Morality and Conditional Support

Two weeks ago, the Harvard Republican Club released the results of its college-wide student poll—on the question of official recognition for the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps—in an e-mail that capped off a weeklong campaign on the issue. The results broke down the percentage of respondents “in favor” and “opposed” to official recognition, based on the number of students who had answered “yes,” “no,” or “I’m not sure” to a single question that made no reference to the crucial controversy over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibits openly gay individuals from joining the military.

One of the main objectives of ROTC members and their supporters on campus has been to divorce opposition to DADT from opposition to ROTC, the military, and its members. However, by drawing a line between “supporters” and “opponents” of ROTC over the issue of official recognition, the HRC poll conflates the large number of ROTC supporters concerned about discrimination on campus with a small minority of staunch military opponents, much to the detriment of an open and productive dialogue.

The poll could easily have distinguished between absolute opposition to ROTC’s official recognition and principled conditional support by adding a fourth option: “Yes, I support official recognition, but only after the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” But the question and available responses were likely framed under the false assumption that no such distinction exists. Shortly before the poll’s release, Caleb L. Weatherl ’10, president emeritus of the HRC, denied the claim that DADT constituted legitimate grounds for Harvard’s refusal to officially recognize ROTC. Such a stance, Weatherl argued, would be “intellectually inconsistent” because neither ROTC nor the military was responsible for instituting or overturning ROTC.

Weatherl’s emphasis that DADT is the product of a congressional act rather than a ROTC-specific decision is useful in informing the misinformed. But wielding that fact as evidence of Harvard’s “intellectual inconsistency” unfairly ignores the logic behind Harvard’s position and suggests that it must stem from antagonism against ROTC and its members.

The points at the heart of the debate over recognition are worth clarifying. Regardless of whether ROTC deserves recognition on the merits of its mission alone, the program continues to enforce the inherently discriminatory DADT policy. As such, pending changes to federal law, Harvard cannot officially recognize ROTC because the program enforces a policy irreconcilable with Harvard’s nondiscrimination policy. The university’s position in no way rests on a claim about who is responsible for the policy. Rather, it is the direct consequence of the reality that the “current federal policy of excluding known lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals from admission to ROTC or of discharging them from service is inconsistent with Harvard’s values as stated in its policy on discrimination.”

Indeed, Harvard does not (and should not) hold the military, ROTC, or individual cadets and midshipmen responsible for the policy by including this statement in its handbook for current and prospective students. And in no way does the statement imply that students who make the decision to participate in ROTC are themselves acting in opposition to Harvard’s values.

Having made these arguments, it would be wrong to claim that there is a satisfactory status quo for ROTC at Harvard. While the aforementioned poll has stirred up a great deal of controversy (not limited to our campus), the recent HRC campaign has contributed productively to the debate over official recognition by bringing to light the struggles and concerns expressed by ROTC members on campus. If cadets and midshipmen feel “unwelcome” or even “degraded,” as Weatherl writes, by the atmosphere at Harvard—even to the extent that they feel uncomfortable wearing their uniforms to class—then there is indeed a deep moral failure here.

But it would be a mistake to blame the university’s position on official recognition for this disgraceful fact. Indeed, the responsibility for the cool reception of ROTC cadets on our campus extends far beyond even the symbolic reach of cross-registration fees and student-handbook disclaimers to the words and actions of every member of the Harvard community. As such, while we cannot sweep these cadets’ concerns to the side by claiming a principled stance, neither can we simply ignore the deep injustice of a policy that excludes and discharges individuals for speaking a truth about themselves.

There are principles at stake here that seem too basic to repeat. Every student should feel welcome at Harvard. Every student should feel supported in pursuing something she believes in. But until Congress repeals the discriminatory policies of the Clinton era, the university cannot and should not extend official recognition to ROTC. If the Obama administration dismantles this disgraceful legacy of the past, then University Hall should not hesitate to support the ROTC program just as it does any of the other numerous student organizations on campus. As for me, I personally fully support all the midshipmen and cadets here on campus and eagerly await the day when DADT is repealed and Harvard once again gives official recognition to ROTC.


Jenny Zhang ’10 is a social studies concentrator in Cabot House and a researcher for the Soldier Testimony Project of the Harvard College Advocates for Human Rights.