The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Meredith Aska McBride | Getting past don't ask, don't tell

Quick, name an aspect of military policy that Obama and McCain agree on completely. It's not the war in Iraq or the best way to handle Iran. No, both candidates think Columbia University should bring back its ROTC program, as they both said earlier this month.

Columbia hasn't had ROTC since the late 1960s, when popular opinion at the university turned against military presence on campus. Now, the school's non-discrimination policy keeps the ROTC off campus, which, like the rest of the military, has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding LGBT soldiers.

I wish I could say unequivocally that although I'll be voting for Obama, I can't back him up on this one.

Unfortunately, the situation is more complex than that.

Let's take a look at our own University. Penn currently has a Navy ROTC unit. And Penn also has a non-discrimination policy, which, like Columbia's, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

But some Penn students fund their education through the military, and Penn, under the Solomon Amendment, stands to lose almost $500 million in federal money if it bars military recruiters - or ROTC - from campus.

Moreover, College junior and Lambda Alliance chairman Dennie Zastrow made a good point when he paraphrased a gay Penn grad student who was in ROTC as an undergrad: "If you get rid of ROTC on dynamic, prestigious campuses like this, then officers will only be trained in the military. If they are trained here, they could end up being more progressive-minded and less homophobic."

Penn won't get rid of ROTC any time soon. The University has made clear that one of the primary reasons it retains the program is to allow students another opportunity to pay for a Penn education. At a school as costly as this, that's a major concern.

As repugnant as Department of Defense policy is, I can't conscionably advocate that people who want to go to Penn, but can't pay, have to give up a good education - or worse, first become an enlisted soldier and face combat to get here.

However, "it's not just that it's on campus," said LGBT Center director Bob Schoenberg. He believes the University financially subsidizes the program, which goes above and beyond our legal obligation to have the ROTC on campus.

"Other organizations, like Hillel and the Christian Association, rent from the University" or are self-funded, he said. ROTC may benefit some students, he argues, but so do these other organizations - and Penn's not paying them to be here.

What's the solution? How can we reconcile our moral imperative not to support discrimination with the need to make Penn more accessible to working-class and middle-class students?

First, we can continue to expand our financial-aid offerings so that every student who gets into Penn can afford to come without joining the military, unless he or she legitimately wants to serve.

Second, if we're subsidizing ROTC's presence in any way, we need to stop. Period.

Third, the University should continue to take an active and public stand against don't ask, don't tell.

With encouragement from the LGBT community, President Amy Gutmann spoke out against the policy at the April University Council meeting.

NROTC, for its part, will only say, "Our goals of developing both the intellect and leadership of our midshipmen are totally compatible with the University of Pennsylvania."

None of this would be necessary, of course, if higher-education weren't so damn expensive, or if the Department of Defense just changed its misguided and outdated policy.

LGBT folks can serve just as competently in the military as anyone else.

Here's hoping that the next election will make this debate obsolete.

Meredith Aska McBride is a College junior from Wauwatosa, Wis. Her e-mail address is mcbride@dailypennsylvanian.com. Radical Chic appears every Tuesday.

Comments (10)

Should I thank those soldiers too? What exactly do you mean by thank a soldier? Did soldiers teach English to everyone? Did I miss a history lesson somewhere? Actually thinking about it....If i can read it in English mean that I should thank a bunch of french and dutch rapists (Anglo-Saxon)? Why did you resort to bumper sticker slogans? I mean the above two comments try and make a point!

[QUOTE id="aeeb416e-956a-4adf-ad51-bbb81a003307"]Should I thank those soldiers too? What exactly do you mean by thank a soldier? Did soldiers teach English to everyone? Did I miss a history lesson somewhere? Actually thinking about it....If i can read it in English mean that I should thank a bunch of french and dutch rapists (Anglo-Saxon)? Why did you resort to bumper sticker slogans? I mean the above two comments try and make a point![/QUOTE] You must have missed a history lesson somewhere. If it weren't for the men and women of our armed forces, we'd likely be conquered by the Germans, Russians, or Islamists by now. Hence, we would not be using English. The military has regulations on behavior, including sexual behavior. Altering those regulations, as the columnist would clearly prefer, will weaken our military and unit cohesion.

