Tag Archives: gay

NYU Targeted over Gay Marriage

chickfila.png

Cross-Posted from Open Market

New York
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wants to kick
Chick-fil-A
out of New York because its CEO, Dan Cathy, opposes gay
marriage. Accordingly, she informed
the head of New York University (which leases space to the one Chick-fil-A
restaurant in New York City) that “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City
as long as the company’s president continues to uphold and promote his
discriminatory views […] I urge you to sever your relationship with the
Chick-fil-A establishment that exists on your campus.” 

My guess is
that the university will regard this letter more as an unstated threat than as
a mere statement of the Speaker’s opinion, since universities, vulnerable as
they are to ad hoc
government regulations and ordinances, are obligated to cultivate municipal
officials’ goodwill. As a rule, business owners are subject
to
municipal predation 
that can drive them out of business, and are thus forced them to ingratiate
themselves with city officials. Universities can end up with an enrollment
cap
or lose lucrative
eminent domain
prerogatives if they annoy municipal higher-ups. 

Continue reading NYU Targeted over Gay Marriage

Hateless Hate Crime at Rutgers?

dharun_ravi.jpgThe criminal trial of Dharun Ravi commanded national attention and focus on our controversial hate-crime laws. The issue was whether Ravi spied on his Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, and whether he spied because of prejudice against homosexuals generally and against his gay roommate in particular. Ravi’s conviction last Friday on the most serious charge against him, “bias intimidation,” carries with it a possible sentence of ten years in prison. It was not for homicide. The jury certainly knew that Tyler had jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge, a few days after 18-year-old Ravi used a web cam to observe his roommate’s tryst with a 28-year-old man in September, 2010.

Legally, however, Tyler’s suicide was irrelevant to the case. The jury should have considered only whether or not Ravi was guilty of a hate-crime: “bias intimidation.” Like 45 states and the federal government that have hate-crime laws to increase the penalties for other crimes, New Jersey has an Ethnic Intimidation Act. Nevada, for example, adds 25 percent to a prison sentence for felonies judged to be hate-crimes, but New Jersey’s hate-crime law tops the list for extra punitiveness. One problem is that hate-crimes, like beauty, are in the eyes of beholders. Did Ravi’s spying constitute “bias intimidation’?

Continue reading Hateless Hate Crime at Rutgers?

The Keeton Case–An Abuse of Academic Power

Cross-posted from NAS.

KEETON.jpg

Several weeks ago, KC Johnson–a scholar I much admire, not least for his fearless dedication to principle–published an essay on Minding the Campus under the title, “Keeton Defense Contradicts NAS Principles.”  We offered Professor Johnson the opportunity to re-post his article or contribute a further statement on the NAS website.  He accepted and posted both the article and an addendum of about the same length as his original.

I would like to respond in defense of the NAS’s position.  But, first, for those who haven’t followed the controversy, a summary.

Keeton So Far

It concerns a court case in Georgia.  Jennifer Keeton was a graduate student at Augusta State University (ASU) where she began studying for a degree in Counselor Education in fall 2009.  She completed two regular semesters and two summer sessions but was then dismissed from the program because she refused to participate in a “remediation plan” that was designed either to change her views on homosexuality or convince her to misrepresent those views.  Miss Keeton, citing her Christian beliefs, held that homosexuality is a form of “identity confusion,” and had stated this view in class.  The faculty members involved rejected her view and cited it as “a violation of the codes of ethics to which counselors and counselors-in-training are required to adhere.”  The remediation plan to which she was assigned singled out Miss Keeton’s view that homosexuality is a “lifestyle,” and posited that “sexual orientation is not a lifestyle or choice, but a state of being.”   (The quotations are from Keeton’s complaint in U.S. District Court, July 21, 2010.)

The most recent development was a decision handed down by a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, January 6, 2012.  The three judges upheld an earlier ruling denying Keeton’s motion for a preliminary injunction against her dismissal from the program.

