[From the Spring, 1996 issue of The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Newsletter]
Robert W. Mack, AB '71, JD '74
The Harvard College Undergraduate Council voted in March to ask Harvard to bar the ROTC program from using Harvard Yard for its commissioning ceremonies during Commencement Week. The action was based on the fact that the program discriminates against gay, lesbian and bisexual students in violation of Harvard's nondiscrimination policy. The Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Supporters Alliance (BGLSA) supported this decision and asked for Caucus support. After extensive consultation among ourselves and with our e-mail enabled members, the leadership of the Caucus decided to write a letter to Dean Lewis, posing several key questions about ROTC (and also addressing a number of other concerns). The text of our letter and of his reply accompany this article. Dean Lewis' reply included a copy of his veto of the U.C. action, because it raised no matters that had not been taken into account in connection with negotiation of the existing arrangement, and also because the action was taken without prior consultation with him or with the members of the faculty who had negotiated that arrangement.
We asked for the commissioning ceremonies to be banned from Harvard property as part of our campaign to end Harvard's financial support for the ROTC program during the fall of 1994. A compromise was achieved in early 1995, after intensive negotiations, pursuant to which Harvard's financial support ended but the commissioning ceremonies continued. This result was accepted by the Caucus and by The Committee to End Discrimination at Harvard on the premise that a wide range of alumni organizations which Harvard does not support or endorse are also allowed to use the Yard during Commencement. Accordingly, we concluded that use by ROTC did not imply particular Harvard approval. The ceremonies are not listed in the official Commencement Program, although they are listed, along with a wide variety of other events (including our own) in Harvard Magazine's Commencement Guide and in reunion class schedules.
Dean Lewis' letter is thoughtful and responsive, even though it does not satisfy us in every respect. In particular, he does not give a clear answer to our question concerning whether an alumni group which discriminated against another protected minority would be allowed to use Harvard premises. He does, however, strongly affirms the principle of nondiscrimination, and the proposition that use of Harvard premises during Commencement Week by the ROTC program does not imply Harvard's endorsement of ROTC's discriminatory policies. He also confirms that the ROTC commissioning ceremonies are no longer integrated with Harvard proceedings. The publicity which certain Harvard publications give to the ROTC ceremony, while not entirely satisfactory, is consistent with our understanding in 1995.
Circumstances might still arise to which we would object: Harvard University participation in the commissioning ceremonies; refusal of permission for an alumni group to use Harvard premises on the basis of its discrimination against another protected minority; publicity for the ROTC ceremony going beyond that contemplated. We might still at some point join with other groups in urging Harvard to adopt a new, general policy barring all discriminatory alumni groups from use of its property, recognizing that any such policy would be subject to exceptions intended to protect academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association and religious freedoms. And we may, this year or another year, mount a protest of ROTC's discriminatory policies, which continue to be repugnant to us whether or not the use of the Yard for its commissioning ceremonies can be accepted.
Meanwhile, a more significant battle over ROTC is being fought at M.I.T., where a faculty committee has proposed to restructure the program in an effort to harmonize it with M.I.T.'s nondiscrimination policy. The initial proposal would open the ROTC program to gay and lesbian students, and assure them of equivalent scholarships should they lose ROTC scholarships by reason of their sexual orientation. Any such change would require approval by the M.I.T. Corporation and the Department of Defense, neither of which is necessarily forthcoming. The arrangement made at M.I.T. will have ramifications for Harvard, since Harvard students who wish to participate in ROTC do so via the M.I.T. program.
The last word for now goes to Rev. R. Stephen Powers, HDS '96, Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, who suggested in a letter to The Crimson that Harvard should, "Allow the ROTC ceremonies and then invite the new graduates who are entering the service of their country to tip a beer at John Harvard's with those who disagree with the present governmental policy." Who knows, we might even recruit a few new Caucus members!
[From the Spring, 1996 issue of The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Newsletter]