A wave of emotion rolled across the campus following the Board of Trustees' decision to keep the Army's Reserve Officer Training Corps program.
The Trustees' statement, released Saturday afternoon, shocked and angered homosexuals at the College.
Religion Professor Susan Ackerman, a former co-convener of the Coalition for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns, said the decision further alienates the homosexual community and it sends a message to them that they are "not as important."
Bart Bingenheimer '94 said he thought it was a "sure bet" the Board would vote to eliminate the program. It was that confidence, he said, that translated into the great amount trust the gay and lesbian community put in the Trustees by not protesting and not "raising a stink" before this weekend's long-awaited vote.
Others agreed the community was burned and are now scrambling to organize a protest to voice their anger. S. T. Shimi '94, co-chair of the Dartmouth Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Organization and one of the organizers of today's demonstration, said the rally would be a vehicle to "voice our anger."
But while one section of the community plans its protest, another segment of the community is expressing its pleasure with the Trustees' decision.
Class of 1957 President Clark Griffiths, who said he was pleased with the Board's decision, said a flurry of letters from alumni who support ROTC to the Trustees helped influence their decision.
"There are a number of people who were very upset when the College kicked ROTC out in the '60s," he said in a telephone interview from his home in Lebanon, N.H. "The alumni have participated in this debate because they have a number of reasons why they are frustrated with the College and this would have been one more major reason."
Bruce MacPhail '62, who also wrote letters to the Trustees in support of ROTC, said he thinks Dartmouth can affect change from within.
"Cleansing the campus of the faculty and students ROTC attracts and educates would patently act to reduce diversity at the school," MacPhail wrote in an April 9 letter to all members of the Board. "ROTC should become more rather than less a visible part of campus life."
English Professor Peter Saccio said he thinks alumni pressure had a lot to do with the Trustees' decision.
"I can imagine a number of alumni who support the military and say, 'The faggots don't matter,' he said Saturday afternoon shortly after the Trustees made their decision.
"In the minds of many of the Trustees, the military thing is more important than how you treat the gays," Saccio said.
Last night, many students expressed support for the decision but also were concerned about the Pentagon's discriminatory policies. Many others said they did not know very much about the issues involved.
"The decision sounds pretty contradictory," Sue Podsadowski '96 said.
Emily Luukko '96 said, "The aim is to change the policy from within. I think that if the College disassociated with the program it would have lost its chance to change it."
But Steve Salemi '97 said the College should have eliminated the program and then reinstated it if the Pentagon policy changed.
The decision excited many of the students in the program who might have been affected by the Trustees decision.
"It's going to be nice to stop hearing about people who want to get rid of us," said Randy Poulin '97, who is a member of the Army's program. "ROTC is not meant as a forum for social change." He added that the program teaches invaluable leadership skills to Dartmouth students.
Poulin said that getting rid of the program at Dartmouth would have had no effect on the military's policy or what it would do to change it.
"There are no particular winners or losers," ROTC cadet Bjorn Kilburn '95 said. "We should continue to advocate changes in the military and society, but it is not going to happen overnight."
Sgt. Terry Damm, who leads the Dartmouth ROTC program, said he was happy with the decisions and added that the College can now focus its concerns on the people who can "actually change the policy."
ROTC cadet Brandon del Pozo '96, who has repeatedly pleaded the case for the program in columns in the The Dartmouth and most recently in The New York Times, said, "The Trustees realized the fundamental argument that the road to change is not through intolerance."
Shimi said the Board's two-page "gutless" statement "says nothing" and that the Trustees tried to satisfy both parties at the same time.
She called the release "a bunch of mealy-mouth words."
Both Saccio and Ackerman said the decision undermines the relationship between the Trustees and the faculty.
Ackerman said, "The faculty can hardly feel that they are working to the same goals as the Trustees."
Kilburn said, "The thing at stake for the College was maybe one of image. It's trying to get rid of the old-boy network image that it currently has."
Ackerman said the Board's vote might hurt faculty and student recruitment.
"Dartmouth is going to get a reputation of a gay-unfriendly place, unlike Yale and Brown. Those students [who are homosexual] are going to talk about Dartmouth and are not going to have very good things to say. It's going to revive this conservative impression that everyone already has about the College."
Student Assembly member Bill Hall '96, who helped draft the Assembly's resolution supporting the program, said, "The policy probably does in this way [against homosexuals]," he said. "But if we got rid of ROTC, we'd be doing it in another way."
Saccio blasted the decision because he felt that the College will not be able to "influence national policies."
"If the President of the United States can't move the Pentagon, Dartmouth College isn't going to be able to either," he said.
