ROTC

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In light of recent debates about ROTC presence on campus, we feel that it is important to examine homophobia, heterosexism and their role in the military. Let's begin with a comparison, two differing views on the worth of sexual minorities. Harvard University holds that "it is unacceptable to harass or discriminate against students because of sexual orientation." The U.S. military and its campus manifestation, ROTC, contend that gays and lesbians present a security risk and such "sexual deviance" (their vocabulary) is actively discouraged. Individuals proven to have homosexual tendencies are either forced to resign or given medical discharges. Here there is no positive message to gay people, just criminalization at all levels of the institution.

Basic training speaks through a language of homophobia--destructive epithets about gays articulated for motivational or provocative ends, as well as a sexist and often racist rhetoric. The terror of being perceived as homosexual is used to scapegoat weaker members, and to instruct the rest as nonconformant with the desired image of power. And thus are reinscribed sexist machismo, racist intolerance, and hereterosexist assumption of the dominator--to excel in the military you must dominate the other side, conquer them. Misogyny persists with assertion of superiority and necessary justification of violence. Contrast this to the ambience of Robert Coles' "Literature of Social Reflection."

No, it is clear that not only are the goals of the military and the University in direct contradiction, but that hundreds of gays, lesbians and bisexuals on this campus would receive radically different receptions in the two institutions as they are currently structured: one is inclusive, the other, life threatening.

No, gays are not welcome but are actively persecuted in the armed forces. Harvard University's Faculty Council departs from this view, urging rather "all students and officers of instruction and administration to assure that the principles of toleration and respect for others are preserved in this community." Can there be any further debate about the compatibility of these two institutions?

That, with the perimission of Dean Epps, ROTC held a drill in Harvard Hall this month cannot be argued. That gays are not welcome, nor are they even permitted at such drills cannot be argued. And that the University's Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities guaranteeing all students, including gay students, among other things, the freedom of speech, freedom personal force and freedom of movement, stands violated by the presence of such a group on our campus cannot be argued, nor can it be forgiven. The rights guaranteed all students and the worth of our non-discrimination policy are put into question by such negligence on the part of Dean Epps.

The Department of Defense commissioned two reports over the last year to examine the extent to which gays were security risks--the reports came back stating that "having a same-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as is being left-or right-handed," and concluded that homosexuals should be given admittance into the military should they meet the other requirements. The Pentagon's response? It "called the study 'unfortunate' and wrote that 'it has it has expended considerable government resources and has not assisted us one whit in our personnel security program." (Boston Globe, 10/29.) Though all current evidence points to the contrary, the military refuses to change its policy denying the worth and attacking the abilities of such a significant portion of our student body.

By accepting membership into the University, we join here a community, says the Resolution, "ideally characterized by free expression...respect for the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change." This said, is there anything else to debate? Jarrett Barrios '90-'91   Julie Schulman '91   Co-chairs, Bisexual   Gay and Lesbian Students Association