But here’s the crux of your argument though: the military, because of it’s important mission, should be exempt from the rules. Most of the pro-ROTC voices in this debate have not attempted to come up with a justification for DADT or how the ROTC’s existence on campus can be fair given the existence of DADT. Instead, all I’ve heard is that ROTC is ‘too important’ or ‘too great’ for it to get bogged down in ther ules. And sorry but in my view, the sum of all community service organizations in this country are as important and as honorable as the military. As a unit, DDC is probably more effective than having a unit of the ROTC/NROTC at Columbia (given that it is widely accepted that few CU students would join and hence the ROTC would never come here). Unless of course you feel that military service is more important and honorable than community service, but that would just make your argument is stupid as the anti-military activists.

Think of it this way – if the Double Discovery Center did not allow openly gay people to volunteer with them or work on their staff, do you think that they would be allowed to run a program at Columbia? Everyone knows the DDC provides great service to the community, but having them on campus would simply be unconstitutional.

The point is that discrimination already exists on campus. Call it Red Cross blood drives, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, recruiting by the State Department, whatever. The military is a reflection of society, and society is pretty discriminatory. Why is the military the one institution that we can’t possibly change and must therefore boycott?

I acknowledge that good people, gay and straight, including myself, are rightfully bothered by DADT. I hope that that sentiment leads to more affirmative action for reform of the law, but at the same time, I don’t see that real harm will come to LGBT students at Columbia if NROTC comes back. DADT is a government policy, not Columbia’s. On the other hand, there is a greater good that can be achieved with NROTC here.

Call me a hopeful idealist, I just believe that Columbia-educated Navy and USMC officers can accomplish a lot of good in this world, by leading well in the military community, and making intelligent, ethical decisions that directly affect sailors and Marines and, as importantly, the people they interact with around the world. Have you heard about what young lieutenants and captains, barely out of college, are responsible for ‘over there’ in their simultaneous roles as warriors and peace-builders? It’s really amazing and clear to me that Columbians can do a lot of good in those roles.

The legal impediment I’m referring to is a contradiction of one’s own constitution. For example, everyone knows about the provisions of the second amendment; now lets assume there are no state/city laws regulating guns, the University could theoretically have a rule that says “no guns in the classroom”. So I’m talking about a violation of their own rules.

There is no legal impediment to re-allowing ROTC back on campus now. DADT, as awful as it is, is a federal law. So is the Solomon Amendment.

I wonder if military status is a protected category in their discrimination policies, like it is in ours.

You may even be surprised to learn that he is not in fact in love with the many alumni who have contributed to the capital campaign, even if he conveyed that impression at alumni functions.

As for the question of anti-DADT vs. anti-Military, I think that if DADT were repealed, there would be no legal impediment to re-allowing ROTC back on campus. Yes, some anti-war groups might oppose it on the grounds that they love peace, but the massive opposition from the Queer community would subside – it would in fact be a victory for them and they might even support enlistment. So while it might be a good academic question, the reality is that if DADT were repealed, the ROTC would probably be allowed back onto campus, and people would celebrate the progression towards a more tolerant military. Most students, in my view, would support a return, because most people are intelligent enough to realize that the nature of a military as imperialistic, aggressive or defensive is a function of foreign policy, ie, who you elect to office.

When Bollinger’s affirmative action case won in the Supreme Court a few years ago, one of the main reasons cited was the advocacy of military leaders who support affirmative action in universities order so that ROTC-trained officers will be more diverse. It’s ironic then that Bollinger, who worked so closely with military leaders to win this career-defining Supreme Court case, would defend the absence of ROTC at his own academic institution.

As a on-time enlisted soldier, I worked with/for male and female officers. Therefore, it’s hard for me to think of military officers of any race or gender as oppressed people.