I ask whether it would be the case that ROTC policy discriminated against Jews, would Harvard University continue to write the check?" Potebnja Professor of Ukranian Philosophy Michael S. Flier said. "I ask whether it would be the case that ROTC policy discriminated against African-Americans, would Harvard University continue to write the check? I ask whether it would be the case that ROTC policy discriminated against women, would Harvard University continue to write the check?"

One professor spoke on a more personal level.

"In the four years I have been at Harvard, I would say a half dozen of my colleagues know I'm gay and have no problem with it," said Aga Khan Professor of Iranian P. Oktor Skjaervo.

"They might not think it is such a big deal being gay. But gay people do have problems," Skjaervo said. "I do think personally that Harvard does have a more important function in the society," a responsibility to set moral precedents.

Another professor took issue with the discussion's sharp division between the "practical" argument--keeping ROTC for the benefit of the students who get scholarships--and the "principled" argument--cutting ties to ROTC because it discriminates against homosexuals.

"It distresses me to see one side of this argument characterized as principled and the other as practically expedient," Oettinger said. "I see no hypocrisy on either side."

Hypocrisy or not, many faculty members asked whether Rudenstine's decision meets the stipulations of the 1992 Verba report.

"I think the proposal is a tricky one, but nonetheless not inconsistent with the Verba report," said Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53. "It would be better if this fund could be distanced more from the University, but the fact is that the real world doesn't work that way."

"It is an extremely tough call," Verba said. "It is hard to know what is University activity and what is not University activity."

Professor of English and Comparative Literature James Engell said the consistency of the Rudenstine's compromise with the Verba report is "very good." But Engell cautioned that he is not convinced the report should become a long-term solution.

Plummer Professor of Christian Morals Peter J. Gomes also said that he would like to see more thought go into Harvard's position on ROTC.

"I took no pleasure in any of the proceedings or conclusions to which we came, and I take no particular pleasure in the report the president has given to the Faculty," said Gomes, a member of the Verba committee. "I am in favor of the report, I am reluctant to say, simply because it provides useful and constructive time for the president to continue his negotiations."

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53 had a slightly different reaction to the validity of the Verba report.

"You're a bunch of liberals, and you passed a nutty ultimatum on the Pentagon, and you received a humiliating rebuttal," Mansfield said.

Another issue that arose was whether the anonymous alumni contributors could pay the ROTC funds to MIT directly, without using Harvard as a conduit.

"The direct payment option was apparently rejected," said Flier. "The report said it was unfeasible, but do we know it was rejected?"

"Some alumni donors have come forward with money; why do we have to administer this money?" asked Weary Professor of German and Comparative Literature Judith L. Ryan. "I simply don't understand why Harvard has anything to do with the administration of these funds."

In response, Carnesale said Rudenstine felt a responsibility to the students admitted under ROTC scholarships to guarantee they can continue in the ROTC program for their time here.

Skocpol said that by accepting the money from the donors, the University is tacitly giving its approval to Harvard's continuation of ties to ROTC.

"I personally think that the fig leaf here is extremely transparent. It isn't the case that the University will accept money from just anyone," Skocpol said. "Endorsing fundraising is probably the most official act that Harvard could make."

In an echo of the 1969 discussion that pushed ROTC off campus, some faculty members talked about the value of the military itself.

Professor of Yiddish Literature and of Comparative Literature Ruth R. Wisse, a supporter of the Rudenstine compromise, said Harvard students should be allowed to participate in ROTC so that the military will benefit from their service.

Another professor echoed that view.

"I for one feel more comfortable with a military which continues to be infused with civilians and with Harvard-educated civilians," Oettinger said.

If Harvard students no longer participated in ROTC, then many fewer Harvard students would enlist in the military, and at that point "we may not have the luxury of this kind of debate," Oettinger said.

But Gomes said it was ridiculous for the Faculty to turn the discussion into a debate for or against the military or for or against ROTC.

Professors also debated whether Harvard's decision matters in the world beyond Cambridge.

"I know there's a feeling here that what Harvard does is decisive, but as a student of American politics, I don't think that's true," Skocpol said.

Wisse said she did not feel comfortable saying that Harvard had a moral code that is higher than the code of the American people.

But Mansfield vociferously disagreed.

"You have no respect for Harvard," Mansfield said. "You don't consider it as anything bigger or grander than yourself, something to which you might be devoted."

Jeremy R. Knowles, dean of the faculty, said the ROTC discussion was "helpful and productive."

And the Committee to End Discrimination by Harvard applauded "the Faculty's continued commitment to non-discrimination," in a press release

Non-ROTC Issues

The Faculty also unanimously approved the creation of a Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) standing committee on benefits.

The committee will investigate changes to pensions, retiree health benefits, health benefits for current faculty and professional and administrative staff. It will also report to the Faculty "at the earliest opportunity" on those issues and propose any appropriate changes.

Knowles also apologized for the delay in sending out his annual FAS budget letter. He noted that in the past few weeks, other concerns have taken center stage

Some wondered whether the debate itself would have any effect at all.

"The Corporation is no doubt going to overrule us," said Professor of Sociology Theda Skocpol. "It won't be the first time, and it won't be the last time."

