Harvard ROTC Policy Smacks of Hypocrisy

o the editors:

The Crimson’s editorial regarding funding for ROTC (“A Principled Stance on ROTC,” Jan. 31) was misguided and uninformed. In the first place, it is not up to “the military” to choose or to change its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays. The military carries out the instructions of its civilian and elected commanders, and follows the laws created by political leaders. To blame those in uniform for the policies that they are obliged to enact is hypocritical, and is only a weak excuse to pick a scapegoat instead of lobbying those responsible for the situation.

Secondly, the argument that Harvard’s refusal to fund ROTC programs for its students is somehow a principled “moral stance” is asinine. If the University were really concerned about supporting an organization whose principles conflict with its own, it should immediately refuse to do any more business with the Department of Defense: no more applying for grants, no more consulting, no more admitting military personnel to study at the Kennedy School or to be visiting scholars, and no more accepting funding for research. The fact that Harvard chooses to follow its “principles” only when Harvard has to pay, and is perfectly willing to ignore them when Harvard benefits, shows the depth of these principles.

Jai L. Nair ’99-’01

Medford, Mass.

Feb. 1, 2002