Harvard College Democrats

ROTC and DADT: Historical Context and Double Standards

Posted 4/23/09 by Jarret Zafran

The Harvard Republican Club recently sent out a poll asking students if they supported the immediate reinstatement of the Reserve Officers Training Corps Program (ROTC) to Harvard’s campus. As it has in the past, the recent discussion of this policy, and of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) has produced splits within the student body and within the Dems.

For the sake of our newer members, I thought I should offer a brief explanation of the history of ROTC activism on this campus. Just in the last couple of years there has been a ton of coverage of campus debate. For those interested in the issue, the preceding links provide a good overview of the news coverage, and here are some opinion pieces to peruse.

As you will notice in many of those, this was a big debate we had within the Dems last year. Last spring, I worked closely with Colin Motley of the HRC to try and find bipartisan support for some bureaucratic changes that could make a big difference in the lives of our cadets. Of course, anything Harvard would do that smells of official recognition violates the non-discrimination policy, as well as the beliefs of the majority of Dems members (as determined by a poll and heated debate last spring). Here is a rundown of our efforts.

My own view is one of great conflict. I think the ROTC is an incredible program that strengthens our nation’s military. I wish more Harvard students chose to participate, and briefly considered joining the military myself. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform and never cease to be amazed at the caliber of the people we have defending this nation every day. I feel terrible that this situation punishes them, when DADT is a federal policy and not a military one, and most of them oppose it.

That said, you do not have to be gay (as I am) to understand that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is blatant discrimination and violates the non-discrimination code of the university. Keeping ROTC off campus in protest of this is entirely symbolic. I understand that. But it is an important symbolic step. Despite it not being a military policy, or a Harvard ROTC policy, the fact remains that the ROTC program discriminates. I, along with hundreds of my classmates, am not allowed to participate. For me, that is enough reason to support the current policy and vote “no” in this poll.

That also is why I, along with 20+ other Harvard students, embarked on the Right to Serve Tour, protesting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and putting pressure on Susan Collins to cosponsor the Senate Bill repealing it. The website: http://www.harvardrighttoserve.org/ contains videos, media coverage, and other information about the tour.

Having said all of that, I often come back to two points. First, I have no doubt that much of the anti-military sentiment that booted ROTC off campus in 1969 remains among the faculty. It even exists within the student body. One of the resolutions we pushed the UC to pass urged the return of ROTC upon the repeal of DADT. It passed very narrowly within the Dems. So while DADT really is the reason I oppose the reinstatement, I have no doubt in the veracity of the claim made by the right-wing that many use DADT as a cover for other reasons for opposing ROTC.

Second, I have always wondered why there is a double standard on this campus regarding blood drives. It has been FDA policy since 1983 to ban any man who had sexual contact with another man (even once) since 1977 from donating blood. The policy was reviewed in 2007 and upheld despite opposition from the Red Cross, who said the policy is “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

The Crimson wrote that

Concerned citizens should protest the FDA’s current phrasing and demand change. However, boycotting Red Cross blood drives punishes patients in need of blood transfusions instead of targeting FDA officials who have the power to modify restrictions

Sounds familiar, huh?

Some would argue that donating blood is more important than military service and that an exception should be made. I am not sure which one I think is more important. I might incline, if any direction, towards the ROTC. I think Harvard students enrich the military, while our blood is no different from that of any other American in usefulness. Yet, can you imagine the outcry if we banned blood drives from campus or made people trek to MIT to participate? This is a blatant double standard, and the blood drives violate our non-discrimination policy.

The only truly consistent policy is to ban both or to allow both. Otherwise, we acknowledge that there are exceptions to be made, and then your belief depends on one’s respective opinions of the benefits of ROTC and the Blood Drive. Perhaps this double standard is revealing of the true motives of some. Many students would say we should ban ROTC but maintain the blood drive. I challenge this students to probe their own reasoning (and to post that reasoning in the comments…)

I go back and forth on this issue, but ultimately I say we should ban them both. More importantly, I urge the HRC and other ROTC activists to join us in working to overturn DADT and the FDA policies. The fastest way to end the constant squabbling is to end discrimination.