Even if the Faculty were to pass a formal vote against Rudenstine's recommendation, the final decision still lies with the Corporation.

On a more fundamental level, many professors questioned the morality of the University's stand on ROTC.

"I ask whether it would be the case that ROTC policy discriminated against Jews, would Harvard University continue to write the check?" Potebnja Professor of Ukranian Philosophy Michael S. Flier said. "I ask whether it would be the case that ROTC policy discriminated against African-Americans, would Harvard University continue to write the check? I ask whether it would be the case that ROTC policy discriminated against women, would Harvard University continue to write the check?"

One professor spoke on a more personal level.

"In the four years I have been at Harvard, I would say a half dozen of my colleagues know I'm gay and have no problem with it," said Aga Khan Professor of Iranian P. Oktor Skjaervo.

"They might not think it is such a big deal being gay. But gay people do have problems," Skjaervo said. "I do think personally that Harvard does have a more important function in the society," a responsibility to set moral precedents.

Another professor took issue with the discussion's sharp division between the "practical" argument--keeping ROTC for the benefit of the students who get scholarships--and the "principled" argument--cutting ties to ROTC because it discriminates against homosexuals.

"It distresses me to see one side of this argument characterized as principled and the other as practically expedient," Oettinger said. "I see no hypocrisy on either side."

Hypocrisy or not, many faculty members asked whether Rudenstine's decision meets the stipulations of the 1992 Verba report.

"I think the proposal is a tricky one, but nonetheless not inconsistent with the Verba report," said Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53. "It would be better if this fund could be distanced more from the University, but the fact is that the real world doesn't work that way."

"It is an extremely tough call," Verba said. "It is hard to know what is University activity and what is not University activity."

Professor of English and Comparative Literature James Engell said the consistency of the Rudenstine's compromise with the Verba report is "very good." But Engell cautioned that he is not convinced the report should become a long-term solution.

Plummer Professor of Christian Morals Peter J. Gomes also said that he would like to see more thought go into Harvard's position on ROTC.

"I took no pleasure in any of the proceedings or conclusions to which we came, and I take no particular pleasure in the report the president has given to the Faculty," said Gomes, a member of the Verba committee. "I am in favor of the report, I am reluctant to say, simply because it provides useful and constructive time for the president to continue his negotiations."

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53 had a slightly different reaction to the validity of the Verba report.

"You're a bunch of liberals, and you passed a nutty ultimatum on the Pentagon, and you received a humiliating rebuttal," Mansfield said.

Another issue that arose was whether the anonymous alumni contributors could pay the ROTC funds to MIT directly, without using Harvard as a conduit.

"The direct payment option was apparently rejected," said Flier. "The report said it was unfeasible, but do we know it was rejected?"

"Some alumni donors have come forward with money; why do we have to administer this money?" asked Weary Professor of German and Comparative Literature Judith L. Ryan. "I simply don't understand why Harvard has anything to do with the administration of these funds."

In response, Carnesale said Rudenstine felt a responsibility to the students admitted under ROTC scholarships to guarantee they can continue in the ROTC program for their time here.

Skocpol said that by accepting the money from the donors, the University is tacitly giving its approval to Harvard's continuation of ties to ROTC.

"I personally think that the fig leaf here is extremely transparent. It isn't the case that the University will accept money from just anyone," Skocpol said. "Endorsing fundraising is probably the most official act that Harvard could make."

In an echo of the 1969 discussion that pushed ROTC off campus, some faculty members talked about the value of the military itself.

Professor of Yiddish Literature and of Comparative Literature Ruth R. Wisse, a supporter of the Rudenstine compromise, said Harvard students should be allowed to participate in ROTC so that the military will benefit from their service.

Another professor echoed that view.

"I for one feel more comfortable with a military which continues to be infused with civilians and with Harvard-educated civilians," Oettinger said.

If Harvard students no longer participated in ROTC, then many fewer Harvard students would enlist in the military, and at that point "we may not have the luxury of this kind of debate," Oettinger said.

But Gomes said it was ridiculous for the Faculty to turn the discussion into a debate for or against the military or for or against ROTC.

Professors also debated whether Harvard's decision matters in the world beyond Cambridge.

"I know there's a feeling here that what Harvard does is decisive, but as a student of American politics, I don't think that's true," Skocpol said.

Wisse said she did not feel comfortable saying that Harvard had a moral code that is higher than the code of the American people.

But Mansfield vociferously disagreed.

"You have no respect for Harvard," Mansfield said. "You don't consider it as anything bigger or grander than yourself, something to which you might be devoted."

Jeremy R. Knowles, dean of the faculty, said the ROTC discussion was "helpful and productive."

And the Committee to End Discrimination by Harvard applauded "the Faculty's continued commitment to non-discrimination," in a press release

Non-ROTC Issues

The Faculty also unanimously approved the creation of a Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) standing committee on benefits.

The committee will investigate changes to pensions, retiree health benefits, health benefits for current faculty and professional and administrative staff. It will also report to the Faculty "at the earliest opportunity" on those issues and propose any appropriate changes.

Knowles also apologized for the delay in sending out his annual FAS budget letter. He noted that in the past few weeks, other concerns have taken center stage