I have personally invested a considerable amount of time and effort in doing my part to ensure that the future of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps remains secure here at Dartmouth.
Naturally many people including myself are happy that the Trustees have voted to keep the program on campus. It constitutes a victory for all present ROTC cadets, all future Dartmouth students who wish to serve in the U.S. Army and all those who support a student's right to elect military training and the concurrent tuition assistance that comes with it.
While DaGLO, the Coalition for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns and its supporters may view the decision as a defeat in that their chosen goal was not accomplished, it is important for all to realize that it is not a total defeat for homosexuals per se: though the victory is clear for the ROTC, we are not playing a zero-sum game; The "defeat" rendered to gays, lesbians and bisexuals is simply limited to them not getting their specific way.
The Trustees are unmistakeably clear on their stance that the military must change, as I have always said myself, and they are also quick to point out that this change can be accomplished in ways other than the destruction of a program that a considerable number of people feel is important to have as a part of the College.
The organized homosexual community has already met the vote with the knee-jerk reaction that the decision is "an outrage and an insult to queer students and supporters of human rights." While this is a superficially powerful allegation, hopefully they will realize that all of us at the College have a common mission - to ensure that everyone can gain equal and fair treatment in all sectors of society - but that inherent in policy-making is compromise. Hopefully they will realize that while they may feel the elimination of ROTC is the best of all actions, they are part of a larger community that does not fully agree with them.
The issue has been settled for the time being. While the homsexual community can of course choose whatever goals they feel are the best ones for themselves, perhaps they will reconsider their plans. If their mission is to normalize the relations between themselves and the rest of the Dartmouth community, and to eliminate homophobia, then we need more panel discussions about gay life at the College, more lectures that will serve to combat homophobia, and in general the fostering of an increased level of awareness by all.
While in other universities there is anti-homophobia literature on every floor in every dorm, the only homosexual voice we hear here is an angered outcry against a small group that has little effect over whether the campus will in the end remain homophobic towards the average gay, lesbian or bisexual.
The ROTC is going to be on campus, as will gays and lesbians. This will be so for some time. What is essential, then, is that we all get past this awkward stumbling block of policy-making, and realize that there is so much more to combating homophobia than eliminating the presence of the soldier at Dartmouth. Clearly, much work needs to be done in other, much more pressing areas of the hetero-homsexual relationship at the College.
There are people here with a latent homphobia that can perhaps be erased over time, and while having the ROTC on campus might upset DaGLO et. al., working in other ways to have a less homophobic environment in general stands to benefit everyone.
As a cadet, I am hoping that I can finally be left alone to complete my training without periodically having to justify my presence on this campus as a soldier. Meanwhile, we should invite the homosexual community to strive to attain what should be thiers: equal rights. But what has gone on is not uncommon: nobody lives alone in an ivory tower, and when you try to harm what people dearly value, they will not sit by and watch it happen.
Alas, we must find a middle ground, and the Trustees have arrived at it.