This is likely to be only a way-station in Keeton’s search for legal relief.  But the 11th Circuit panel did use some strong language to uphold the Augusta State University’s position.  Keeton had claimed that the college had violated her First Amendment rights to free speech by (in the words of the panel) “discriminating against her viewpoint; by retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment rights and finally by compelling her to express beliefs with which she disagrees.”  To these claims, the panel replied that the “ASU’s counseling program is not a traditional public forum,” but a “supervised learning experience,” and therefore the First Amendment does not apply.  It also held that ASU didn’t impose the remediation plan out of a desire “to discriminate against her personal and religious viewpoint,” but because it plausibly believed Keeton intended “to impose her personal religious views on her clients.”  The court decided that ASU “officials were not asking her to change her beliefs.”  Rather, the school’s primary concern was her “ability to be a multiculturally competent counselor” and her “ability to maintain ethical behavior in all counseling situations.”  At particular issue was Keeton’s supposed determination to “refer clients to conversion therapy,” i.e. therapy aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation.

In general, the 11th Circuit panel upheld the idea that ASU acted appropriately because the view of homosexuality its actions embody is warranted by the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.  The panel recognized that, “As a condition of continuing as a student in the ASU counseling program, Defendants required Miss Keeton to pledge to affirm the morality of sexual conduct she believes immoral,” but found this requirement educationally and professionally appropriate.  That’s because, “Keeton expressed her intent to violate several provisions of the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics, which ASU was required to adopt and teach in order to offer a counseling program accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

NAS’s Position

The National Association of Scholars along with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Keeton.  It was drafted by Eugene Volokh and filed in October 2010.  We argued that Keeton’s First Amendment rights had indeed been trampled.  The brief said that the First Amendment presumptively forbids imposing special obligations on university students who express particular viewpoints; that the lower court had erred in equating ASU’s retaliation against Keeton with normal curricular decisions; and that the lower court’s decision–to rely on “academic standards” as a tool for barring disfavored speech–would justify a vast range of restrictions on intellectual freedom.

When the 11th Circuit panel handed down its decision, NAS reiterated these points.  We think the panel made a mistake.  One dimension of the mistake is that it would force Christians, like Miss Keeton, who believe that homosexuality is immoral, to either tailor their beliefs to ACA standards or similar doctrinaire social positions, or else forego careers in the counseling profession.  That is, of course, just one consequence.  The 11th Circuit panel’s decision opens the door for colleges and universities to de-select students holding any beliefs that happen to be in disfavor with the factions that dominate the increasingly ideological academic and professional associations.  It doesn’t take much imagination to see where this leads.

Professor Johnson’s Criticisms of NAS

Professor Johnson’s criticisms should be read in full in his own words, but for the sake of brevity, I will summarize.  He makes two main points.  First, the panel’s ruling would not exclude “Christians” from the counseling profession.  Second, the NAS’s position in the Keeton case contradicts NAS’s own defense of equal treatment for all on campus.

My Response

The first criticism is simply a matter of whether the word “Christians” is taken to mean “all Christians” or “some Christians.”  I would have thought that both context and common sense would have favored the latter reading.  There are clearly many Christian denominations that have embraced contemporary views of homosexuality.  In New York City, it is easy to find Christian churches flying the rainbow gay flag.  But there are also many denominations that have stayed with traditional Christian teachings that homosexual behavior is always wrong.  Keeton comes from a branch of Christianity of that type.  I don’t know the proportions of the denominations on either side, but I’ll stick with the view that there are substantial numbers of Christians who would be excluded from the counseling profession if the 11th Circuit panel’s decision stands.

Is the NAS, by defending Keeton’s right to express her views on homosexuality, forsaking its defense of equal treatment for all on campus?  Not at all.  We defended Keeton because she was (and at the moment still is) the object of an abuse of academic power.  She should have the right to hold and express her views on homosexuality without having to give up her educational and career aspirations.  It is plain that her views are indeed in conflict with the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics, and that this Code has been given further force by the counseling education accreditation body, CACREP.  But existence of a bureaucratic apparatus to enforce a form of political correctness does not change its ideological character.

The court in this case has given extraordinary deference to the mechanism by which mere opinions are elevated to the status of professional standards.  There is no deep and compelling reason why all members of the counseling profession should be made to hew to a single view of homosexuality.  Realistically, the vast majority of people seeking professional careers in counseling in the United States today are going to be not only relaxed about homosexuality, but also enthusiastic about the principle of affirming the sexual orientations of clients.   But does the counseling profession have any room at all for the minority who have dissenting opinions?   We think it should, and that universities offering graduate instruction in this field should champion the principle of intellectual diversity, even if that means challenging the edicts of accreditors and professional associations.  Those edicts should not outweigh the First Amendment or a student’s freedom of conscience.

