In 1970 Washington University students burned down the ROTC building to protest America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The ROTC moved off campus, where it remains 33 years later. But even if it were on campus, its 105 participants (about a third of whom attend WU) wouldn’t have anything to worry about. College students are more complacent now, and though WU’s ROTC chapter contradicts the university policy on discrimination, nobody seems to care.
The ROTC uses the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that the U.S. military implemented in the Clinton years: as long as you don’t discuss your homosexuality, you’re allowed to be in the ROTC. If evidence of your homosexuality somehow surfaces-if you’re seen kissing someone of the same sex downtown or reading Out magazine in your room or caught in some other compromising situation at any time of the day or night-you will be kicked out of the ROTC. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” obviously applies only to homosexuals. Homosexual activity merits getting kicked out, but heterosexual activity does not; the ROTC discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
WU promotes its ROTC chapter as a student activity in its admissions material, and it supports ROTC by holding and dispensing the money that ROTC students receive from the government for their service. But WU, according to its anti-discrimination policy, “administers all programs without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, veteran status or disability.” WU’s ROTC chapter is a clear violation of this policy.
Last month when the School of Law faculty voted 12 to 11 to withhold Loan Repayment Assistance Program funds from graduates who serve in the Department of Defense, suggesting that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is inconsistent with the school’s non-discrimination policy, Dean Joel Seligman reversed the decision. He said that the issue came down to the choice between helping students pay off their student loans and trying, most probably in vain, to battle the mighty Department of Defense, which has bigger fish to fry than the WU School of Law.
But undergraduate opposition to the homophobic policy of the campus ROTC might be a different story. College shouldn’t be about maintaining the status quo; we should be challenging old convictions and working towards new solutions. It seems, or should seem, ridiculous that WU condones an organization that considers out-of-the-closet homosexuals unfit to represent our country through military service. Does the financial assistance and character-building with which the ROTC provides its 36 WU participants justify supporting a group that asks its gay participants to keep their mouths shut about their sexuality? What kind of message does WU send to its gay students by supporting such an organization?
Let’s not burn down the ROTC building. It would be too much trouble, we’d need to organize carpools to even get there to start the fire, and it’s not our generation’s style, anyway. But we can and should be vocal and loud in our criticism of WU for the hypocrisy and unfairness it exhibits by supporting a program with an anti-gay policy.