But I join with those against it in protesting DADT. For those of you who are so fervently against ROTC because of DADT I ask of you this:

Do not simply reject ROTC because of this flawed law. Our opinions differ on whether ROTC should be allowed on campus with the policy in place, but what I hope we can agree on is that ROTC deserves a place on campus in some form. I ask you to join us in calling upon the Congress to end this exclusionary law not only because it is discriminatory and wrong, not only because it hurts our military readiness, but because it prohibits many students at our school – members of the LGBT community in particular – from participating in ROTC and inhibits our school from welcoming an otherwise noble institution onto its campus.

HELP ROTC: END DADT!

EXPAND THE MILITARY: END DADT!

COMMISSION AND RETAIN QUALITY OFFICER: END DADT!

On the 1st point, I am simply pointing out that military status is protected alongside sexual orientation status, and other protected statuses, by the same university policy. What responsibility does that place on Columbia for military students? Currently, Air Force and Army ROTC cadets are forced to go away from Columbia in order to be military. The reduced number of cadets at Columbia since 1969 have proven able to suck it up and soldier on. But does the admirable way an exceptional few have dealt with an unjust circumstance, as oustanding members of other groups have soldiered through unjust circumstances, absolve Columbia of her responsibility to her present and future military students? The argument can be made – that’s all I’m saying.

Keep in mind also that, at present, NROTC isn’t practically available even as a limited off-campus option, despite NROTC’s deeply rooted history at Columbia and ideal service career fit for SEAS students in particular.

On the 2nd point, I agree there is much Columbia can offer the military. Columbia ROTC advocates not only defend the military to the Columbia community; we also defend Columbia to the military community. We must, given the history. There’s a reason smart people like Senators Obama and McCain, and other Columbia ROTC advocates, emphasize the ROTC-Columbia relationship. From inception, ROTC has been the organic bridge linking our military and civilian society at the most fundamental civic-academic level: the civilian source of the military’s leaders and – when the relationship works, as we hope it will at Columbia – mutually beneficial interactive engagement with the military throughout the academic community.

You’re right that individual military Columbians have tried to compensate for the shortcomings of the institution, but ROTC remains the foundation. ROTC matters. And it matters that Columbia rights the grievous wrong it committed in 1969 to what was one of the most storied ROTC programs in the country. Columbia inflicted the wound and it’s up to Columbia to start the healing.

On the 3rd point, well, ROTC is a longstanding practice of academic institutions with well-established societal (and sociological) benefits; Columbia used to have it, too. I’m for the integration of a women’s college at Columbia – my mom would be highly displeased with me if I wasn’t – even though I wasn’t allowed to apply to Barnard. Although I’m not religious and have been alienated by them at times, I also believe religions should be included at Columbia. Why? Because our university cannot only look inward. We have a societal obligation. As a flagship academic institution with a vision and mission that reaches beyond our gates, our university requires a heterogenous community within our gates. Given the fundamental civil-military role of ROTC and the importance of the American military not only to our nation, but the world, the exclusion of ROTC at Columbia is a striking contradiction to our university’s greater purpose.

Columbia as leader requires inclusiveness and engagement on campus, which will, at times, entail friction. We have a non-discrimination policy, not to promote exclusion and segregation, but in order to foster inclusiveness and engagement while protecting our students from the friction that may result.

I don’t support DADT. I believe it’s bad policy that wrongly pits sexual orientation against civic values that should embrace our entire citizenry, such as selfless service and duty. But to exclude ROTC at Columbia over DADT only exacerbates the problem by further harming the civic values embodied by military leadership.

So, how do we weigh the cost/benefit of our decision? As much as we share dislike of DADT, ROTC at Columbia won’t harm LGBT students in real terms anymore than a women’s college and religious groups at Columbia harm non-religious male students, even if they own policies or canon law that are alienating.

Columbia won’t be the 1st university with ROTC and a robust non-discrimination policy. ROTC won’t invalidate nor undermine our non-discrimination policy. Columbia won’t even be the first university that President Bollinger leads with ROTC and a non-discrimination policy.

That said, we shouldn’t overlook DADT, either. The reasons for restoring ROTC include that Columbia can do more to aid reform of DADT in a mutual, constructive manner with ROTC than without it.

Moreover, I believe the non-discrimination policy is meant to foster inclusion and engagement, even when it entails some friction, in order for students and Columbia as institution to make a difference for the public good.

We should oppose discrimination and support ROTC. Columbia will not be the only university with a robust non-discrimination policy and ROTC – in fact, President Bollinger oversaw such a configuration when he was president of U.Michigan.

I’m biased, but I believe Columbia can make an exceptional difference on this issue, but if and only if Columbia engages ROTC in an inclusive, mutual, constructive manner.

