Is Rudenstine's Plan a Solution or a Capitulation ROTC

President Neil L. Rudenstine's long-awaited recommendation on the festering issue of ROTC may raise as many questions as it answers.

Among them is whether the president's attempt to walk a fine line between warring camps is a real answer, or simply a cosmetic solution designed to silence criticism while changing little.

In a report released Wednesday and dated November 23, Rudenstine, who himself served in Army ROTC., calls for the University to create a pool of money funded by alumni contributions that would pay the ROTC administrative fee to MIT.

His recommendation is a compromise between ROTC opponents, who call for the University to stop paying for a program they say discriminates against gays, and the program's backers, who believe ROTC is a fundamental part of Harvard's offerings.

The University currently gives MIT about $130,000 annually out of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) budget to pay for the roughly 70 students enrolled in MIT's ROTC program.

Rudenstine's recommendation will be presented to the full Faculty on December 13 by Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles. To become policy, it must be approved by the Corporation, Harvard's seven-member governing board.

But the report does not explain how precisely the alumni fund will be administered, and ROTC opponents wonder whether Harvard's hands will truly remain clean if the money must pass through the University budget process.

Under Rudenstine's plan, the alumni contributions will go into a special restricted pool. Harvard will not be paying MIT with money from the general fund, as in years past.

"I don't see the difference between Harvard's paying funds out of its general fund to MIT's ROTC program and Harvard taking alumni donations and setting up a fund and paying checks out of that Harvard fund to the MIT ROTC program," says Jeff A. Redding '96, the ROTC project director for the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH).

Rudenstine's statement says that "some individual graduates of Harvard College...have voluntarily come forward, unsolicited, and offered to commit sufficient incremental funds to pay the administrative fee to MIT for a period of at least three to four years."

The cost for ROTC is between $30,000 and $35,000 per class, the report says, putting the total pledged alumni contribution in the neighborhood of half a million dollars.

"These voluntary contributions would...no longer involve the support of ROTC through the unrestricted general funds available to support the university's own educational and other programs," Rudenstine writes in the report.

Rudenstine's deliberate vagueness has left ROTC activists confused and skeptical.

Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53, who chaired a 1992 ROTC faculty committee, says he has no idea who will administer the new fund. The Verba committee's report, which was endorsed by the full Faculty last spring, recommended that Harvard stop paying for ROTC.

Thomas A. Gerace '93, the chair of the Committee to End Discrimination by Harvard, which was created to urge Rudenstine to cut Harvard's administrative ties to ROTC, says he believes the University will be closely involved in the alumni fund.

"The account will be Harvard-administered because it will be created by the Corporation on the recommendation of the President," Gerace says.

If Harvard administers the alumni money and writes checks out of the fund to MIT, ROTC activists say, the University is still funding ROTC in violation of its non-discriminatory policy.

"Rudenstine's proposal does indeed end the use of general funds for ROTC, but the fact that funds are held in a special account does not, in our view, change the conclusion," Gerace says. "The fact is, the subsidy of ROTC violates Harvard's non-discriminatory policy."

Redding is similarly uncompromising.

"I think that if Harvard is writing checks to MIT that means that Harvard money is going to MIT," Redding says. "If Harvard is giving funds, no matter if they are originally given to Harvard by alumni, I think that is a strong example of non-compliance with Harvard's non-discriminatory policy."

There is no real difference between alumni money in a special fund and the alumni money that makes up much of the general FAS budget that now backs MIT's program, Redding says.

"In fact, the Harvard general fund receives money from many sources, including alumni in paying money to MIT's ROTC program," he says, "and that fund was found being non-compliant, so I don't see the difference."

Some ROTC opponents say Rudenstine's plan it a move toward change, but doesn't fully answer their concerns.

"This is a step in the right direction, but it still contemplates payments by Harvard to MIT, and we consider it to be an inappropriate level of involvement," says Robert W. Mack '71, a member of the Committee to End Discrimination by Harvard.

Royce C. Lin '96, co-chair of the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Students Association, agrees.

"I acknowledge transferring the source of funding is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough," Lin says. "Regardless of the means through which funds flow, Harvard is still involved with an organization which discriminates....I think it still conflicts with Harvard's non-discriminatory policy because Harvard is still 'entangled' with ROTC."

On the other side of the ROTC divide, those participating in the program say they are happy with the Rudenstine solution, which would guarantee their continued participation in the controversial program.

"I was not surprised, and happy with the decision," says Lisa M. Castaneda '96, a resident of Winthrop House who participates in Navy ROTC. "I had a similar idea that alumni funds from some former ROTC students would end up absorbing the costs of the MIT cross-town or cross-exchange fees."

Castaneda says she does not think the new funding violates the non-discrimination policy because "I didn't think Harvard was violating it before."

"The arguments some of the other students opposed to ROTC were making have been shut down completely by this new decision because they were mostly against Harvard's actively giving money to the continuation of this program," Castaneda says.

Other ROTC participants agree.

"It's a farce to say that the University is paying for ROTC," says Brian J. Shortsleeve '95, who is in Marine Corps ROTC. "It pays out $133,000 per year and brings in about $500,000 in scholarships from it."

Non-financial support

Another question Rudenstine's report leaves intentionally vague is the fate of non-financial ROTC support.

This includes symbolically-charged gestures like allowing ROTC cadets to use Harvard facilities for commissioning ceremonies and listing ROTC graduates in Commencement Day publications.

Rudenstine's statement does not mention these activities. The Verba report recommends that Harvard end all non-financial support of ROTC.

If Harvard continues to allow such non-financial support, ROTC opponents say, it will violate the University's non-discrimination policy.

Verba says that despite Rudenstine's silence on the issue, he has faith the University would end the non-financial backing.

"My guess is the University will follow our recommendation, but I'm not certain," Verba says. "Our committee recommended removing all support by the University and [not doing so] would, I think, be inconsistent [with Harvard's non-discriminatory policy]."

Gerace says his group will likely call for a firm policy against the non-financial support.

"I expect that the Committee to End Discrimination by Harvard will release a statement early next week asking [the Faculty] to implement the recommendations of the Verba committee that relate to commissioning ceremonies, the listing of ROTC graduates in commencement day publications and the notification to all prospective and current students of ROTC's discriminatory practices," Gerace says.

It is unclear whether FAS or the Corporation actually has the power to change the Commencement procedure, but students who oppose Harvard's ties to ROTC argue that it is the University's responsibility to change the policy, no matter who has the final word.

Even as ROTC opponents call the Rudenstine plan a promise to continue University support for a program that discriminates against gays, the president writes that he does not condone the military's policies on homosexuals.

"We should, however, take another step toward making clear that Harvard's continued involvement with ROTC does not imply University endorsement of the present federal policy toward ROTC service by gay and lesbian students," the report says.

But for Gerace and other activists, the report's recommended actions--or lack thereof--speak louder than Rudenstine's protestations.

"The University does not need to imply endorsement of ROTC," Gerace says. "It explicitly gives its support through the payment of the MIT fee."