Harvard Has Put a Price On Its Principles

To the editors:

I wish to comment on Harvard’s recent decision to allow military recruiters onto the law school campus (News, “Law School Will Allow Official Recruiting Visits by Military,” Aug. 26). I was saddened to read of Law School Dean Robert C. Clark’s anguished letter in which he struggled to explain why he reluctantly allowed the recruiters to return. However, I am not upset with the military’s heavy-handedness in this matter. Instead, I am ashamed to discover that Harvard has sold out. Simply put, Harvard has refused to acknowledge the vital role of the military and ROTC in this time of war. Instead, Harvard has acted sheepishly while compromising its principles. We now know what price Harvard has placed on its integrity.

Since the tragic events of Sept. 11, this country has found itself engaged in war. Against this backdrop, University President Lawrence H. Summers has diplomatically been working to reverse the decades-long ban of ROTC from Harvard. More importantly, he has pushed Harvard to recognize and support the role of the military and ROTC on campus. Despite his efforts, anti-military sentiment remains.

Now, with a Solomon Amendment sanction hanging over its head, Harvard has blinked and decided to comply with the military rather than risk losing $328 million in annual federal funding. The U.S. government has cracked a financial whip, and Harvard has reflexively jumped.

In the 1960s, Harvard activists risked being arrested by breaking into University offices to protest the war in Vietnam and the presence of ROTC on campus. Thirty years later, today’s keepers of that flame would rather not lose federal funding than fight for their core belief. After Sept. 11, Harvard missed an historic opportunity to proclaim a shift in its attitude towards ROTC and temper its anti-military animus. Instead, Harvard is now reacting to events rather than helping to shape opinion and stake out a leadership position. It is shameful that Harvard could not proclaim a more noble reason to invite military recruiters back to the Law School.

Rather than reconsider and craft an accommodating stance towards the military in these dangerous times, Harvard has stuck to its guns. But, when faced with a penalty of severe financial loss, Harvard has blinked and admitted that its integrity can be bought, even if it is at an exorbitant price. Harvard deserves no commendation for this change of heart.

It is not too late for Harvard to make amends and “do the right thing.” A vote to reconsider inviting ROTC back onto campus is in order. What is Harvard waiting for? I call upon all members of the Harvard community to consider this issue. In my opinion, Harvard can still insist that the military amend its current policy towards homosexuals. However, it is high time Harvard finally shows some overt respect to the United States armed forces and welcome ROTC back onto campus. The two issues need not be mutually exclusive in a time of war.

Michael A. Temple ’83

Aug. 29, 2002