Drew Faust, president of Harvard University, said in an interview with The Boston Globe Wednesday that the university will welcome a Reserve Officer Training Corps unit to campus as soon as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy ends. Currently, Harvard students who wish to join ROTC do so through a unit at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but Faust said Harvard would welcome the chance to "regularize our relationship" with ROTC when "don't ask, don't tell" ends.
Let's remember a few things.
1. This is not the military's option; this law was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. Congress and the President must change the law, there's nothing the military can do about it. Shouldn't the legitimate target of Harvard's sanctimonious ire be the Congress and the President who vowed to overturn this law but haven't, and not the institution of ROTC or the cadets/midshipmen who join it?
2. This law was signed by a Democratic president.
3. Democrats have run the Congress for almost the last 4 years, and there has been a Democrat in the White House for almost 2 years. This is not an issue that can rightly be blamed on Republicans, although the loud voices always make this a Republican travesty.
4. This law is an improvement over the situation prior to its passage. Before DADT, suspected gays could be ferreted out, hounded, questioned, harassed, and then kicked out of the military. The current law allows gays to serve as long as they keep their orientation relatively quiet.
5. Legitimate estimates put the gay population in the US at somewhere between 1.5% and 6% (not Kinsey's 10%). Does anyone expect a flood of openly gay Americans to rush to recruiting stations when DADT is repealed? (I do not.)
Conclusion? Drew Faust is an idiot.
Update, 9/26/10: Senator Scott Brown isn't impressed with Faust:
“It is incomprehensible to me that Harvard does not allow ROTC to use its facilities, but welcomes students who are in this country illegally.’’ He added: "Harvard has its priorities upside down. They should embrace young people who want to serve their country, rather than promoting a plan that provides amnesty to students who are in this country illegally.’’I agree with Brown on this one.
18 comments:
That pretty much sums it up.
I don't get it. It may not be the military's choice of policy, but not allowing recruitment still puts pressure on Congress to change it . . . and it IS discriminatory, so it's still a principled stance. As to it being the product of Democratic leaders . . .well, okay, that's true, but I didn't see Faust attacking Republicans -- he was attacking the policy. We can probably assume his party affiliation, but even then, he would only be an idiot if he were criticizing the Republicans for enacting the policy. Finally, let's assume that the gay population is only 1.5% -- is it then okay to discriminate against them, since there aren't many?
Maybe you're the idiot for assuming so much? Based on the paragraph you posted, Faust says nothing about Republicans or Democrats. No where does he blame Republicans. Your facts are right and I remind LGBT people who are loyal to the Democrats of those facts but they don't apply to Faust protesting.
Nor does he say the military passed the law. I'm sure Faust is well aware of who passed the law. He chooses to make a statement by not allowing the military on campus. You may disagree with the statement he makes but that doesn't make him an idiot.
Point #5 has nothing to do with the matter. Regardless of if its 1 or 10,000 people doesn't change the wrongness of the policy. Does Faust say he's protesting because hordes of Americans are being left out? Again, you assume way to much and it shows.
Conclusion? You totally missed the mark with this post.
Point #5 is very important. The military rightly discriminates against all sorts of people; if there is a *real* threat to good order and discipline by having gays in the military--and I don't know if there is or isn't--then we ought not to change the rule just to score some social points.
As for the other dissenting comments, Faust is no Republican. And while I broadened the issue to be Democrat/Republican, I assure you that "discrimination" isn't the issue here. I am entirely convinced it's a (leftie) anti-military bias.
I stand by my comments. Faust is an idiot.
a) You said, "if there is a *real* threat to good order and discipline by having gays in the military -- and I don't know if there is or isn't". . . Shouldn't the burden be on the military to prove that there is a threat before they can discriminate?
b) You may think that discrimination isn't the issue, but everything Faust said indicates that it is. Let's call his bluff; rescind the policy, and see if he allows the military back on. If it really isn't the issue, the military/Congress has provided him with excellent camouflage for his bias.
c) Since we can all agree that there are currently homosexuals serving in the military, I think we can safely say that the threat to order is imaginary.
The full text of 10 U.S.C. 654 (aka DADT) is available here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html
No, it is not the military's burden. You want the change, you prove it *won't* upset the status quo. But even then, this isn't the military's baby, this belongs to the president and the Congress.
And max, I definitely disagree with your final statement. "What you don't know can't hurt you" is demonstrably false.
You may think that discrimination isn't the issue, but everything Faust said indicates that it is. Let's call his bluff; rescind the policy, and see if he allows the military back on. If it really isn't the issue, the military/Congress has provided him with excellent camouflage for his bias.