McCain/Palin 2008

[QUOTE id="aeeb416e-956a-4adf-ad51-bbb81a003307"]You must have missed a history lesson somewhere. If it weren't for the men and women of our armed forces, we'd likely be conquered by the Germans, Russians, or Islamists by now. Hence, we would not be using English. The military has regulations on behavior, including sexual behavior. Altering those regulations, as the columnist would clearly prefer, will weaken our military and unit cohesion.[/QUOTE] To re: moron --- Your comments are nonsensical sensationalism. Thank a soldier is fine and dandy (both my parents were in the army, so don't give me any bullshit to paint me as unpatriotic or not appreciating the military just because I chose to speak against you on an issue involving soldiers) what does it have to do with this issue? That the "don't ask don't tell" policy, or the outright anti-gay policies that preceded it somehow gave our military the strength to succeed where it otherwise wouldn't is idiotic. Do YOU not know history? One can reconcile homosexuality and an effective military force. It's a uniquely Christian, post-Classic mindset that somehow equates homosexuality with a lack of masculinity, and therefore as being anathema to an organized force of soldiers. If you knew any history, you'd know that. Also, the threat that we'd be invaded by "Islamists" has never existed. Fights with Mediterranean Arab pirates, Iraq, or any other Arab force with which America has been pitted were never of the magnitude that America would be invaded. If you're implying America WOULD HAVE been invaded had no military force whatsoever existed, I'd agree and respond that I know of very few who actively advocate America's abandoning its military. If you're implying that America's military force would have been so weakened by the inclusion of gays that America would have been conquered had its sexual regulations been different, I would suggest you rethink whether such bombastic nonsense constitutes an argument. Again, read some history. To Paul:--- I would agree that people on this campus are so far to the left one has a hard time finding someone who wants to engage in a serious, non-rhetorical discussion. However, the word is "naive" while "nieve" is the Spanish word for "snow."

Before the Civil War, political correctness was based on the color of one's skin. All for the wrong reasons. One hundred and fifty years later, political correctness is based in large part on sexual orientation. Again, all for the wrong reasons. Look at the anatomy. The number of women seeking counseling by therapists, marriage counselors, and clergymen from husbands demanding oral sex is spectatular and well hidden. Do the people who support abortion have babyphobia? Also, we are the home of the free because of the brave.

Dennie Zastrow made a good point when he paraphrased a gay Penn grad student who was in ROTC as an undergrad: "If you get rid of ROTC on dynamic, prestigious campuses like this, then officers will only be trained in the military. If they are trained here, they could end up being more progressive-minded and less homophobic.""" -Dennie, in an open minded university when did you become so ignorant? As a graduate of a US Service Academy and current midgrade officer in the Armed Forces I can guarantee you you are not trained to be homophobic and nor are we trained to have preference against homosexuals. In fact we are trained to lead troops regardless of their preferences. There are gays in the military and there are gays at the service academies. They aren't rooted out or preferenced against. You lead and work with what you have.. in fact I would argue the military is less preferential than the "hire and fire" private sector who can selectively choose who they work with. In our military unless someone is "caught in the act" or openly admits to it they can be gay all they want and the military won't do a thing about it. In fact in some cases that I know of, soldiers admit to it and the command chooses to not follow the DoD policy. On another note.. the ROTC will be paid for by your tax dollars or PENN's subsidies Meredith.. you choose. The bottom line is this nation needs a strong military and good officers, and we will get them one way or the other so you decide, what's it going to be tax dollars or University subsidaries?

In the first paragraph, you define Columbia's decision to bar ROTC as an aspect of "military policy." No -- that's a Columbia policy. Also, the military does not bar gays. It restricts homosexual conduct. It also restricts the positions women can serve in, the length of men's hair, how and when servicemembers can speak, etc. All of these policies conflict with those of the University. That's why Penn is a college and ROTC is, well, ROTC. You lose certain freedoms when you join the military. And the country retains all of its freedoms when brave men and women choose to serve.

If you can read this column, thank a teacher. If you can read this column in English, thank a soldier.

[QUOTE id="aeeb416e-956a-4adf-ad51-bbb81a003307"]Should I thank those soldiers too? What exactly do you mean by thank a soldier? Did soldiers teach English to everyone? Did I miss a history lesson somewhere? Actually thinking about it....If i can read it in English mean that I should thank a bunch of french and dutch rapists (Anglo-Saxon)? Why did you resort to bumper sticker slogans? I mean the above two comments try and make a point![/QUOTE] Well done response.. and I apologize about the naive vs nieve.. you are correct. My views are more in line with the first response comment of the article.

Comments are closed for this item.