The argument that the ROTC ban is morally equivalent to DADT doesn’t pass the laugh test. No former, current, or future member of the military is denied the right to walk onto campus, enroll in classes, speak his/her mind, or any of the other rights and privileges enjoyed at Columbia. The one thing they presently can’t do — just like the rest of us — is operate an organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of University policy. Would it be discriminatory against whites for Columbia deny the KKK the right to operate campus on the basis of their discriminatory membership policies? (Before anyone flips out, I DO NOT equate these two organizations — I cite the example only as a proof by absurdity.) So yeah, there are plenty of good reasons to have ROTC around, but that’s a truly stupid argument.

“Analogy: If you’re known as a racist, with the history and your present actions showing you to be a racist, would anyone take you seriously in a discussion about positive solutions for race issues?”

Actually, if an formerly avowed racist showed a genuine openness to improving race relations, I’d be pleased — but that’s a pretty inept analogy to begin with for Columbia’s relationship with the military. It may be politically antagonistic, but Columbia does loads of dual-use research used by military contractors; SIPA offers at least eight courses on military strategy, history, and readiness (that I could find); military recruiters regularly come to on-campus job fairs; and according to ROTC advocates, a nontrivial number of Columbia students have served or will go on to serve in the military. That fact many students and faculty are averse to the military (often for irrational reasons), or that Columbia has taken a stand against ROTC’s discriminatory admissions policy, does not mean that the University as a whole has nothing to offer in military debates.

“On campus, ROTC at Columbia wouldn’t hurt LGBT students anymore than Barnard hurts Columbia’s male students or our religious groups hurt non-religious or differently religious students.”

Another inept comparison. Single-sex education is a longstanding practice of private institutions with well-established sociological benefits (akin to gendered bathrooms) and a load of alternatives for those who chose not to participate in it. When it comes to Barnard (an independently incorporated college), that distinction is even thinner, given that Columbia students have access to its campus, its library, its dining hall, and the vast majority of its course catalog. DADT, meanwhile, is a government ban on open homosexuals working in the U.S. military, which — last I checked — is the only such game in town. (I note that the military also maintains a ban on putting women into active combat duty, even if the distinction is becoming increasingly blurry.)

As for religious groups on campus: they are not allowed to exclude people on the basis of their spiritual affiliation — if an evangelical Christian wishes to join the MSA, he is free to do so. DADT means that a particular subset of the community is not entitled to the privileges based solely on their sexual behaviors and preferences.

The only true DADT reformers at Columbia are ROTC advocates.

The fact is, our exclusionary and segregationist policy on ROTC invalidates our voice in the DADT debate because Columbia’s blatantly anti-military history since 1969 fatally undermines the legitimacy of our place in the DADT discussion.

Analogy: If you’re known as a racist, with the history and your present actions showing you to be a racist, would anyone take you seriously in a discussion about positive solutions for race issues?

The answer is that you first have to *prove* you are no longer a racist, that you have a real interest in the mutual betterment of the concerned parties. For Columbia, the way to restore our voice in the DADT discussion is to restore ROTC.

Columbia must prove we are no longer anti-military in order for us to be taken seriously in any serious discourse about DADT.

On campus, ROTC at Columbia wouldn’t hurt LGBT students anymore than Barnard hurts Columbia’s male students or our religious groups hurt non-religious or differently religious students.

Here are two statements I wrote as an ROTC advocate about ROTC, DADT and the university’s non-discrimination policy.

2005 Advocates for Columbia ROTC statement on ROTC at Columbia and DADT: http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/Final%20DADT%20statement.doc

My 2005 letter to the university senate’s ROTC task force: http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/chen.html

I think the university should do more to encourage students to enlist, but bringing ROTC on campus and contravening very important anti-discrimination rules in the process is not the only way.

The military, our Army and Marine Corps in particular, is in dire need of quality officers. Officers who are able to operate in very complex multilateral environments and make surprisingly difficult decisions of national importance at a very young age. This is what we are faced with today. I am not claiming we should support the decisions of the present administration by any means either. But when the next administration comes to the fore in January we are going to have a great deal to clean up, and a great deal more challenges to meet. Like it or not, the military is the only deployable organization capable of meeting many of them. And so I believe it is absolutely CRITICAL to have as many talented, excogitative, and globally well versed young officers serving. We will need them to rebuild our nearly broken Army and Marine Corps. And I believe schools like Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale represent pools of some of the best candidates to meet this challenge.

So to get back to the question, why is ROTC different? Because it is not simply a student group. We depend upon the success of ROTC to fill our military’s leadership positions. And we need officers who are the best of the best.

From my perspective, where I sit right now, ROTC is simply too important, the integrity and viability of the military is too important, and at the end of the day the soldiers and marines deserve to have the best of the best to lead them. That is really what it comes down to for me. I’ve seen what failed leadership can do firsthand. And I want to see less of it. I wish every officer in the military could have the kind of education that Columbia provides, but I would settle for a few more.