No Max the issue is not discrimination but what is best for the service. And to back up what Darren said we distinguish between many things besides sexual orientation (preexisting medical conditions, organized employee organizations (an Army union making demand would come under a certain term…mutiny), officers who openly challenge the birth of the command in chief, for example). Now the people who are really pushing this are people who want to do great things like put women on submarines because we want to give women career opportunities…or make sure we spend hours on “diversity training” when we need to do minor things like range and lanes training…or buy 10000 copies of a book and burn it…
Now good Dr Faust is a faculty member of the Ivy League so the planning presumption is he is a clueless moron. Let’s be honest, Haaaaaaaavard and Yale, etc have gone down in the last twenty years (but for some reason its fees keep going up….oh, I’m not supported to mention the fact higher education has gone up at higher rates then medical cost). But we’ll let him have something he doesn’t have much clue with. We will continue DADT and if the good Professor Faust is really true to his beliefs he won’t mind having federal funds cut off. If he’s true to his convictions he won’t mine taking a few slings or arrows, right. Hey Doc, you have a right to your opinion…
You may think that discrimination isn't the issue, but everything Faust said indicates that it is. Let's call his bluff; rescind the policy, and see if he allows the military back on. If it really isn't the issue, the military/Congress has provided him with excellent camouflage for his bias.
No Max the issue is not discrimination but what is best for the service. And to back up what Darren said we distinguish between many things besides sexual orientation (preexisting medical conditions, organized employee organizations (an Army union making demand would come under a certain term…mutiny), officers who openly challenge the birth of the command in chief, for example). Now the people who are really pushing this are people who want to do great things like put women on submarines because we want to give women career opportunities…or make sure we spend hours on “diversity training” when we need to do minor things like range and lanes training…or buy 10000 copies of a book and burn it…
Now good Dr Faust is a faculty member of the Ivy League so the planning presumption is he is a clueless moron. Let’s be honest, Haaaaaaaavard and Yale, etc have gone down in the last twenty years (but for some reason its fees keep going up….oh, I’m not supported to mention the fact higher education has gone up at higher rates then medical cost). But we’ll let him have something he doesn’t have much clue with. We will continue DADT and if the good Professor Faust is really true to his beliefs he won’t mind having federal funds cut off. If he’s true to his convictions he won’t mine taking a few slings or arrows, right. Hey Doc, you have a right to your opinion…
"The issue is not discrimination, but what is best for the service." Really?
Wow, that's bigoted. Can you at least let your never-question-authority facade down long enough to recognize that it IS in fact discrimination? And, can someone please tell me what the problem would be? My understanding is that you're not supposed to be having sex with your fellow soldiers anyway. So unless the service is filled with latent homosexuals with no self control, or with people so dfilled with hate that they would ignore their duties in order to torment and or sabotage homosexuals, I can't imagine what the problem would be.
Most major league baseball teams felt that having black players would be a distraction. They were wrong both morally and in practice. This is the same issue, made worse by the fact that the military is supported by my tax dollars, and it uses them to discriminate against a group it *thinks* would cause problems in discipline, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it, and that there is, in fact, evidence to contradict it (currently homosexuals do serve, and are apparently able to do so without letting anyone know). I'm willing to give the military a little bit of latitude in these matters, because of the nature of their business, but you need to convince me of the need first . . . and women on submarines is another terrible example, as it would make a great deal of sense to put smaller people on a submarine.
I would have thought that those of military bent, who are used to a respect for rules and authority, would hate a policy that said, essentially, if you're this way, you can't serve, but if you just don't mention it, we'll kind of ignore it.
Finally, whether you like it or not, you are making assumptions about Dr. Faust's motives. You may be right, and he may be seizing an opportunity to bash the military. But you don't KNOW that. I don't hate the military, and I support an even more kick ass presence in the middle east, and I still agree with him.
Again, max, the military discriminates against a wide variety of people--the fat, the exceedingly dumb, the disabled, etc. The fact that you disagree with this particular stance doesn't make it bigoted. It may, like a segregated military, be an artifact of days gone by and changing social standards, but that's quite different from outright bigotry.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with DADT--you (unwittingly?) gave such a vote of confidence in it when you said "currently homosexuals do serve, and are apparently able to do so without letting anyone know".
I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue of openly-serving homosexuals in the military, but I know where I stand on Harvard's refusal to allow ROTC.