“Equal treatment” in this case means protecting those who espouse unpopular views, even highly disfavored ones.  Keeton posed no threat to other students or to potential clients.  She wore her views openly and gave fair warning to anyone who disagreed with her.  She should not have been denied the opportunity to complete her degree program merely because she espouses an unpopular opinion.

An Emotionally Charged Issue

The treatment of gays and lesbians, as well as other sexual minorities, remains a fraught issue in American society.  We have no wish to stereotype the contending views and the NAS does not take positions on matters outside higher education.  We do not advocate for or against the view that counselors should affirm the sexual orientation of their clients.  Our position, rather, is that universities should leave their students free to decide.  The error of Augusta State University–a public institution–was to impose its own doctrinal position on Miss Keeton.

Professor Johnson thinks that doctrine well founded and consonant with the way in which the counseling profession should go about his work.  He may be right.  But the wholesomeness of the doctrine is not the issue.  The issue is rather whether a public university should be imposing a doctrine at all.

The argument that it should impose this particular doctrine–that counselors should affirm the sexuality of their clients–is that it embodies a correct standard of professional practice.  Not to impose it would be to accede to a form of malpractice.

The argument against imposing this particular doctrine is that it is indeed “doctrine”–an attempt to foreclose discussion on a matter that remains intellectually and morally unsettled.

We realize that to say an issue is “unsettled” pleases neither of the sides who are invested in the view that they have the right answer and that all reasonable people ought to be compelled by reason and evidence to agree with them.  NAS, however, is determined to favor First Amendment freedom, even in circumstances where individuals for whom we have the highest respect regard the views to be protected as undeserving.

What’s Next

Keeton is appealing the panel’s decision by asking the 11th Circuit to give her case full consideration.  Her lawyers are focusing on the questions: (1) “Whether a state university may require a student to promise to sincerely convey a controversial moral judgment that the student disbelieves as a condition of receipt of a state education;” and (2) whether persons have a right against state-compelled speech in any context other than one in which the state makes their presence mandatory.”   That is to say, the appeal narrows the dispute from whether Keeton’s First Amendment rights were violated to the more specific question of whether a state university has the power to require from a student a sincere promise to uphold a “controversial moral judgment.”

This might sound dry, but the matter at stake is one of real importance.  As Keeton’s petition to the 11th Circuit for a re-hearing eloquently puts it:

This case presents a rare instance of blatant, express, and coercive reeducation that should be intolerable across the political spectrum. A business school could not require its students to “affirm” capitalism or disavow socialism as a condition of receipt of an education. A geology department could not require its students to affirm–or deny–the reality of global warming to avoid expulsion. A law school could not require its students to affirm–or deny–the interpretive or moral legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, nor require students to promise to defend–or oppose–the death penalty in their future professional efforts. A medical school could not require its students to affirm–or deny–female circumcision or sex-change operations. A political science department could not require its students to affirm any particular school of political thought or civic policy proposal. Nor could any of these educators require students to give a running account of the status of their beliefs, and make “correct” beliefs and a promise of ideological cooperation (instead of academic performance) the condition of continuing receipt of a State education.

 The ASU faculty’s conduct in this case is a renunciation of individual conscience and academic freedom, and is intolerable under the First Amendment.

Can Keeton be required “to announce the morality of homosexual sex to clients seeking such approval?”  The 11th Circuit panel said yes.  But this kind of compulsion is deeply at odds with ordinary ideas of American freedom.  If one is seeking to join an organization that has an official creed–be it a church or a group organized to save wildlife, promote the rights of sexual minorities, or advance gun ownership–it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that agreement with the creed would be a condition of membership.  Universities have, within a limited sphere, a right to creeds of their own, as when they demand acceptance of principles of academic integrity as a condition of admission.  But this zone of enforced agreement should not extend to matters of moral judgment beyond the competence of the university to decide.

Conventional opinion now favors the view that homosexuality is simply part of the natural range of human variation.  Conventional opinion might well be right, but that is not really any kind of argument against the right of a minority to hold a dissenting view.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this case is that ASU presented Keeton with an alternative.  According to ASU officials, she was free to hold her personal beliefs so long as she promised to lie about them in her dealings with clients.  The counsel for the University officials explained:

“[I]s it a requirement that the counselor lie? Absolutely.”

