<p>After a 40 year absence, Harvard is bringing back ROTC. Initially removed as a Vietnam war protest, ROTC has long been missed by those Harvard students who had to trek over to MIT. </p>
<p>Interesting. I remember ROTC’s absence at Harvard Law was a hot topic when during Kagan’s confirmation hearings.
Doesn’t make a difference to me, as whether or not I go to H, I don’t think I’ll be doing ROTC, but I think it’s a good thing.</p>
<p>Saying Harvard will work toward full and formal recognition is very different than saying it has actually been brought back. It is a long process and will certainly not happen immediately.</p>
<p>It is unfortunate that Harvard has, for this long, misunderstood one of the very basic principles of the U.S. Constitution: Congress makes laws. Not the military. </p>
<p>Why ROTC has been banned and not Harvard Dems or Harvard Republicans is something I’m not sure I will ever understand. More than most others in the United States, the privileged sons and daughters of Harvard owe it to their country to serve- whether or not they do is, of course, to their discretion. Admittedly, military service is only one avenue of public service; however, the fact that the university so blatantly disregards supporting those who do choose the path of military service (yea yea, Faust goes to the Vets Day ceremony, whoop-dee-do), while priding itself on the number of grads it places with Fortune 100 companies, is beyond offensive to those of us who have family members serving, and to those of us who have lost loved ones protecting a university that values recruiters from Goldman Sachs more than those from our armed forces. </p>
<p>Harvard has not, up to this point, believed that ROTC deserves its students. Perhaps the better question is, does Harvard deserve ROTC?</p>
<p>It’s hard to make an argument that Congress arbitrarily forced discrimination against homosexuals upon the military. There is a long history of gay-bashing and an intolerant culture which existed in the military long before DADT, and the policy came into place party due to agitation by internal military figures.</p>
<p>I also challenge your argument about Harvard not believing that ROTC “deserved” its students. It doesn’t actively discriminate against them, or anything. ROTC kids are welcome, and while they are a tiny minority, the College doesn’t exactly impose great restrictions on them. They have to take the subway two stops, or a fifteen-minute bus ride. Big deal. This whole controversy is insanely overblown, and using the tired Harvard’s-an-ivory-tower-which-only-respects-the-elite-it-creates argument is pointless. Let’s just let Harvard bring back ROTC and retire this ridiculous jabber.</p>
<p>
I realize you probably don’t know anyone serving, at least not anyone who is close to you. But that, my friend, is incredibly offensive to those of us who do. It’s overblown because you don’t want the negative attention on your university. I have several good friends who go to Harvard, and they are incredible people. They are deserving - absolutely deserving- of a Harvard degree. I don’t blame the students, but the administration is a different story. It’s not the 15 minute subway ride that’s a big deal (though I’d challenge you to try it several days a week, at 6 AM, and then see if you still think it’s a minor inconvenience), it’s the idea that ROTC cadets are somehow carriers of discrimination or immoral philosophies because CONGRESS implemented a discriminatory policy by which they are forced to abide- and with which 70% of the armed forces disagree. The military is the action arm of political decisions made by elected officials on Capitol Hill. Forcing ANY inconvenience on them, when their future sacrifices will likely far outweigh those of any administrator at Harvard, is a sad reflection on how out-of-touch the elite, educated people running this university really are with the common world. </p>
<p>I hope Harvard will own up to its mistake- which has dated back to Vietnam, far, far before the policy was even in place- and welcome back ROTC. I’m a big advocate of gays openly serving in the military, as much as I am an advocate of the nation’s elite respecting those who die for their opportunities.</p>
<p>Does this have any correlation with Congress’s recent repealing of DADT?</p>
<p>^It is because Congress repealed DADT, actually.</p>