Darren, you know better than that. Discriminating against people who can't do the job due to health, intelligence, or disabilities is VERY different from discriminating against a trait over which a) one has no control and b) has no direct effect on one's ability to be a soldier. I have a problem with DADT because it forces homosexuals to hide: whereas a heterosexual soldier could, presumably live off base with his girlfriend, a homosexual soldier could not do the same with his boyfriend. . . unless there were some wacky "Three's Company" hijinks going on. And it's fine to disagree with Harvard's stance -- my problem is your assumption of motives that are not at all clear -- except, obviously, to you. When DADT falls by the wayside, I look forward to your follow up post when the military is allowed back on campus.
The only standard that need apply to a change in the military is whether or not the change makes the military more able to do its mission and win wars, or at least whether no harm is done to the ability to win wars. Right now the people in charge of both the military and the government don't seem convinced that the change would be beneficial, so they haven't made it.
And when ROTC makes a return to Harvard, you know I'll do a post on it. To imply that I wouldn't was a cheap, undeserved shot.
1/2
Wow, that's bigoted. Can you at least let your never-question-authority facade down long enough to recognize that it IS in fact discrimination?
I don’t question that…we are discriminating against homosexuals, among others. Again, we don’t let females in the infantry or armor or tube artillery. And at least the Marines have their head out of their asses enough that they have do not have same sex basic training. BTY, never question authority? I question the leadership of this country and its judgment continually (hey all followers of B Hussein Obama out there, how’s that hope and change working out for you?). I have my opinions of the leadership of department and the Army and share them as appropriate, e.g. I don’t mention my department on my blog. But I also don’t say “My Captain sucks” at the roll call.
And, can someone please tell me what the problem would be? My understanding is that you're not supposed to be having sex with your fellow soldiers anyway.
You mean the married service members are not allowed the consummate the marriage? Man that’s a new one on me. My planning assumption is your false point is made from ignorance so let me enlighten you. Officers can have relationships with other officers, enlisted with other enlisted. Up until I believe 6 years ago enlisted/officers could be married as long as they did were not in the same chain of command, office, etc. When I was a platoon leader one of my squad leaders started to have relations with one of his soldiers…he told the platoon sergeant and I and I moved the soldier from his squad. Problem solved. Yes, integrating women into the service had its issues but it worked out…we have DADT and that has handled homosexuals serving in the military.
So unless the service is filled with latent homosexuals with no self control, or with people so filled with hate that they would ignore their duties in order to torment and or sabotage homosexuals, I can't imagine what the problem would be.
No the service is filled with people, good and bad, men and women, black, white, oriental among others serving their country for some reason or another. But unlike baseball (and society in general) the service cannot handle disruptions as well as the civilian side. We already have issues with race (legit and false) as well as sex (again legit and false). We don’t need anything added to that. But again I know the people pushing this (Pelosi, Reid and BO, for instance) hate the service.
They were supported by my tax dollars, and it uses them to discriminate against a group it *thinks* would cause problems in discipline, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it, and that there is, in fact, evidence to contradict it (currently homosexuals do serve, and are apparently able to do so without letting anyone know). I'm willing to give the military a little bit of latitude in these matters, because of the nature of their business, but you need to convince me of the need first
Max there are many things my tax dollars fund that make me furious. “Art” like putting a cross in a jar of urine, cow dung thrown on a canvas…seizing two of our car companies and funding waste like the Chevy Volt… nationalization of the health care system in this country….federalization of the college student loan program…do you find a pattern in there…that there is nothing in the US Constitution calling for it. Article I says the Congress may “provide for a navy” and “raise armies”.
2/2
BTY, are you willing to give the military "some latitude"on things, how about this. If someone tries to unionize the Army will you support that…even though it would fall under something we call mutiny…which is a capital offense. Name me another job where trying to unionize get’s you the needle? My point is you seem to be using a civilian viewpoint on something that doesn’t fit the template.
. . . and women on submarines is another terrible example, as it would make a great deal of sense to put smaller people on a submarine.
Damned Max, you are clueless on this. You put women in an extremely confined area for 90 plus days (yes, that’s how long a sub stays submerged on a cruise) among men and yes what there will be problems. Men will work at getting a piece of ass as certain as the sun rises in the east. Let me ask you a question Max. Why did the Israeli’s take women out of their infantry? Because in a society where men and women (strangers) will sleep in the same room, etc and the 1960s version of diversity training they could not get passed the natural instinct of a man to protect a woman. That cost men their lives in the 67 Arab Israeli War. Oh question, if one month into the cruise LT Jane Smith comes up and says “I’m pregnant” what do you do? By regulation she has to be on light duty because full physical training, duty etc is hazardous to the child. You just made your crew short. What if she comes up two months into the crew…chances are it happened while on board. That will cause problems.