 And:

“She doesn’t have to believe it. But she does have to tell the client that [it’s okay to be gay].”

It is hard to think of more vivid evidence that a university has crossed a line that should never be crossed when it conceives of its academic standards as a requirement to lie.

Keeton Defense Contradicts NAS Principles

As I noted
previously, a three-judge panel of 11th Circuit made a troubling decision in
the Jennifer Keeton case. But it did so not because it declined to reinstate
Keeton, a Counseling student who said that she would recommend “conversion
therapy” for prospective teenage clients who were gay and lesbian. As the
decision noted, Keeton demanded “preferential,
not equal, treatment,”
seeking to ignore the field’s ethical guidelines
of counselors putting their clients’ interests ahead of their own personal or religious
beliefs. The decision was troubling
because its findings could, and likely will, be used by colleges and
universities in the circuit to stifle legitimate student freedoms on campus.

Continue reading Keeton Defense Contradicts NAS Principles

Emmer and Keeton–Two Terrible Decisions on Academic Freedom

Emmer and Keeton.pngIt’s
not often that a university’s personnel decision is so egregious that even the
editorial pages of the local newspaper denounce it. That occurred with Hamline
University, whose seemingly rescinded appointment to Tom Emmer generated a
blistering editorial
from the Minneapolis
Star-Tribune
.

Between 2004 and 2010, Emmer served as a prominent member of
the Republican caucus in the Minnesota House of Representatives. In 2010, he
gave up his legislative seat to launch a bid for governor, running on a very
conservative platform; despite trailing by considerable margins in polls
throughout the race, he wound up losing by less than one percent of the vote.
After a year in the private sector, Emmer decided to try out academia, and
Hamline’s Business School made arrangements for him to teach a course in
business law and serve as an “executive in residence” for a
state/local public policy program that the school was starting. It seemed that
both sides considered the semester as a trial run for a possible permanent
position.

Continue reading Emmer and Keeton–Two Terrible Decisions on Academic Freedom

Preferences for Homosexuals?

LGBT.jpgElmhurst College, in what is apparently a first, will ask this question on its admissions application:  “Would you consider yourself a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community?”  Answering the question will be optional; applicants may chose “yes” or “no” or “prefer not to answer.” 

Those answering yes to the LGBT question will be eligible for a diversity-driven “enrichment scholarship” since they will be considered members of an “underrepresented group.”  On the other hand, according to Insider Higher Ed, the school “admits around 65 percent of applicants, and does not anticipate using sexual orientation as a factor in admissions decisions.”

You can read about all this on the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed websites, and the college itself subsequently put out a  statement on the matter (in which it notes that “the College did not seeks publicity for this step”).

There do not appear to be any federal legal problems with the college’s action, and if there are it will be, ironically, because of liberal rather than conservative legal theories. That is, the left has been aggressive in pushing legal arguments that federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; to the extent that courts and bureaucrats accept those dubious arguments, then it opens the door to claims that preferences on the basis of sexual orientation are illegal, too.

Law aside, does Elmhurst’s action make sense as a policy matter?

Continue reading Preferences for Homosexuals?

A Hard Case—Are FIRE and NAS Wrong about Jennifer Keeton?

KEETONX390.jpgHard cases make bad law. Nowhere is that legal maxim clearer than the case of former Augusta State counseling student Jennifer Keeton, who was removed from the counseling program because of her rather extreme anti-gay views. A lower-court judge upheld the university’s actions. FIRE and NAS have filed a powerful amicus brief, penned by Eugene Volokh, spelling out the potentially damaging—extremely damaging—effects if this decision is upheld. At the same time, however, the evidence presented in the case strongly suggests that Keeton doesn’t belong as a counselor.
The university’s response to Keeton reflects the same sort of behavior seen in many education departments in the dispositions controversy—i.e., Orwellian re-education efforts to punish students whose views on controversial contemporary political or social issues conflict with those of the academic majority.
Keeton, a student in ASU’s Counseling Education M.A. program, repeatedly expressed anti-gay views, both in and out of class. (These views were quite extreme; they included Keeton’s support for “conversion therapy,” and, according to the lower-court decision in the case, her admission that she would find it difficult to counsel gay or lesbian clients.) In response, as the FIRE/NAS brief notes, the Counseling department designed a “remediation” program for Keeton, which required her “attending three workshops, reading ten peer-reviewed articles, attending an unspecified number of activities such as the Gay Pride Parade(!), and writing a two-page paper each month.” Perhaps most chilling, she also had to meet with her advisor each month to discuss the effect of these activities on her “beliefs.”

