Last Saturday, the Trustees voted to continue the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program and by Monday morning, I found a copy of The Dartmouth in my Hinman Box with three stories and three editorials about ROTC. By Monday afternoon, opponents of ROTC organized a demonstration in front of Parkhurst Hall to express their disapproval of the Trustees' decision. It is safe to say that this is the issue of the week.
Why the outrage? Those against ROTC argue that since the military (and thus ROTC) does not allow openly homosexual people to serve, it is discriminatory and therefore violates the College's Equal Opportunity principle. The protestors believe that the Trustees should have voted to discontinue the program in order to preserve Dartmouth's integrity as an equal opportunity institution. Quite simply, most of the arguments we have heard seem to be overlooking the greater issue at hand, of which ROTC is only one manifestation.
Let's ask ourselves: who is angering our protestors? In reality, it is not the Trustees and most definitely not the ROTC cadets. It is society which is the real nemesis of the ROTC opponents, and unfortunately they are fighting the part while failing to see the whole.
The military's "discriminatory policies" exist because, according to such influential personalities as Senator Sam Nunn and General Colin Powell, openly homosexual soldiers hinder the productivity of the armed forces. And aside from the Pentagon, many military soldiers and officers have affirmed that they would not serve with a homosexual. The "don't Ask, don't Tell" policy was implemented as a quasi-compromise, but it is certainly no escape from the controversy, as it would require a homosexual to hide an integral part of his/her character in order to serve in the military.
We have been so wrapped up in talk of the military's policies and Dartmouth's situation that the transcendent problem is being somewhat disregarded. The major obstacle in conquering this issue is a societal problem - homophobia. A harsh reality though it may be, we must face it rationally or any efforts to ameliorate the situation will be futile.
In this day and age, we live in a society which does not readily accept homosexuality in its institutions. The military is but one example of this. It is a hard fact to face (especially for homosexuals) that some of our most sacred establishments shun an entire segment of the population because of sexual preference. Nonetheless, we must come to recognize the problem as a cultural and a societal one rather than an isolated one.
In recognizing the dilemma as such, through education we can teach future generations to love and respect all people for who they are, not what they are. Obviously this is a slow process and perhaps gays and lesbians will have to continue to fight battles for decades to come, but the day will arrive when the battlefield is clear. For this to happen, however, the aforementioned love and respect must come from both sides, not just one.
Thus, it is not all too far-fetched a notion that calling for the removal of ROTC would be cutting off our nose to spite in our proverbial face. If we did so, countless individuals who have done no wrong will be adversely affected and truly the situation of the gays and lesbians would not be improved. Perhaps the symbolic factor in eliminating ROTC would have value, but we cannot put symbolism before substance.
The greater problem we face - homophobia - will continue to exist whether or not we keep ROTC here at Dartmouth. I am not advocating that gays and lesbians simply stand aside while experiencing discrimination. Rather, they should continue to strive to alleviate homophobic tensions within our society, instead of calling for an abrupt and somewhat inconsequential change which would yield no real benefits to them.