Also, by your logic it would be good to put short people in tanks…a brigade master gunner I knew kinda put that thought out. He was 6ft 7in and was smooth as a glove in an M60 tank.
I would have thought that those of military bent, who are used to a respect for rules and authority, would hate a policy that said, essentially, if you're this way, you can't serve, but if you just don't mention it, we'll kind of ignore it.
No Max, failure to think in the military has consequences that you don’t get in most civilian occupations. But we will let people (like the clueless idiots who currently rule the Congress and White House) know what we think and if we get overruled then it’s decision time….either abide by the decision or leave. Classic case in point was when the moron Jimmy Carter campaigned on removing troops from South Korea. The 8th Army Commander in Seoul made his opinion known through channels and when he was overruled, he retired. As a retired officer he was very openly saying “Don’t remove troops from Korea…” Fortunately Carter could never get them out…but Jimmy did enough damage in the 90s.
Finally, whether you like it or not, you are making assumptions about Dr. Faust's motives. You may be right, and he may be seizing an opportunity to bash the military. But you don't KNOW that. I don't hate the military, and I support an even more kick ass presence in the middle east, and I still agree with him.
I identified my planning presumption and I know the Ivy League has become over the last few decades no friend of the service (to think Ike was president of Columbia). I am assuming he just wants to push a leftist agenda and doesn’t care about the damage it would do to the service. And I assume he has no clue what we have the armed forces for. To win this nation’s wars.
Darren, I wasn't implying you wouldn't post, I was saying I looked forward--oh, alright, I WAS implying that. But you only knew that because you know me so well . . .
MikeAT, I should have been more specific about sex between soldiers . . . I meant in combat, which is what I am given to understand is at least one concern about homosexuals, but I didn't say it.
This is clearly an argument neither of us is going to 'win' . . .but at least, we agree that it's discrimination. I will continue to maintain that it is unnecessary to discriminate against homosexuals, and that said discrimination is rooted in bigotry. To be opposed to this policy is not inherently anti-military. It's pro-civil rights. And you STILL haven't told me what allowing homosexuals to serve would do to destroy order. and, with regard to those in power not feeling it best to change? Obama wants it changed, and I saw testimony from one of the Joint Chiefs before Congress last week in which he stated that they felt it's time was passed. The probblem is that Congress can't ever vote on just one issue . ..if they did, it would be gone by now.
To be opposed to this policy is not inherently anti-military. It's pro-civil rights.
You’re looking at it from a civilian template. In the military we, for lack of a better term, have reduced civil rights. If you want to call the president a SOB at the office, that’s your right (for the moment...he is kinda sensitive). While I was in uniform I could not. That’s the facts of life. To borrow a great quote from Crimson Tide, “We’re here to protect democracy, we’re not here to practice it.”
And you STILL haven't told me what allowing homosexuals to serve would do to destroy order.
In the middle of multiple deployments, trying to keep people from leaving the service, multiple training requirements preparing for new deployments and you want to put in “Hey, you have to sleep next to and take showers with a homosexual…” Sorry that will be a problem for many of the troops. The clueless civilian leadership (read B Hussein Obama) has no concept of how people react…it may be because of a built in bias, deal with it.
and, with regard to those in power not feeling it best to change? Obama wants it changed,
Obama wants it changed…you’re not helping you argument with mentioning the incompetent man child.
and I saw testimony from one of the Joint Chiefs before Congress last week in which he stated that they felt it's time was passed.
Which one? Admiral Mullen is pushing this but I know the Army Chief of staff wants a one year study and the Commandant of the Marines is saying openly “Not no but hell no…”…kinda ironic because it’s an open secret the USMC has the most lesbians of the services.
The problem is that Congress can't ever vote on just one issue. ..if they did, it would be gone by now.
How Max…they Democrats have a supermajority in both houses. Why have they not done it yet?
You're right, I come from a civilian perspective . . .and, I know you give up certain rights when entering the military -- but that doesn't mean that they can discriminate against otherwise qualified candidates because of sexual preference, or race, or sex. Or, at least, it shouldn't.
I'm not arguing the effectiveness of either Congress or Obama -- I recognize that if they were truly in support of this, it would be done. My point was that it was failing because it got attached to a whole bunch of other provisions, which obscured the issue. The fault for that lies with both parties.
And, thanks for finally citing the potential disruption. Heterosexual males being uncomfortable around homosexuals . . . I would argue that a) that is, in most cases, the problem of the heterosexual, not the homosexual; b) in cases where the homosexual was making himself the issue, he could be dishonorably discharged; and c) it's a ridiculous argument since they are already sleeping next to and showering with homosexuals.
Post a Comment