Thats where I am coming from, and that is where most of the ROTC Advocates that I know are coming from. Most of us are very much in opposition to DADT. Not all to be sure, but most of the folks that I personally interact with are. And as we have learned more about it since our campaign began we have grown more and more opposed to DADT. And oh by the way less than a third of our group considers ourselves to be in any way Republican or right of center. So despite what many claim this is not a “right wing movement.” We continue to call for an end to DADT. Because it is discriminatory, it is wrong, and lets face it it would make our efforts far less difficult if it didn’t exist. We are trying to work within our means to solve a very difficult problem, but one that we see as a VERY CRITICAL PROBLEM.

I hope that DADT is repealed. I hope that very soon my gay friends will have the opportunity to serve, and those friends that presently do serve will no longer have to live in fear.

But I will also continue to fight for ROTC and its place on this campus and others. We owe it to our soldiers. We owe it to our country.

The problem with DADT as I see it is not one of the university ‘protesting’ against the policy. It’s much simpler: no student group on campus is allowed to reject people because of their sexual orientation.

So ignoring all the left-wing bullshit, the problem is one of gay rights. Even if everyone on campus supported having a military presence here, which they should for all the reasons already articulated, the problem is that you can’t have a group that discriminates.

Imagine if the Blue & White did not allow gay people to join its membership, for example. For the university to respond by banning the Blue & White until gay people were allowed to join is in accordance with the anti-discrimination policy. Everyone may think the Blue & White is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if ALL people are not allowed to join (or given the same consideration in applying), then the group has no business being on campus.

Explain to me why ROTC should be any different in this respect?

Yes, Columbia should absolutely use its status to engage with the military and aggressively advocate for a policy change (even if it’s unlikely they’ll be able to reshape the debate alone), but until that change comes, I think the university’s decision to deny ROTC access is a fair one.

I don’t think it would right — or strategically wise, even — for the Columbia to gloss over what we agree to be an awful, discriminatory policy, even for the sake of improving its relationship with the military. The ban strikes me as the single most powerful statement Columbia can make with respect to DADT. Hopefully it’s one that congress will eventually hear.

“By banning ROTC and implying disrespect for the military, Columbia has encouraged political mudslinging about elite anti-Americanism — not vigorous debate about DADT. “Universities are vital when they educate and irrelevant when they boycott,” Columbia astronomy professor James Applegate explained in 2005.”

What I have long wanted is for Columbia to aggressively engage the powers that be on the issue. Columbia should go to Congress directly and point out that not only is DADT discriminatory, not only does it hurt military readiness through the regular expulsion of qualified professionals, but it also prevents many high quality schools like Columbia from providing high quality Officers to lead the military.
I would have a great deal of respect for Columbia if it did this, because not only would it demonstrate Columbia’s commitment to service and to civic duty but it would also affirm its dedication to ending discrimination. Its easy to oppose a policy when you’ve got nothing to lose. Its far more difficult to do so in the face of opposition and possible censure – but far more respectable as well.

I agree, DADT is absolutely abominable. Should be scrapped completely. Colin Powell should be reprimanded for supporting it.

But Columbia also has an mission to serve the public good. Its printed right there above Low Library. Right now there are soldiers sailors marines and airmen deployed all over the world. Don’t they deserve to have leaders like those that Columbia produces?

We have to take OWNERSHIP of our military. This is OUR military. Not the conservatives’ military, not the bigots’ military. OURS. We should want people from OUR community to be represented in the military.

And that brings me back to Senator Obama’s point about supporting ROTC. He said “it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many.”

Military service should not be the burden of only a bunch of state school graduates. While it may not be Columbia’s intent to create a de facto class separation where only the less well off serve, that is how it appears to many. And appearance speaks louder than words.

Columbia should seek out and actively engage the military. This includes OPPOSITION TO DADT. At the very least, in opposing DADT Columbia should loudly and publicly lament that the policy is preventing its students from having an accessible opportunity to serve as military officers (particularly in the Navy which is available to no one at Columbia). This should be a PROBLEM for Columbia.

I want to see Columbia actively engage Congress. Tell them “we want ROTC, our students want to serve, but your discriminatory law is making that all but impossible for us!” I have not heard such an utterance once.

Columbia needs to regain its sense of civic duty. This is our military. And we want change.

One of the few things it CAN do as a means of protest is to resist the presence of ROTC on its own campus, which it has. If the federal government decides that the dearth of Ivy League soldiers and sailors is a grave crisis, it has the ability to change the law. But if it chooses not to, congress (which, I reiterate, is charged with preserving the well-being of the military) made its own bigoted bed. Columbia’s enforcement of its own rules and statutes is not the source of U.S. Military’s problems.

(Note that congress has, in fact, elected to address this problem by force of law in the past. It’s only by virtue of the Solomon Amendment that military recruiters are allowed to operate in the law school. The issue of on-campus ROTC hasn’t attracted the same level of interest or enforcement, which should tell you something about how seriously the federal government regards this problem.)