Continue reading A Hard Case—Are FIRE and NAS Wrong about Jennifer Keeton?

ROTC Back in the News

Harvard President Drew Faust probably didn’t expect criticism when she said she looked forward to reinstating the Reserve Officer Training Corps once the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is ended. But Senator Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Republican and a lieutenant colonel in the state’s National Guard, said he couldn’t understand Harvard’s priorities: how could the university maintain its four-decade ban on the ROTC while promoting the Dream Act, a plan to provide amnesty to students who are in the United States illegally? Why hold the ROTC hostage to a change in military policy?
The ban on ROTC at Harvard and many other universities is an artifact of the student anti-Vietnam protests of the late Sixties. In the spring of 1969, students at Harvard, led by members of Students for a Democratic Society, stormed and occupied University Hall. In the uprising, eventually beaten back by police, rioters burned down a Marine training classroom and demanded an end to any kind of military presence on campus. “ROTC must go because we oppose the policies of the United States and we oppose the military that perpetrates them,” a statement by the students said, with clear intention of scapegoating its own military cadets for a war created and sustained by Washington politicians.
Once the rationale for banning ROTC migrated over to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the tactic remained, but with a different kind of scapegoating: blaming ROTC and the military in general for a policy created by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell” is widespread on campuses and sincerely held, but if Harvard and other campuses wish to dissociate themselves from discriminatory organizations it should blame Congress and perhaps refuse federal funding until DADT is dropped. Harvard’s federal funding amounts to about 15 percent of its operating budget, so it’s best not to look for an outbreak of moral principle here.

Continue reading ROTC Back in the News

More Wreckage from Ginsburg’s ‘Neutral’ Ruling

When the Supreme Court ruled in June that public universities could deny official recognition to a Christian student group that barred openly gay people as members because homosexual acts are considered sinful by many Christian churches, some commentators hoped that the 5-4 ruling would be construed as a narrow one that permitted but did not require campuses to enforce their anti-bias policies in ways that interfered with religious belief. (Writing for the high court majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the state-supported Hastings College of Law’s policy of requiring student groups to take all comers in order to qualify for official status was a neutral one that did not interfere with religious freedom.)
Think again, optimistic commentators. Already this summer two federal lower-court judges have used the high court’s decision in Christian Legal Society of the University of California vs. Martinez to uphold the right of two different tax-supported universities to expel Christian graduate students from counseling programs because those students could not in good conscience agree with the fashionable prevailing ideology—endorsed by the American Counseling Association—that homosexual activity is morally neutral and that gay people should be counseled in “affirming” ways that essentially endorse their lifestyles.
It turns out that the word “permit” is the operative one. University and college administrators have interpreted the Martinez decision as giving them carte blanche to restrict religious expression on campus as long as administrators could characterize the restrictions as “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns,” in the words of Ginsburg. After the Martinez decision came down, David French, a senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents both graduate students, said that the Supreme Court’s June ruling set in motion “a disturbing trend” of “excessive deference to university administrators” that would allow them to enforce politically correct speech codes simply by making them into curricular requirements that they could argue were neutral on their face.

Continue reading More Wreckage from Ginsburg’s ‘Neutral’ Ruling

Double Standards: Fresno and Columbia

Early February featured an interesting development from Fresno. Students of Bradley Lopez, a health instructor at Fresno Community College, claimed that Lopez was using class time to spread his personal anti-gay views. Lopez denies the allegation, asserting that all of his comments fell “within the scope of health science.”
The students’ concerns attracted the attention of the local ACLU branch. In a six-page letter to FCC administrators, ACLU staff attorney Elizabeth Gill criticized Lopez for presenting “as ‘fact’ and ‘science’ inaccurate information that reflects his own highly discriminatory and religiously-based views.” According to Gill’s letter, students in Lopez’s class reported him using a slide asserted that counseling or “hormonal therapy” were the “recommended treatment” for homosexuality. Neither academic freedom nor the 1st amendment, the ACLU letter maintained, applied to professors who present “factually inaccurate information.”
The Gill letter also suggested that Lopez’s inaccurate remarks might create a “hostile environment” for gay and lesbian students on campus.
The ACLU’s “hostile environment” claim strikes me as very troubling. There’s no evidence that Lopez punished any gay or lesbian students, or that he retaliated against students who failed to accept his anti-gay views. There’s no evidence, in fact, that Lopez ever did anything inappropriate to any student. Surely, for instance, the ACLU wouldn’t suggest that a professor opposing racial preferences in admissions produced a “hostile environment”?

