Of my many arguments – First, we, as Americans, must judge our military differently than any ordinary student program at Princeton. One need only peruse the Uniform Code of Military Justice to recognize a) the differences between military law and civilian law and b) the widespread number of infractions for military personnel that are considered commonplace in the civilian world. My example is the harsh judgment against adultery that, for better or worse, is allowed in the United States.
Second, the policy is wrong. It does discriminate. But the military discriminates in many other realms as well – abuses that we choose quietly to ignore because we judge our military as a necessary evil. Primary among this – is our military KILLS people. Our soldiers who return from overseas often have ended lives. Is this right? Or during Vietnam – the draft drew primarily the poor and minority with exceptions for students, like us, to avoid military service – a policy that was supported by many. In fact, last year, politicos tarnished the reputation of a Yale graduate who served in an active duty combat role while supporting a Yale graduate who used his father’s connections to serve in the National Guard. Here’s more, women are not allowed to serve in combat units. Why isn’t anyone protesting this – don’t we say that women can do anything a man can do? Let me keep going, the military gives you orders that you must follow in regards to where you live, what your specialty is, and who you may associate with (i.e. a commanding officer is not allowed to have relationships with an enlisted solider in their command). No such rules are in place in corporate America. How about women not being required to register for the selective service. All males over the age of 18 are required to enter and update the selective service. Thus, if there were a draft – these would be the draftees. I do not see anyone fighting or arguing against changing this with the same passion. I’m not saying that we should ignore the discrimination – but, added with my following arguments, we should judge how we fight against it. We should not fight against it on campus against ROTC but maybe in Washington.
Third, how do we deal with members of discriminatory groups. Should we only accept students from states that do not discriminate against homosexuals by allowing them to marry. Those applicants from states with marriage amendments may not have voted or supported the amendment, but they are citizens of a state that do not allow homosexuals to be who they are – a form of discrimination as argued by many. I believe that is akin to banning students from participating in a program that discriminates.
And yes – I recognize that I am inconsistent, but you have to be inconsistent to truly enact change. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your ideals for reality. You know that wonderful emancipation proclamation issued by Lincoln during the War of Northern Aggression – it only applied to states in the confederacy and not the slave holding states in the North. Or how about our Constitution and founding fathers – they fought over a compromise regarding the issue of slavery (the 3/5th’s compromise) because they viewed the establishment of a united nation as paramount. If we are truly trying to champion against the DADT policy – then we shouldn’t let students at Princeton participate in the military at all – that’s right – lets just cut them off totally. Trying to remain consistent then makes no sense and one must fight the battles they can. The original DADT policy was a compromise just as Bush’s embryonic stem cell policy was a compromise. Compromises don’t make everyone happy, but everyone CAN work with it for a short time.
Fourth – Princeton, as far as I understand, provides NO support other than campus access to ROTC. The same access it provides to military recruiters. None of your tuition dollars go to it!!! The Army pays for offices, salaries for the commissioned and non-commissioned cadre (instructors), scholarships (wonderful full ride scholarships that offer many the chances to attend Princeton that would not have had it), and money for all training. Thus, if we were to limit campus access for ROTC – shouldn’t we limit access to all those with hands in the discriminatory policy – Presidents Bush and Clinton, Donald Rumsfield, Gen. Wesley Clark, etc. In fact, preventing the higher officials with decision-making power from coming onto campus gives us more clout then stopping students from the ability to serve in the military. Of course, this is ridiculous and makes no sense. We value our ability to LEARN from the organizations and people we would ban just as our ROTC students LEARN through their leadership training.
Fifth, ROTC is about service. The men and women entering the military as officers must serve. Yes, they do lead – initially only about 20 and at the later end of their 4 years about 100 – enlisted soldiers, but they receive their orders and follow them. I believe it is important that our future leaders, as many Princetonians are, should sometimes follow so that one day they can lead. How can a man order young soldiers to fight and possibly DIE without saying that they were once in a similar position?
The armed forces and ROTC is also fundamentally different than any other student organization. How many other organizations (such as AASA, Quad, the CJL, the Tory) have 100% of its graduates finding themselves in a position where they may patrol the DMZ in Korea? Or keep the peace in Kosovo and Bosnia? Provide humanitarian relief in countries devastated by the tsunami? Attack and dismantle Al Qaeda? Or DIE FOR THEIR COUNTRY?
This does not make the armed forces above rebuke – but it also has to change our tactics against a discriminatory policy. Instead of banning ROTC, maybe we should lobby against the policy in Washington, vote, write letters, and individually choose not to serve. But to openly ban an organization dedicated to providing officers for the defense of our country shows that we have no regard for our future safety. I honestly feel safer knowing that people as bright and intelligent as those in our ROTC program will be leading our troops.
I am as always available to chat about this.