Continue reading Double Standards: Fresno and Columbia

The Latest Unacceptable Opinion

Back in June, the American Political Science Association entertained—and then rejected—a proposal by some of its gay and lesbian members to change the locale of its 2012 annual meeting, on the ground that the currently scheduled site, the city of New Orleans, is located in a state, Louisiana, that has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As I argued at the time in the Wall Street Journal, there was something a tad ludicrous about protesting alleged discrimination against gays by boycotting one of the most gay-friendly cities in America. But at least the gay-rights activists among the professors of political science had an argument to make: that an association member who had legally entered into same-sex wedlock in, say, California (the only state in the union besides Massachusetts that issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples), could conceivably be denied the same hospital visitation and decision-making privileges as a spouse of the opposite sex should his or her partner encounter a medical emergency while at the five-day meeting. (The organization’s board decided that risk was too slight to justify moving the meeting.)

Now, gay-rights activists in the American Association of Law Schools (AALS) are proposing their own protest boycott of an annual meeting site, but this time it’s hard to figure out what the claim of discrimination is supposed to be. The meeting in question is scheduled to take place on January 6-10 at the Manchester Grand Hyatt hotel in San Diego. The aim of the announced boycott, urged by two sections of the 160-school association and two outside groups, is to persuade the AALS to cancel its contracts with the Manchester Grand Hyatt and move the meeting to another hotel. No one is claiming that the hotel either has treated or plans to treat gay individuals or couples any differently from heterosexuals.

The hotel’s owner, Douglas F. Manchester, however, has donated $125,000 to back a proposed amendment to the California constitution, on the ballot for the November election, that would ban same-sex marriage in California and effectively overturn a state Supreme Court ruling in May that deemed such marriages legal under the current state constitution. Manchester has made it clear in public statements that his hotel has numerous gay employees whom it values and has no intention of refusing to hire or accommodate anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. Manchester, a practicing Catholic, believes that same-sex marriage represents an attack on the traditional concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nonetheless, Louis Sirico, chairman of the AALS’s Section on Legal Writing, Research, and Reasoning, one of the four groups (totaling about 2,000 AALS members) promoting the boycott, argues that Manchester’s campaign contribution constituted “discrimination,” as he told the National Law Journal.

Continue reading The Latest Unacceptable Opinion

Columbia Paper Invites ROTC Return?

The Columbia Spectator offers a surprising argument for the return of ROTC to Columbia today. Here’s a sample of their case:

Opponents of ROTC argue that the program’s treatment of gays and lesbians violates the University’s anti-discrimination protocols. Those protocols should be enforced against businesses and other institutions, but the U.S. military is in a different category altogether. For all its faults, the military has too integral a role in American culture and society to be summarily banned from campus. Concerns about discrimination are surely legitimate, and any future ROTC program should be designed with the rights of LGBT students in mind. Columbia should look to the example set by MIT, which reimburses the Department of Defense on behalf of students removed from ROTC due to their sexual orientation. But to deny the military access to campus outright disengages Columbia from military issues and renders the University largely irrelevant in discussions of how issues like DADT should be addressed.

Columbia’s opposition to ROTC has failed to end DADT. In the meantime, without an ROTC program on campus, there has been little discussion of DADT and little effort to effect change. DADT is an unjust and impractical policy, but it must be fought in a way that does not sideline would-be military officers – or would-be Columbia students who may be dissuaded from applying.

The Spectator’s not alone in this position – The Harvard Crimson and several other university papers have advocated much the same thing. Student polls typically indicate an oppenness to the return of ROTC programs. And why is any of this surprising? The Spectator’s position is, after all, a very moderate one – it doesn’t concede objections to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in any measure. It’s a sad comment that this very reasonable position constitutes a far-right argument in the eyes of countless university administrations. ROTC’s most prominent university advocate is gone, and elite universities show little sign of ending their unremitting hostility to the program. Those Columbia students with an interest in ROTC will continue to have only one option: the bus to Fordham.